I am a pro-life Evangelical Universalist, so…
Let’s say this woman wants to have an abortion and she tells you. “Ok, what you are telling me is that, if I abort my baby then I am doing him/her a favor not having him/her by not letting the baby being born and live in this world filled with suffering. It will be better for him/her to go to heaven that to live here.”
How would an Evangelical Universalist answer in favor of the baby’s life?
Is this a hypothetical situation or a real one?
Murder is wrong–assuming the person agrees that abortion is murder. It’s not given to us to decide when someone’s earthly life should end. If God decrees that a person should have life, it is not our place to say that God is wrong and it would be better for the person to die. Paul said that “to die is gain” yet he did not kill himself to get there sooner!
Sonia
It is hypothetical, but still as a counselor I may find someone who may think this way and, as a fairly new into Universalism I wanted to know what others, who are Evangelical, may help me answer a question like that.
Only God has the right to take a life in that sort of situation. It is wrong, because Heaven or not, God did not give the woman the right to take the baby’s life - especially when He put that life there to begin with.
In short; it is a usurpation of God’s authority and an act of rebellion, and hypocrisy too, in trying to justify it against the purposes of God. If God wants the child’s life, he’ll take the child’s life - without need of an Abortionist to do it too.
God sends people into the world, often times, to relieve suffering; I wonder how many abortions have only delayed the relief that would have come earlier. I don’t think it would have been very kind of Mary to have aborted Christ if she was so worried about him “suffering”…
I would answer in favour of the baby life after I had gently talked to the mother about why she feels so negatively about the world. Even in this world of pain & suffering there is hope and God has given us life for a purpose, to begin to learn to love and obey Him, and to bring some blessings to others. As my dad would say, “Who knows, that baby might be the next Albert Einstein or even better Mother Teresa” 
i.e. it’s best for her to arrive at the conclusion herself, rather than to just be told what to do.
Btw, my wife worked as a non-directive pregnancy counsellor, so hopefully something has rubbed off 
Ricky, I’ve always wondered how other Christians answer this question. As Universalists, we believe God is really working all things out together for good, whereas some Christians believe a choice in this life could lead to irreparable harm, endless torture. If that were so, then surely it’d seem like a favor we’d be doing the unborn to take away the risk, their choice, that they might end up in irreparable harm. I’ve heard Calvinists believe some of the unborn, before they can decide, are already slated, elected, by God for the fires of hell. I could see a mother thinking I don’t care any less for this baby than God does. There’s nothing like thinking about these issues to expose the faulty thinking in our reasoning.
Well, it is something I really want to know how to answer. I am pro- life and want to give an answer that is loving, as only universalism can answer, and at the same way loving for that unborn child that has rights as much as everyone else.
So, I don’t want people to turn my UR beliefs around and say: “well, since he/she will go to heaven anyway, then it doesn’t matter what I do to the baby, he/she will be safe anyway and I will not have to go through feelings of anguish about what I have done. I just sent my baby to heaven…”
I know that the perspective is egotistic and harmful for the unborn, but wanted others to help me to answer that, even though UR may open her a door to that position, it is important to know that God is the Ultimate Sovereign One who has a say on the valua of a person, and that the mother will be held accountable before God about what she has done.
Also, that the person in her woumb has a right to live and enjoy life, with it’s positive and negative aspects. Eveyrything that God sends us is for our good, either to enjoy (“good things”) or to grow (“bad things”) in our relationship with Him. Which is true joy in life.
It seems to me the Universalist position is only different because it would remove the fear of the mother that she might be forever damned because of this one sin. Most Christians believe that babies and young children who die get an automatic pass to heaven, except for some of the harder core Calvinists, so I’d think they face the same counseling difficulty.
Sonia
A different take maybe is that if the age of accountability and ETC are true then abortion is responsible for more people going to heaven and missing hell than modern the christian religion. This is one of a few things that made me realize that what Jesus did on calvary had to mean more than what I had been taught.
But then, the problem with both ways of thinking will be that is does open the door for women wanting to abort their babies to practice abortions to “allow their children to go to heaven.” Could I turn the tables around towards the mother and say that, even though the baby will go to heaven without having to face God’s judgment, she will have to face it even though she will be saved? Will that be a way to keep the mother from practicing an abortion?
No, I still think the right answer is that God is the only one with the right to give and take life. If God has given a person life, it is not our place to say it would be better for the person not to live.
Sonia
And then answer b would be what I have said. Then your answer, as well as lefein and Alex, the main one to use. Then answer b (The last I posted) would be a second argument.
Would be there any other ways to answer? I am curious if there could be more ways to answer in a UR Pro-life Evangelical. Sorry for being so insisting, just want to have my guns charged in case I may find a persisten pro abortion person trying to turn around my way position to his/her egotistic purposes.
I am pro-life, as I believe that human life is intrinsically valuable, and should not be destroyed at will, as a deontological ethic rather than teleological judgement. Part of this comes down to what the purpose of this life is; to me, I think that it a) gives humanity the chance to be involved in reproduction, allowing, ultimately, all humans (and, ultimately, all animal life) to be eventually related, b) on a molinist approach, certain people (as free agents) may benefit, as part of their development, in the end, from spending time in this life (treating everyone as ends in themselves), c) linked to (b), the presence of this life may be necessary so that God can actualise a greater variety of individuals, all of whom eventually come to life. There may be other purposes in addition.
In this way, any given child has value if it is allowed to live, since all children have their own purpose for experiencing life; thus, the intrinsically wrong act of killing an unborn child is not justified teleologically, since God is in control of the outcomes. In addition, abortion can also cause suffering to the child, and takes away their potential to exprience life and the potential of procreation.
You have posited the following:
Interestingly, in Safe in the Arms of God, author John MacArthur seems to arrive at the same conclusion when in reference to the slaughter of infants in Psalm 137:9 ( “O daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed, Happy the one who repays you as you have served us! Happy the one who takes and dashes Your little ones against the rock!”), he states:
In a section entitled “A Better Life Than This Life”, he cites Job’s wish to have been stillborn:
He also cites John Newton’s (understandable) lack of sympathy for infants who die:
Later he states:
He then goes on to make the case that all people who die in childhood cannot be justly damned due to their innocence of “willful” sin (whatever that is). Therefore, according to this view, God must save them and would be unjust to do otherwise. (So much for the doctrine of Original Sin.)
If ever there was a reason to rejoice at the prospect of abortion, it is here in this book. 
I think MacArthur missed the point when he bases his certitude of an infant’s salvation on the infant’s supposed innocence, however he defines such innocence. If we are to find any hope at all it must lie in the loving nature of God. God is never legally required to save anyone, but he may choose to out of his love. If so He can work out the details even for someone who is not yet capable of expressing faith.
BTW … your thread led me to do a somewhat exhaustive critique on the theology of John MacArthur’s book and its ramifications for Evangelical Universalism. It appears here:
If people are interested, Greg Boyd wrote briefly on this topic on his blog earlier this year. As far as I understand, in order to not undermine his free-will theodicy nor render infanticide reasonable, he denies Baby-(ultra-)universalism. Instead of this, he proposes a purgative next life (what is, I imagine, universalism): "…if love must be chosen and our characters must be made fit for heaven, then when this doesn’t happen in this life (because of premature death or any other reason), we can assume it somehow happens in the next". Of course, one must wonder what “any other reason” actually includes.
I believe there are some good studies showing a link between abortion and depression for the mother. The idea that the mother won’t go through feelings of anguish about what she’s done is just plain false. It goes against all motherly instinct, and will weigh heavily on that woman for the rest of her life. Thats the route I would take.