The Christian god sends aborted babies to hell.

Thank you for coming to tonight's debate.The burden of proofWe have a peculiar situation in the way this debate is set up. On the one hand, Rule #3 states that the burden of proof is on Pro. On the other hand, round 2 is for opening statements, and I'm not suppose to offer a rebuttal of Pro's opening until round 3. That leaves me with nothing to do in this round. If I don't have the burden of proof, there's no opening statement for me to make.I'm going to go ahead and make an argument negating the resolution anyway. If it happens that my argument fails, it shouldn't matter since I don't have the burden of proof. But if it happens that my argument succeeds, then that should count against Pro's position since it negates his position. Either way, I can't lose by making an argument in this round, so why not?My central argument for the negation of the resolutionHere is my argument:1. If aborted babies are without sin, then the Christian God does not send aborted babies to hell.2. Aborted babies are without sin.3. Therefore, the Christian God does not send aborted babies to hell.Defense of the first premiseI suspect Pro will agree with my first premise, but just in case he doesn't, let me give a few reasons for why we should think it's true.1.1 In Matthew 5:30, it says, "And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell." The implication is that one can avoid hell by avoiding sin, so one should get rid of whatever it is that's causing them to sin.1.2 The purpose of hell is to punish people for their sins. In 2 Peter 2:4, 9-10, it says, "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment. . .then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority." So just as God sends the angels to hell for their sins, so also does God send people to hell for their sins. Since the purpose of hell is to punish people for their sins, it follows that if somebody doesn't sin, they won't go to hell.1.3 In Proverbs 17:15, it says, "Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent--the Lord detests them both." If God detests condemning the innocent, and if the unborn are innocent, then God will not condemn them.Defense of the second premiseI'm pretty sure Pro will object to my second premise on the basis that David claimed to be sinful from his mother's womb (Psalm 51:5). To that, I have a few responses:2.1 David's claim can be taken as hyperbole. He means to emphasize the depth of his depravity. In American culture, when somebody is really proficient at something, like playing the banjo for example, we sometimes say things like, "He was born with a banjo in his hands." But we don't mean that literally. We just mean they're really good at it. The same thing is true of David. When he says he is sinful from his mother's womb, he just means he's an awful sinner.2.2 Psalm 51:5 says that David was sinful from the time his mother conceived him. It's impossible for that to be literally true because sin requires the faculty of volition, and volition requires mental states such as intention, desire, and the ability to act. A cluster of cells is completely incapable of having any cognition whatsoever, and it is also incapable of making any choices or taking any action. So it is impossible for David to have literally been sinful from the moment of his conception.2.3 The whole of Ezekiel 18 argues against children sharing in the guilt of the sins of their parents. So not only do the unborn have no sin of their own, but neither do they bear the sins of their parents.2.4 In Isaiah 7, there's a prophecy about the birth of Immanuel. In verses 15-16 it says that Immanuel "will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste." This passage shows that people are not born with the ability to act morally (i.e. to choose between right and wrong). Rather, it's something they acquire some time after birth. It follows that the unborn lack this capacity and are therefore incapable of sin.2.5 Nobody can be morally accountable for what they don't know. Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains" (John 9:41). He also said, "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin" (John 15:22). James writes, "If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them" (James 4:17). Notice the condition James places on sinning. Before one can sin, they must first know the good they ought to do. But the unborn know nothing at all. From the moment of conception, they don't even have brains. The brain developes some time later. So it's impossible for the unborn to know right from wrong, which means it's impossible for them to be guilty of sin.ConclusionThat's it for my case against the resolution. In the next round, I will rebut Pro's case for the resolution. But please keep in mind that I didn't have to make this case, so if Pro manages to refute everything I said in this post, it should not count against me. However, if he wants to refute either of the premises, then he has to refute every argument I gave for that premise. I gave five arguments in favor of the second premise. If he were to refute four of them and fail to refute the fifth, the second premise will be unrefuted. So he must refute all of the arguments.