The Christian god sends aborted babies to hell.

Your entire response sounds a little "rebuttally" but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say you were making an argument. It is difficult to see another person's argument and not make a response to it directly throughout your argument. Rebuttal"Another issue with John 3:16 is that while it guarantees eternal life for those who believe in God, if those who did not believe in God 'perished' and did not have 'eternal life', then how would they be punished for eternity in the first place? Isn't hell supposed to be eternal agony? If you simply have your soul and body perish in hell then that might just be the cure for boredom many sinners had wished to find in life. "These questions do not have anything to do with the topic. The enjoyment somebody experiences in hell doesn't belong in this conversation. This is a logical fallacy known as "Avoiding the Issue. " I will not answer these questions, but this isn't evidence for your case unless you can provide some reasoning for this logic:P1: Hell isn't eternal agony for sinners who want to be cured of boredom. P2: Aborted babies are sinners who are experiencing boredom. C1: Aborted babies do not go to hell. And of course if you actually do somehow make a coherent argument for this, I would like a P1 and P2 Biblical justification otherwise they are unsubstantiated claims. "Psalm is someone stating that they thought they were sinful at birth. "Wrong. David said for a fact that he was sinful at birth, sinful from the time his mother conceived him. "The fact that it states 'mother conceived me' and not 'parents conceived me' and doesn't even point to the father figure implies that this individual thought conception was something other than the formation of a zygote and was not referring to the sexual production of them but rather their 'conception' into this world (which was funnily enough the 'birth' they'd referred to in the previous sentence). Back when the Bible was written people didn't know all that much about how children were conceived, many thought that sex was just something fun to do with your partner and that the marriage itself encouraged a randomized birth rota to commence in the wife. There was literally no understanding of the direct link between sex and birth. Thus, the sexual conception of the child could not possibly have been what this was referring to. He probably was just reiterating what he meant. "People did have a good understanding of what lead to the conception of babies, even in the Bible. Genesis 38:8-9 says "Then Judah said to Onan, 'Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother. ' But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. " A person here masturbated before having sex with somebody who wasn't even his wife because he knew if he didn't he would probably conceive a child. "If everyone was sinful from the time they were conceived getting into heaven would be impossible and an unfair uphill struggle that would encourage no-one to believe in the religion an everyone to be disgusted at how unfair God is. "Hence why we are having this debate. "Thus, the correct interpretation of it must be that only from the time you enter the world and actually can remotely act and think are you judged. "Let me outline your logic:P1: God wouldn't do something unfair. P2: Becoming sinful at birth which ultimately leads aborted babies to hell is unfair. C1: God wouldn't send aborted babies to hell. Please give Biblical justification for P1 and P2. Numbers 14:18 says, "The Lord is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation. " This alone shows that god doesn't find punishing children unfair. As it stands right now, your claim is just an assertion. "Another issue entirely is that there is no such thing as an aborted baby, making this resolution impossible for Pro to uphold. Aborted fetuses going to hell would be another debate entirely. As for the notion that God sends the 'aborted babies' to hell, this is also impossible as the body clearly remains on Earth no matter what. "This is a straw man. You are arguing that the bodies of the babies can be physically seen staying on the earth. I am not arguing that the body itself would go to hell although I could, since the Bible says that those people go to hell. This is also completely off topic, again. God clearly states in the Bible that he sends at least some people to hell (like Galatians 5:19-21). God would probably be talking about their soul or human essence. It is not needed to argue about this though, since the Bible says they go to hell, and rule #4 says that the Bible is 100% truth. Even if the Bible stated that hydrofluoric acid was healthy to drink, we may not argue against that no matter how much science would disprove said statement. If god said Billy Bob was for sure in hell and we just buried him and if we believed that the Bible was 100% true, we would have to assume that either god was talking about some kind of "soul" or everything we see is an illusion. What I want you to do is find some passages that give a clear indication that aborted babies don't go to hell. "If the resolution meant that he sends their souls to hell, it should have specified this as the soul is not the aborted baby as a soul cannot be aborted in the first place since abortion is a purely organic process. "In the rules, I state that the person would go to either heaven or hell, which are mutually exclusive. I also stated that heaven and hell are an afterlife in the rules (indirectly) so they head to heaven/hell directly after they die. We cannot argue against this as stated by the rules. I conclude that the resolution remains unopposed.