The institution
Infant Salvation vs. Abortion
A contradiction built entirely out of their own doctrine. Nothing external to dispute.
The point in one sentence
The Church teaches that every child who dies before age eight is guaranteed the celestial kingdom, and also teaches that abortion is a grievous sin, and those two teachings pull in opposite directions.
This one is different from everything else here. No archaeology, no DNA, no history. Nothing to fact-check and nothing to dismiss as anti-Mormon.
Their doctrine, in their own scripture
- D&C 137:10: "All children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven." Read it
- Moroni 8:12: "little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world." Read it
- Children under eight are incapable of sin, require no baptism, and receive the highest degree of glory automatically.
Compare that to what an adult faces: a mortal probation full of temptation, real possibility of failure, and a celestial kingdom requiring ordinances, covenants, tithing, temple worthiness, and endurance to the end.
The tension
If the purpose of existence is to reach the celestial kingdom, then dying before eight is a guaranteed win, and living to adulthood is a risk.
Four questions follow. Ask them one at a time, not all at once.
- If the goal is celestial glory and death before accountability guarantees it, on what basis is ending a pregnancy the worse outcome for that soul?
- What happens to the agency argument? Mortality is taught as a test of agency. But infants who die bypass the test entirely and receive the prize, which means the test is not necessary for exaltation.
- The act is called murder, and the result is the greatest possible reward for the victim. Why would a just system be built that way?
- If being born exposes a soul to risk while dying young guarantees exaltation, the Church's position works against its own stated goal for every soul involved.
When they say
"Mortal experience is necessary." The best answer, and it deserves a hearing. But it does not survive its own doctrine: if probation is genuinely required for exaltation, infants who die have not had it and should not qualify. The Church says they qualify automatically, in the highest degree. You can teach that probation is required or that infants are guaranteed. Holding both means probation is not actually required.
"Abortion violates divine will regardless of where the child ends up." Coherent, but notice it has quietly abandoned the child's welfare as the reason. The objection is now about God's plan being interfered with, not harm to the soul, because on their own doctrine the soul comes out ahead. Make them say that out loud.
"You are being deliberately grotesque." Agree completely, and say so. Nobody is proposing anyone act on this. The point is not that abortion is good. It is that a doctrinal system should be internally consistent, and when you follow their own premises to their own conclusion and get something they find monstrous, the problem is in the premises.
Frame this as a thought experiment, because that is what it is. Never use it with anyone who has lost a child or had an abortion.
With anyone else, the tone that works is genuine curiosity rather than gotcha: "I have never been able to square these two teachings, and I am curious how you do." They usually have not thought about it, and the silence afterward does more work than any argument you could make.