Is God Pro-Abortion? A Response to Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks [Aaron Brake]

Receiving your news and information from late night television, comedy shows, or internet political commentary can often leave you misinformed, especially when hosts address topics in which they have no expertise. Such is the case in this video where Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks offers his thoughts on the Bible and abortion and attempts to make the case that God is pro-abortion:

How should Christian pro-life advocates respond? Cenk needs to be corrected on several points.

First, Cenk begins by writing off the scientific evidence that a genetically distinct, living, and whole human being comes into existence at conception. The question of “when life begins” has been settled for decades thanks to the science of embryology. To quote just a few experts in the field,

Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual. (and) A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”[1]

“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”[2]

“The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”[3]

You can read 40 similar quotes from medical experts in this article who reach the same conclusion.

Despite the evidence, Cenk says the view that life begins at conception is based solely on religion. Why? Because this allows him to dismiss the view as “religious” which further justifies his refusal and inability to interact with the evidence. Not only is this wrong, but it is intellectually lazy. Secular pro-life advocates use the same evidence and argumentation in making a case for the pro-life view, and their analysis certainly cannot be labeled “religious.”

Sing It Together Now: "My Booooooody" [Aaron Brake]

Joy Behar of The View recently commented on the issue of abortion:

There are several versions of the “my body, my choice” argument. Behar’s version seems to be the unsophisticated sort so here are a few quick points to keep in mind when responding.

First, clarify the nature of abortion. Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being. This definition should be uncontroversial.

Second, focus the debate on the one question that matters: “What is the unborn?” Notice the other host in this video raises the issue of whether or not the father has a say in the abortion. This doesn’t get to the heart of the matter which is, “What is the unborn?” If the unborn is not a human being, no justification for elective abortion is necessary. If the unborn is a human being, no justification is adequate.

Third, the “my body, my choice” slogan is prima facie false. A woman cannot do whatever she wants with her own body, and neither can a man. There are plenty of laws which restrict our freedom with what we can do with our own bodies (e.g., drug laws, prostitution, public urination, indecent exposure, etc.). More to the point, laws always restrict what we can do with our own bodies when what we are doing brings harm to another individual. This is exactly what is happening in the case of abortion, where the mother’s decision not only brings harm to her unborn but intentionally kills him or her.

Fourth, Behar seems to assume there is only one body involved. But it should be obvious there are two: the mother’s and the unborn. While the mother’s body is certainly involved, it is not the mother’s body that is being aborted. After all, the woman survives the abortion (in most cases) while the unborn doesn’t. This is also confirmed by science. The unborn from conception has a totally unique, individual, and separate genetic code. The unborn has a separate central nervous system, may have a different blood type and, in the case of a boy, a different gender. In other words, a pregnant woman does not have four arms, four legs, and two heads. A woman does not transform into a hermaphrodite when pregnant with a boy and then back to a female after birth. There are two bodies involved, not one. So this is not so much about what a woman can do with her own body as it is what she should be permitted to do with the body and life of her unborn.

Finally, present counterexamples where appropriate. Perhaps what Behar means to say is that a woman is sovereign over her own body and, even if the unborn is a human being, the mother still has the right to kill him or her. In this case it may be helpful to provide counterexamples which go against our moral intuitions. For example, if a woman can do whatever she wants with her own body, may she intentionally cause birth defects to her unborn child? May she take the drug thalidomide during pregnancy knowing this could cause her child to be born without arms or legs? Unless they are a moral monster, the answer should be, “No.” But if it is not morally permissible for a woman to intentionally cause birth defects to her unborn child based on the “my body, my choice” position, why is it permissible for the woman to kill her unborn child? 

First simplify the debate and then argue. This is the pro-life two-step.

Obama, the Open Seat, and Abortion [Aaron Brake]

President Obama will have an open seat tonight during the State of the Union address to represent those victims who have lost their lives to gun violence. Roughly 11,000 homicides were committed with guns in the U.S. during 2014. Everyone agrees these lives are tragic loses due to senseless acts of violence.

That same year, over 1,000,000 unborn human beings lost their lives through abortion. If we have one open seat to represent every 11,000 lives lost, we would need 90 open seats at the State of the Union to represent the lives of the unborn killed during 2014 alone. We would need 5,182 open seats to represent the 57,000,000 human beings who have been killed since Roe v. Wade in 1973. Unfortunately there are only 446 seats in the House chambers where the State of the Union is given.

A White House official said the president told supporters the open seat was for “the victims of gun violence who no longer have a voice—because they need the rest of us to speak for them” and the open seat should serve to “remind every single one of our representatives that it’s their responsibility to do something about this.”

What is sad and shameful is that the president condemns gun violence while supporting abortion violence. For it is just as true that open seats are needed for “the victims of abortion violence who no longer have a voice—because they need the rest of us to speak for them” and that these open seats should serve to “remind every single one of our representatives that it’s their responsibility to do something about this.”

The unborn need a voice. They need us to speak for them. True, our representatives do have a responsibility to do something. But these open seats for victims of abortion violence should not just remind every single one of our representatives. They should also remind you and me, because it is just as much our responsibility to do something about abortion.

So what can we do? We can graciously share the gospel, study more about abortion, pray, speak out on the issue, teach others, engage in conversation, vote, adopt, volunteer time at pregnancy centers, help pregnant women in need, start a student pro-life club on campus, offer healing and mercy to post-abortive women and men, and donate money to pro-life organizations.

We can all do something. Just do something.

Pro-Life and Pro-Capital Punishment [Aaron Brake]

There is an alleged inconsistency that is sometimes raised between being pro-life and also pro-capital punishment. Here’s the question: “Is it inconsistent to be pro-life when it comes to the issue of abortion and yet also support capital punishment in certain situations?”

Here are some important points to remember (see Francis Beckwith and his book Defending Life, pages 126-127, on this topic):

First, the alleged inconsistency of pro-life apologists who support capital punishment is often introduced as a red herring to distract from the main issue that must be addressed. Even IF pro-lifers were inconsistent on this point, that’s all it would prove: an inconsistency. And what follows from that? Not much. It has nothing to do with the one question that must be answered in the abortion debate: “What is the unborn?” As Beckwith notes, “inconsistent people can draw good conclusions” (Defending Life, 126).

Second, remember the pro-life syllogism:

P1: It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.

P2: Elective abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being.

C:  Therefore, elective abortion is wrong.

Applying Lincoln's Logic to the Abortion Debate [Aaron Brake]

On December 6, 1865, the 13^th amendment to the U.S. constitution was ratified and with it came the formal abolishment of slavery in this country. It states, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude…shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” This amendment was especially significant considering that just eight years prior in 1857 the Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford that blacks were property and non-persons.

Even earlier than this, on July 1, 1854, Lincoln wrote this small fragment to address some of the popular arguments but forward by pro-slavery choice advocates who argued that whites should have the right to enslave blacks based on color, intellect, or interest:

“You say A is white and B is black.  It is color, then: the lighter having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be a slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own. You do not mean color exactly?—You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and therefore, have the right to enslave them?  Take care again. By this rule, you are to be a slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own. But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you.”

Read that again. The importance of Lincoln’s logic should not be overlooked. Lincoln realized that if you try to establish human rights or personhood by appealing to a set of arbitrary degreed properties which carry no moral weight or significance, properties such as color and intellect which none of us share equally, then you end up undermining human rights for everyone.

‘Pregnant woman leaves prolife advocates speechless’ – A Response to a viral Pro-abortion/choice video

Over the last week the abortion debate has been reawakened in the UK, after a viral video of a pro-choice/abortion women criticising prolife campaigners went viral and has been seen nearly 5 million times. The abortion debate has been on the front of newspapers, on the TV, Radio and all over the internet, the first time to such an extent for quite some time. Borrowing the words of Francis Schaeffer, the roof has come off and people have been made aware of the point of tension. Simply that abortion is a violent, dehumanising act that kills a whole, living distinct human being and abortion imagery makes that fact impossible to hide from. This has made a lot of people very angry and the UK press are not happy about it!

The viral video has been extremely popular but I have written a response to it which you can read here, and there is also a link in the first paragraph to the viral video.

The Argument from Overpopulation - Blog Q&A [Daniel]

This is the first of a regular feature on the LTI blog where we will  respond to questions asked on our LTI Facebook page. If you have a question you would like to ask please leave a comment in the thread there and we will pick one regularly to respond to on here. This week’s question was about overpopulation as a justification for abortion.

The Argument from Overpopulation

  In the western world it's especially common to hear that the overpopulation of the world provides justification for abortion. After-all if we can’t adequately live in the world as it is right now why should we burden the world with even more human beings?


 Before I explore this argument in any depth it’s important to address the assumption that the world is in fact overpopulated. For a further exploration into the claim that the world is already vastly overpopulated Danny Dorling’s book Population 10 Billion is worth investing in to deal with a number of misunderstandings and falsehoods in this area. It's not at all clear that the world is in fact overpopulated and there remains debate amongst the scientific community to when or if this will happen. However, what is clear is that the failure of countries and individuals to take responsibility for how they live and how they use the world’s resources of which they are meant to be stewards of will continue to take its toll. Christians must take responsibility for how they live as good stewards and acknowledge that how they choose to live can and does affect other people. The world’s population will continue to increase but is abortion a morally permissible way of solving it?

  I think it would be fair to describe this argument as eugenic; it’s the idea that certain people within our society should be encouraged to limit how many children they should have (or whether they should have any children at all). Abortion therefore functions as a means of population control. This argument is primarily directed at those in poverty it essentially encourages the poor to procure abortions so that what space is left can be used by those with more desirable traits, and who aren’t poor. So rather than responding to the factors that lead to poverty or investment in the better use of our resources it is argued that abortion should be encouraged to help the rest of us. It should be pointed out however that if this is ‘solving’ the problem of overpopulation then it is only a euphemism for eliminating those who are seen as the problem. This approach is the moral equivalent of throwing a grenade at a mouse.

  The argument leaves us with what really appears to be a false dilemma; either abortion or overpopulation that results in global poverty. It may be true that many people’s preferred standard of living could be affected by an increasing population but selfish motives for a particular standard of living alone do not justify abortion. Life is far more than the sum of how many nice cars one has or how many nice restaurants one can frequent. To put one's pleasure above human life is morally impermissible. However, this is the one consistency with all arguments for abortion; they are always for the benefit of someone other than the preborn.

  This false dilemma also leads to a number of other morally problematic conclusions. For instance if an infant, disabled, irreversibly sick, or elderly human being is a burden in an already allegedly overpopulated world shouldn’t killing them also be justified? From a consequentialist view they cannot yet or never will contribute to society in any materially meaningful way which means they are currently burdens taking rather than giving. From this perspective if the world were in fact overpopulated their killing should also be justified on the basis of its better consequences for those who can contribute. It could be argued that the infant will one day contribute in a material sense but the same argument would work for the preborn so the advocate of an already overpopulated world cannot accept this. This leaves the advocate of the argument from overpopulation in a moral quandary, because most of those who advocate this argument rightly don’t support the killing of infants, disabled, irreversibly sick or elderly human beings. Yet their view supports the logic in for it; unless, that is, they are assuming something about preborn human beings. This exposes the question begging nature of the whole argument, there is a hidden assumption that there is something about preborn human beings that provides moral justification for their killing.

  Like all arguments in support of abortion the argument hinges on the moral status of the preborn. If the preborn aren’t fully human and the subject of personal rights, especially the right not to be intentionally killed for the benefit of another, killing them should be permissible if the preborn are not of sufficient moral value. In this instance the argument must be supported by a defence of the assumption that there is a morally relevant difference between preborn human beings and those that have been born before it can be accepted.

  If the person who uses this argument cannot do so then they must explain why the argument from overpopulation does not also equally support the killing of infants, disabled, irreversibly sick or the elderly if resources are so scant in this overpopulated world. As Francis Beckwith has said ‘if the unborn are fully human, then this is also a good argument for infanticide and the killing of all humans we find to be financially burdensome or emotionally taxing.’.

In summary the problems with the argument for abortion from overpopulation are;

1. Current assumptions on overpopulation are unfounded or unproven.
2. It promotes a eugenic view of human life.
3. It singles out families in poverty.
4. It equates ‘solving’ the problem of overpopulation with eliminating the most vulnerable human beings in our society.
5. It promotes a false dilemma by suggesting that we must choose between overpopulation and abortion.
6. It promotes a standard of living above human life.
7. It suggests that the poor must make space for the rich.
8. If followed to its logical conclusions it suggests that the killing of infants, disabled, irreversibly sick and the elderly can be justified.
9. Killing those who cannot or won’t contribute to an overpopulated society could be morally permissible.
10. The argument is guilty of begging the question by making an assumption about preborn human beings that makes killing them morally permissible.
11. The whole argument hinges on whether the preborn are fully human beings and a subject of rights, it assumes not without any justification.
12. The questioner must explain why their argument does not equally apply to infants, disabled, irreversibly sick and the elderly.
13. It leads to absurd moral conclusions.
14. Even if true it does not support the pro-choice conclusion that abortion is a fundamental right that can be exercised for any reason throughout pregnancy.

DJR