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 Pro-Life Movement's Wish List for Pastors and Church Leaders [SK]

1. No hedging on the ugly reality of abortion--show it!
2. No hedging on the beauty of the gospel to restore sinners--proclaim it!
3. No hedging on equipping believers to graciously engage--do it!
4. No hedging on loving women who face crisis pregnancies--give it!

Christian Leaders Then and Now [SK]

In the late 1800s, the Congo was subjected to some of the worst human rights violations imaginable under the direction of King Leopold II of Belgium. It was Christian missionaries led by Alice Harris who exposed this evil by photographing the victims, like that of Nsala of Wala looking at the severed remains of his 5-year old daughter--who was butchered by Leopold's insurgents. 

Gregg Cunningham makes an excellent point: "How ironic that the person responsible for the first use of horrifying photos in a campaign of social reform would be a Christian missionary depicting the severed hand and foot of a child who had been tortured to death."

Yet, when CBR and other pro-life groups display a horrifying photo depicting the severed hand and foot of a child who has been tortured to death through elective abortion, many Christian leaders emulate King Leopold and work to suppress the same life-saving image Alice Harris struggled to display."

Advice to New Pro-Life Speaker [SK]

Short version of my advice:

First, grab the attention of your audience with a compelling introduction. Second, announce the topic of your talk. Third, tell your listeners why your topic matters. Fourth, announce your thesis and mention the main points you will cover supporting it. Move through these initial steps quickly to keep listeners riveted to the content. 

Longer version (edited letter--name changed):

Hi Bill,

Lots to like here. Your passion for the pro-life issue is incredible and comes through well on the recording. After listening to so many dull speakers, you are a breath of fresh air. Thank you for taking your subject seriously. Both in your speaking and writing, you convey a mastery of the issue from an intellectual standpoint, and this is sorely lacking in most presentations on abortion. Nice job!

My suggestions for improvement are limited to two main points that you'll have no trouble implementing:

Point #1—Talk less about yourself and more about why what you have to say matters to them (the listeners), especially early in the presentation. 

It's okay to grab their attention with an opening story (I do that), but make that story relate to them as quickly as possible. For example, listeners don't care about what you like and don't like, only why your remarks have significance for them. Right out of the gate, they must understand that what you are about to say is crucial and if they fail to listen, a price will be paid that will impact them personally. 

Back in 1996, Marc Newman gave me some advice on structuring my opening remarks that I follow religiously. First, I grab the attention of my audience with a compelling introduction. Second, I announce the topic of my talk. Third, I tell my listeners why my topic matters to them. Fourth, I announce my thesis and mention the main points I will cover supporting it. I move through these initial steps quickly to keep listeners riveted to the content. 

Let’s unpack those steps with more detail:

1. The introduction—March right in the front door of your talk with a short story or illustration that immediately draws listeners in. Put simply, you have about 90 seconds to convince the audience you are worth listening to, so make it count. Your story or illustration must relate to the content you’ll present and fit nicely with your thesis. It should also be simple. For example, you’ve heard me use an illustration from Omaha Beach—where on June 6, 1944, the first wave of Army rangers sustained horrific casualties because they dropped into deep tidewater and had few weapons with which to engage. My hunch is that you'll choose a different illustration next week, but remember this: If you think the audience won’t immediately grasp its significance, toss it for something else that is easily understood and relates better to your thesis for the night. Get after it!

2. Topic Statement—Tell listeners your theme for the evening. Make it clear and to the point: “My topic tonight is, “Equipped to Engage: Making a Case for Life on Hostile Turf.” Or, you might pose your topic as a question: “Tonight I want to ask a very specific question: How can you make a case for life when you’re under fire?” 

Note: If you are talking to a hostile or mixed audience, include a brief statement of goodwill after announcing your topic. Your combined topic and goodwill statement—aimed at setting a gracious tone for the evening—might look like this: “Tonight I’m going to address the topic, ‘The Case for Life.’ I realize abortion is a contentious issue that impacts some people personally. Rest assured, my purpose tonight is not to provoke controversy for controversy’s sake. Nor do I wish to condemn anyone. Rather, I’m just trying to get at the truth the best way I know how. So here’s what I propose. For the next 35 minutes, I’ll layout my reasons for thinking the pro-life view is persuasive. After that, I’ll open the floor for your questions and hear what you have to say. Fair enough?” That’s all there is to it. If you get too wordy here, you’ll sound apologetic or insincere, so keep your goodwill statement brief. 

3. Significance Statement—Immediately after announcing your topic, tell your listeners why it matters to them. Don’t skip this step! Envision taking your audience by the lapels and saying, “Listen to me! You must get what I’m about to tell you because if you don’t, this, this, and this will happen to you. But you can turn the tables and win if you listen up!” Following up on the example of Omaha Beach, I might say, “This topic of equipping yourself to engage on hostile turf is crucial to every Christian high school student listening to me right now. And here’s why: Seniors, in a few short months—and the rest of you, in a few short years—you will leave the safety of this Christian school and land on that beach known as the university campus. The minute that landing craft gate opens, you will find yourself confronted with ideas that run counter to everything you’ve heard about abortion. If you are not prepared, you’ll be outgunned and in way over your heads before you’ve memorized your class list.”

4. Thesis statement and rationale—Now you are ready to tell them how to engage. State in clear terms what you are going to argue: “Pro-life students can equip themselves to engage on hostile turf if they do four things: clarify the nature of moral reasoning, focus on the one question that really matters, make a persuasive case for life, and answer common objections.” 

Of course, you will want to plug in your own examples and thesis, but I think you can see how even with that minimal skeleton outline, I already have a workable structure for my talk, one that my listeners can quickly grasp. And by communicating up front what I'm going to say and why it matters to them, I draw them in. Although your talk had good ideas scattered throughout, I did not discern a visible structure on which you hung your material and made it relate to the overall thesis you were arguing. True, roughly six minutes into it, you did say that we must do something on the issue (a point you reiterated around the 15 minute mark), but then you went back to talking about yourself. A better plan is to announce your thesis early—“Anyone who believes in the humanity of the unborn and the inhumanity of abortion needs to do something”—and then immediately preview the main points you will drive home to make that case. 

In short, once you draw them in with a good intro, tell them why what you are going to say matters. Next, clearly articulate a thesis—something you will argue—then use personal stories to illustrate that thesis within the overall structure of the talk. Almost always, you should talk less about you and more about why your subject matters to them. March right in the front door and get to your point—quickly!

Point #2—and this relates to my first point—rethink using testimonies.

Truth is, I’m not a big fan of testimonies unless they are very short (3 minutes or less) and relate to the overall structure of the talk. In general, the pro-life movement spends way too much time on personal stories and not enough equipping people to argue our case. Stories appeal to some listeners, but when the evening is over, now what? How are those attending able to translate what they heard to those who don't agree with us? Answer: they're not! Rather than use a lengthy story about your personal journey to illustrate your pro-life work, let your training content and your delivery illustrate your mission/passion. Of course, you could still communicate a short personal example about your journey, but do it to help illustrate one of your main points, then move on. Short personal anecdotes work. Long testimonies are fraught with pitfalls and have limited training value.

Also, when you discuss graphic visuals, your tone should be personal, pastoral, and comforting—especially to those wounded by abortion. Speak directly to them, not about them. Give them the gospel as the antidote to post-abortion guilt. If you are showing abortion pictures (and you should), there is no need to describe the actual abortion procedures. As Gregg Cunningham points out, when you show pictures of abortion, abortion protests itself. Let the short 55-second clip do the heavy lifting for you.

Finally, if you are using your talk to invite donors to support your local pregnancy centers, you’ll want to relate your remarks to their work in a more compelling way. For example, if your topic is "Abortion and Moral Reasoning," use your significance statement to say something like this: “Some of you may think that Sharon and her staff are just about giving away baby clothes to young mothers. If you think that, you are mistaken. The stakes are way, way higher. Put simply, day in and day out, Sharon and her staff are engaged in an idea war for the hearts and minds of clients. In short, if that abortion-minded client believes that moral truth is a mere preference like choosing chocolate over vanilla, her child is in grave danger. And if she thinks that her child has no value unless she arbitrarily assigns it value, her child remains at risk. Make no mistake: These two questions—the question of truth and the question of human value—are in play in every counseling situation Sharon and her staff encounter.” Then, at the end of your talk, use the "Schindler’s List" example to encourage people to give like Oscar Schindler did. I remind them that Sharon, like Schindler, is giving her all to save lives. I end with this question: Are we taking our holocaust as seriously as Oscar Schindler took his? If so, we need to act like it and support the local pro-life pregnancy center.

All in all, this was a great start for you and lots better than my first talks. Unlike most speakers, you have all the natural gifts. Your passion is infectious. Your knowledge is stellar. The organizational and structural parts will come easy for you. Let me know if I can clarify anything further.

Glad to have you on board,
SK

Note: updated for spelling and quote links.

Daddy-Daughter London Trip, and its Application to the LTI Speaking Team [SK]

Facebook deleted the original post, so I'm re-posting it here...

September 2013

Dear Friends,
It’s the middle of the night and I’m typing away somewhere over the Atlantic. My coach seat is cramped and if the guy in front of me reclines, my screen is toast! Nevertheless, I’m not the least bit grumpy. How can I be? I’m once again on my way to London!

I love the city. Samuel Johnson once said that when a man tires of London, he tires of life. I won’t go that far, but I will say that each time I visit, I’m too excited to sleep on the plane ride getting there. This particular trip is even more joyous. Thanks to frequent flyer miles, my wife Stephanie and daughter Emily Rose (age 12) are flying over to join me once I’m done speaking. What a vacation it will be!

This will be Emily’s first trip to England, an event she’s dreamed of for two years. During that time, we’ve had daddy-daughter tea parties with real English tea and real English squash. We’ve reviewed photos of my past UK trips--the most recent with son Michael. Last month, I taught her to count British currency and together we’ve learned the first two stanzas of “God Save the Queen.” During 6th grade, she carried a Union flag backpack to school nearly everyday. And we haven't forgotten safety: To reinforce the necessity of looking right rather than left when crossing streets, we created a corny line: “When visiting London, you should drink squash not be squashed.”

Lord willing, the two women I cherish most will arrive Sunday morning at 7. I’ve meticulously planned Emily’s first sighting of central London. (Stephanie has been there before.) After dropping bags at the hotel, we’ll take the Underground (Tube) to Westminster Station. Just before exiting the station, I'll direct her to a short set of stairs leading up to street level. As I usher her up the final steps, I will take her hand and make her close her eyes. Once at street level, I will say, “okay, look up, girl!” Right there, she’ll take-in a dramatic view of Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament. The scene will blow her mind! Indeed, that first glimpse from Westminster Station impresses on the visitor an undeniable truth: You are in London!

Yes, I want the city to grip her like it’s gripped me. But as a Christian, I want more for Emily. She must know that her first London sighting points to something far grander than what transpires at Westminster Station. No matter how special that daddy-daughter moment is, it pales in comparison to the day when her Heavenly Father takes her hand and ushers her into His city.

Here over the Atlantic, I’m pondering another ushering, this one involving our LTI speaking team. Hardly a day goes by when I don’t ask myself, “Why would anyone in his or her right mind take a job where you must raise your own support to convey truths that win you zero applause from the prevailing secular culture?" I distinctly remember giving my Churchill speech to Jay and Mike: “I have nothing to offer you but blood, sweat, toil, and tears. Oh, and you get to raise your own funding should I fail to scare you off!”

And they took the job anyway. They did it in large part for the joy of ushering students into a whole new worldview.

The challenges are many. Unlike Emily who was prepped to engage London, many of the students our speakers journey with have not been equipped to engage the ruinous culture lurking outside their own Christian homes. Soon they will arrive on university campuses ill equipped to defend what they claim to believe—especially on pro-life issues!

Some come from homes where the “a” word is unmentionable, perhaps because one or both parents have participated in abortion and have yet to experience the forgiveness found in the Christian gospel. Others attend good churches where Scripture is revered, but pro-life training is non-existent or limited to an annual announcement about the upcoming pregnancy center banquet.

Our speakers meet these students in assemblies and classrooms across the country and usher them into a new realm of understanding. There’s 15-year old Brittany who told us, “I thought pro-life was just plain stupid—and then you showed that video clip.” There’s Jonathan, a 12th grader who couldn’t thank us enough for providing rational arguments. There’s the skeptic’s club at U.C. Berkeley who thanked me for debating abortion intelligently and whose members stuck around for 70 minutes to ask questions. And there’s Audrey, who had an abortion two years ago and cried through the presentation made to her Catholic high school—but afterward wrote to say she’s stopped making excuses and is now trusting Christ to forgive her past.

Throughout the Fall season, an ushering scene reminiscent of Westminster Station will be replayed with much higher stakes at Catholic and Protestant high schools in the U.S. And my team will be in the thick of it. I’m humbled by their willingness to serve along side me.

Pray God strengthens them. For my part, my first stop is this Fall is London, where I’ll train British pro-life advocates to argue their case persuasively. My second stop is Oxford, where I’ll discuss advanced pro-life apologetics with Summit students in that city.

Thank you for financially standing with us. You truly are helping us change minds!

For the King,
Scott Klusendorf

Conversation on Rape and Abortion [SK]

Could it get any better? An exit-row seat near the back of the 757 meant 10 feet of legroom to go with a good book, right? 

The legroom was awesome. But there would be no stretching out to read on this flight. To my left was a vacationing couple (early 50s), complete with their cruise-line hats and shirts. He was mellow. But she was a nervous flyer. Her husband warned me up front: “She will talk you to death.”

That she did. It didn’t help that I boarded the plane carrying (rather than stowing) Chris Kaczor’s excellent book The Ethics of Abortion. Seizing on the title, she was off to the races. One of her early comments went like this: “So you speak on abortion? Interesting. I'm not for abortion, but I just can't see how anyone could tell a woman who is raped that it’s wrong to have one. That makes absolutely no sense to me.”

Figuring my anticipated read from Kaczor's book was not forthcoming, I engaged using a tactic borrowed from Doug Wilson:

“Tell me, when rape results in pregnancy, how many humans do you think are involved in that pregnancy—two or three?”

“Two…no, three [turning to her husband], three, right? Ya, three.”

“I agree. Let’s talk about each one. Is the rapist guilty and does he deserved to be punished?”

“Yes, totally.”

“Agreed. Should we execute him for the rape?”

“No! I’m against the death penalty. He should be in jail for a long time, maybe forever.” (Husband jumps in with a smile: “Honey, stop now. This isn’t going to end well for you.”)

“Is the woman guilty? Should we execute her for the rape?”

“Of course not! That’s terrible! That’s what those Muslim countries do—what do they call those things, honor killings?—where the woman gets raped and her husband or father kills her because she’s defiled the family name. That just plain evil.”

“Agreed. Now what about her unborn offspring, is he guilty?”

“No”

“So of the three people involved in the pregnancy resulting from rape, you won’t execute the guilty rapist but you will execute the innocent child?”

[Husband nodding, immediately grasping my point]

"Oh. Let me think about this for a minute..."

We had a fruitful conversation from that point forward. I didn't convince her on the spot, but perhaps I gave her something to think about. As Dennis Prager points out, clarity is preferable to agreement.

Advanced Pro-Life Apologetics Course--Watch for Free! [Scott]

The complete lecture notes for my sessions are here and the links to the videos are below. (Dr. Scott Rae taught the other half of the course. His sessions, dealing with reproductive technologies and end of life issues, are found here.)

Content Overview: Successful pro-life apologists pursue four essential tasks. First, they clarify the debate by focusing public attention on one key question: What is the unborn? Second, they establish a foundation for the debate, demonstrating to critics that metaphysical neutrality is impossible. Third, they answer objections persuasively. Fourth, they teach and equip.

Videos:

Session #1: What is the Issue--The Nature of Moral Reasoning (52 Min.)

Session #2: What is the Unborn? (1:08)

Session #3: What Makes Humans Valuable? Part 1: The Substance View of Human Persons (52 min.)

Session #4: What Makes Humans Valuable? Part 2: The Religion Objection (15 Min.)

Session #5: Who Makes the Rules? Abortion: Law, Metaphysics, and Alleged Moral Neutrality (38 Min.)

Session #6: What is my Duty? The Bodily Autonomy Arguments of Thomson, Boonin, and McDonaugh (54 Min.)

Session #7: Catholic Social Justice Teaching and Other Objections (46 Min.)

Session #8: Equipping Yourself to Engage at Your Church (46 Min.)

Texts:

1. Gilbert Meilaender, Bioethics: A Primmer for Christians (Eerdmans, 2005)

2. Agnetta Sutton, Christian Bioethics: A Guide for the Perplexed (T&T Clark, 2008)

3. Scott Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics (Zondervan, 2009)

4. Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture (Crossway, 2009)

Suggested Reading:

1. Francis J. Beckwith, Dignity Never Been Photographed: Scientific Materialism, Enlightenment Liberalism, and Steven Pinker (Ethics in Medicine, Vol. 26:2, Summer 2010)

2. Francis J. Beckwith,The Human Being, a Person of Substance: A Response to Dean Stretton

3. Christopher Kaczor, The Ethics of Abortion: Women's Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice (Routledge, 2010)

Kaczor on Why Consciousness is Not value-Giving [Scott]

When critics of the pro-life view assert that consciousness bestows value and a right to life on human beings, you should immediately ask: 1)“Why is that value-giving? It sounds ad-hoc to me. 2) What do you mean by consciousness? That is, do you mean one must be able to immediately exercise it or do you mean something else?” The question—“What do you mean by consciousness?”—sets up this soundbite from Christopher Kaczor:

Requiring actual consciousness renders us non-persons whenever we sleep. Requiring immediately attainable consciousness excludes those in surgery. Requiring the basic neural brain structures for consciousness (but not consciousness itself) excludes those whose brains are temporarily damaged. On the other hand, if potentiality for consciousness makes a being a person, then those sleeping, in surgery, or temporarily comatose are persons, but so also would be the normal human embryo, fetus, and newborn.

Clarity, not Gadgetry: Pro-Life Apologetics for the Next Generation [Scott]

Are students today too distracted by twitter to care about serious pro-life content? And how should youth pastors respond? That's the topic of my short post at the Gospel Coalition site.

Statistics: Proceed with Caution [Scott]

Jill Stanek's excellent blogsite has a discussion over an article in the journal Contraception. The article covers contraception policy in Spain and the abstract for the study concludes as follows:

STUDY DESIGN: Since 1997, representative samples of Spanish women of childbearing potential (15-49 years) have been surveyed by the Daphne Team every 2 years to gather data of contraceptive methods used.

RESULTS: During the study period, 1997 to 2007, the overall use of contraceptive methods increased from 49.1% to 79.9%. The most commonly used method was the condom (an increase from 21% to 38.8%), followed by the pill (an increase from 14.2% to 20.3%). Female sterilization and IUDs decreased slightly and were used by less than 5% of women in 2007. The elective abortion rate increased from 5.52 to 11.49 per 1000 women.

CONCLUSIONS: The factors responsible for the increased rate of elective abortion need further investigation.

The ensuing discussion about the study (in the comments section of Jill's blog) contains some fiesty exchanges about contraception in general, with some pro-lifers insisting this study proves increased contraceptive use results in more abortions. At least one post claims the pill itself is abortifacient.

What follows is what I said on Jill's blog:

Admittedly, I’m no statistican. However, I have two concerns: First, statistics are slippery things and it’s tempting to quote them when they seem to support our view and downplay them when they don’t. With any study involving the extensive use of stats, it’s best to withhold a declaration of victory until 1) the internal numbers are fully analyzed for strengths and weaknesses, and 2) the methodology of the study is subject to further peer-review. To cite one example, in 1994 (some) pro-lifers went crazy citing a statistic from the Daling study which allegedly indicated that women undergoing first trimester abortions were 800% more likely to develop breast cancer by age 35. Not long after, the alleged statistic was shown to be a fluke, a random statistical error that sometimes creeps up in large samples. Applied to the study in question, I’m not suggesting that pushing contraceptives on unmarried couples has no impact on abortion rates. I’m only appealing for caution while we await further commentary.

Second, regarding some comments above on BC pills functioning as abortifacients, my own organization takes a cautious view while we await further evidence. That is, while we don’t think there is sufficient evidence to say for certain that the pill functions as an abortifacient in the event of breakthrough ovulation, we do think there’s sufficient evidence to indicate it may function that way. Thus, given human life is at stake, we should err on the side of caution while we await further evidence, meaning we do not endorse its use. But we are careful not to overstate our case and claim certitude when the evidence is still open to debate. (We have dealt with that debate on our blog, so I won’t go into it here.)

In short, it’s important that pro-lifers function with intellectual integrity, meaning we go only so far as the evidence allows. Perhaps the Spain study is in the main accurate; if so, it’s useful for confronting the lies of PP. But while we await further review, I think we should hedge our conclusions just a bit.

Kevin DeYoung has helpful posts on being cautious with statistics here and here.

You may also want to read this.