A better Place

Reflecting on the heartbreaking death of a child, Mr. X remarked that "the child is in a better place," despite the child's experience of profound suffering. At the same time, Mr. X asserts that human life begins at conception and expresses strong opposition to abortion. Given his belief that death leads children to a better place, shouldn't he advocate for abortion in order for more children to be in a better place? What fallacy is this?

"A better place" is best understood non-literally. Mr. X is expressing sadness at the child's death and wishing them peace.

No fallacy in my opinion.

Hi, Dr. Richard!

I do take the comment at face value. Someone being in “a better place” after dying is an idiom for their departed soul being in heaven with God. I take it that the speaker who said this over all the children who died in the Texas flood believes that every child goes to heaven when they die because children are too immature to be accountable to God for their sins, and the speaker tries to help people by this idea.

Given his belief that death leads children to a better place, shouldn't he advocate for abortion in order for more children to be in a better place?

When this retort is reformulated from a question into an explicit argument, it commits a non sequitur. Just because a place is better doesn’t mean that there cannot be moral or immoral ways of getting there. For all that this retorter has shown, children do go to a better place when they die, though it is morally wrong for a human to kill a child, but not for a flood to kill a child, and the immortality of this act is independent of the facts about where a child’s soul goes after death.

Thank you, Dr. Richard 

From, Kaiden