Here is the introduction to this series, and here is my discussion of the first fallacy in this series. In today's article, I'm going to be looking at the strawman fallacy.
Simply stated, the strawman fallacy is committed when you attack a similar argument to the one a person presents, but is a distorted version. So you are responding to a different argument which means that your response does not engage with and rebut his argument.
According to Daniel T. Edward in Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments (Wadsworth, pp. 157-159), the origins of the term are unclear. The usage of the term in rhetoric suggests a human figure made of straw which is easily knocked down or destroyed, such as a military training dummy, scarecrow, or effigy (as cited and quoted by Wikipedia).
The reason that this is a fallacy should be obvious: By attacking a similar but distorted argument, you are not really addressing the argument made. So the argument stands, but it may appear you have defeated it because of the similarities.
Here are a couple of examples of this fallacy in action:
A common pro-choice strawman argument is: If abortion is homicide, then masturbation is mass murder. I have given this argument a much fuller treatment elsewhere, but essentially, as Scott Klusendorf mentions in his book The Case for Life, this makes the elementary mistake of confusing parts with wholes. Sperm cells are part of the parent organism's body, whereas the unborn is a whole, separate, individual organism of the human species that develop themselves from within into a more mature version of themselves, along the path of human development. All of us began life as a zygote, then developed into an embryo, fetus, newborn, infant, etc.
A common pro-life strawman I hear is when a pro-life person misunderstands bodily rights arguments. When a pro-choice person tries to argue they have a right to refuse life-giving treatment to the unborn, pro-life people often mistake this as the much weaker argument that a woman can do whatever she wants to or with anything in her body. It's important to keep these two arguments separate in your mind. Here is an article I've written on this very topic for clarification.
This is one fallacy that is easy to make but is also easy to avoid. If we just take the time to really understand what the other person is saying, then we can easily avoid frustrating them by responding to something they're really saying and not misrepresenting them or their views.
Monday, March 31, 2014
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
A Logical Outgrowth of Failure to Respect Human Life [Clinton Wilcox]
It turns out that several hospitals in the UK, including Addenbrooke's in Cambridge, incinerated the remains of thousands of miscarried and aborted unborn children as clinical waste, while two of the hospitals used the fetal remains to heat their hospitals. The parents of miscarried babies were told that their child was "cremated," rather than having done what the parents wanted done with the remains.
While many of us find this abhorrent, it really shouldn't surprise us that hospitals would do this, as this is just a logical outgrowth of the pro-choice position, that preborn human beings don't have any rights. If you don't have any rights, your remains don't have to be respected. The only thing that makes this wrong, in the eyes of the pro-choice crowd, is the fact that they went against the parents' wishes. But to those of us who believe that all human beings have basic rights, this practice is despicable.
The NHS has put a ban on the procedure, but why bother if the life of the unborn child is of not enough value to protect them in law? If the unborn don't have rights to protect, then there is no reason to respect their remains. Nevertheless, I do hope that people will recognize that this visceral reaction they are feeling to using aborted and miscarried children to heat hospitals is an indication that maybe the procedure of abortion isn't as morally justifiable as they believe.
While many of us find this abhorrent, it really shouldn't surprise us that hospitals would do this, as this is just a logical outgrowth of the pro-choice position, that preborn human beings don't have any rights. If you don't have any rights, your remains don't have to be respected. The only thing that makes this wrong, in the eyes of the pro-choice crowd, is the fact that they went against the parents' wishes. But to those of us who believe that all human beings have basic rights, this practice is despicable.
The NHS has put a ban on the procedure, but why bother if the life of the unborn child is of not enough value to protect them in law? If the unborn don't have rights to protect, then there is no reason to respect their remains. Nevertheless, I do hope that people will recognize that this visceral reaction they are feeling to using aborted and miscarried children to heat hospitals is an indication that maybe the procedure of abortion isn't as morally justifiable as they believe.
Monday, March 24, 2014
Fallacy Monday: The Ad Hominem Fallacy [Clinton Wilcox]
Last week I began a new series on logical fallacies. The first fallacy I would like to examine is a very common one in the abortion debate, the Ad Hominem fallacy.
Ad hominem is a Latin term that means "to the man." An argument that makes an ad hominem fallacy is an argument that dismisses someone's conclusion based on something about their character. You are attacking them rather than their argument. I often see the term "ad hominem" thrown around in an attempt to stop a debate, but we need to understand that a personal attack does not automatically mean someone's argument is fallacious. It may be unkind to call someone names, but it is not logically fallacious.
For example, if I were to say, "You're an idiot. Now let me show you how you're wrong..." you are not making a fallacious argument. You are definitely being unkind, but if you are going to show them how their argument fails (by responding to one of their premises, for example), then you have not committed a logical fallacy.
Now if I was to say, "You're a jerk, so I don't have to listen to anything you say," that is clearly fallacious. You are dismissing their argument based on the fact that they're just not a nice person. But even jerks can be right.
Additionally, like most fallacies, the Ad Hominem attack is not always fallacious; sometimes it is called for. Philosopher Ed Feser gives an example of a time at which attacking someone's character is appropriate: "For example, suppose what is at issue is whether a certain person is a reliable witness or an unbiased source of information, as in a court case. Then there is no fallacy whatsoever in showing that his track record reveals him to be a compulsive liar, or to have a bad memory or bad eyesight, or to have been drunk at the time of the events he claims to have witnessed, or to have a personal stake in the outcome of the case. These are ad hominem criticisms -- criticisms directed 'against the man' himself -- but there is no fallacy involved, because the credibility of the man himself is precisely what is at issue" (emphases his).
Here are a couple of examples of the ad hominem fallacy in use:
From the pro-life side, I commonly see the argument that pro-choice people hate babies. Clearly, some of them do. I have met some pro-choice people on-line who are quite open about it. But I take it that these people are in the minority. Most pro-choice people don't hate babies. But even if they do, how does that negate their argument that abortion is permissible because of bodily rights, or because the unborn is not a person? It doesn't, so whether or not a pro-choice person actually hates babies, their argument still needs to be engaged with.
From the pro-choice side, one of the most common arguments I see are that if you are a man, your argument is invalid because you can't get pregnant. Again, this is clearly fallacious thinking because my being a man does not refute my argument that the unborn are full human persons from fertilization and it should be illegal to kill innocent human children.
So as we strive to have better conversations, let's stop trying to dismiss peoples' arguments by throwing around claims of logical fallacies and really try to engage with the arguments. Only by doing so can we really hope to understand the reasons that someone takes a position on this issue.
Ad hominem is a Latin term that means "to the man." An argument that makes an ad hominem fallacy is an argument that dismisses someone's conclusion based on something about their character. You are attacking them rather than their argument. I often see the term "ad hominem" thrown around in an attempt to stop a debate, but we need to understand that a personal attack does not automatically mean someone's argument is fallacious. It may be unkind to call someone names, but it is not logically fallacious.
For example, if I were to say, "You're an idiot. Now let me show you how you're wrong..." you are not making a fallacious argument. You are definitely being unkind, but if you are going to show them how their argument fails (by responding to one of their premises, for example), then you have not committed a logical fallacy.
Now if I was to say, "You're a jerk, so I don't have to listen to anything you say," that is clearly fallacious. You are dismissing their argument based on the fact that they're just not a nice person. But even jerks can be right.
Additionally, like most fallacies, the Ad Hominem attack is not always fallacious; sometimes it is called for. Philosopher Ed Feser gives an example of a time at which attacking someone's character is appropriate: "For example, suppose what is at issue is whether a certain person is a reliable witness or an unbiased source of information, as in a court case. Then there is no fallacy whatsoever in showing that his track record reveals him to be a compulsive liar, or to have a bad memory or bad eyesight, or to have been drunk at the time of the events he claims to have witnessed, or to have a personal stake in the outcome of the case. These are ad hominem criticisms -- criticisms directed 'against the man' himself -- but there is no fallacy involved, because the credibility of the man himself is precisely what is at issue" (emphases his).
Here are a couple of examples of the ad hominem fallacy in use:
From the pro-life side, I commonly see the argument that pro-choice people hate babies. Clearly, some of them do. I have met some pro-choice people on-line who are quite open about it. But I take it that these people are in the minority. Most pro-choice people don't hate babies. But even if they do, how does that negate their argument that abortion is permissible because of bodily rights, or because the unborn is not a person? It doesn't, so whether or not a pro-choice person actually hates babies, their argument still needs to be engaged with.
From the pro-choice side, one of the most common arguments I see are that if you are a man, your argument is invalid because you can't get pregnant. Again, this is clearly fallacious thinking because my being a man does not refute my argument that the unborn are full human persons from fertilization and it should be illegal to kill innocent human children.
So as we strive to have better conversations, let's stop trying to dismiss peoples' arguments by throwing around claims of logical fallacies and really try to engage with the arguments. Only by doing so can we really hope to understand the reasons that someone takes a position on this issue.
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
The Value of Narrating a Conversation [Jay Watts]
The more I talk to students and
detractors after presentations, the more convinced I become of the
importance of narrating the conversation for all involved and
listening.
For example, two students approached me
after a recent talk to challenge me on the position that human life
conceived in rape is intrinsically valuable and that destroying that
life might not be the best response to the evil of rape. They were
outraged and one of them, the young man, stated that my position was
inhumane.
I pointed out that my position, however
difficult it may be for them to understand, stemmed from what
Christopher Kaczor refers to as an inclusive view of human value. If
I believe that the best arguments indicate that all human life is
equally valuable by virtue of what they are rather than some capacity
or what they offer the rest of society then protecting an innocent
human life regardless of the circumstances of its conception is
merely intellectual consistency. We talked about how the rape
exception is only relevant if they accept that the unborn are
valuable human life, otherwise it is not the reason they think that
abortion ought to be legal but a ploy to put me on the spot. Finally,
I demonstrated that the options they offered, abort the child or face
crippling and recurring psychological damage while raising the child
of her attacker, weren't the only ones available.
We discussed this issue with a little
more depth for a few minutes. They seemed to sense their position was faltering a
bit. When I pressed them on whether they genuinely believed the right
thing to do was to kill the child, the young man suddenly said, “I
don't believe that there is any right and wrong in an objective
sense. We decide what is right and wrong as a society.”
Right there the conversation took an
unexpected turn, and it is important to point that out for everyone.
“If you truly believe that there is no objective right and wrong
then you have no axe to grind with pro-lifers. You don't recognize abortion is wrong, but only because, in
your view, it isn't objectively wrong to kill anyone. We are just
animals pursuing our nature. Humans killing humans is no different
than chimps killing chimps or dolphins killing dolphins; both intelligent mammals that have been known to kill within their species. We are all
just pursuing our nature. Unfortunately, if your view is correct than
neither of our positions is morally superior to the other. We determine victory by securing the necessary political power to defeat our opponents. That is
neither good nor bad. It is merely the way it is.”
I pointed out this was a radical
departure from the earlier argument they were offering and that in
this view they were just arbitrarily picking a criteria that made
it wrong to kill certain human beings by social contract or some other means. None of
the arbitrarily chosen points objectively trumped the others.
Suddenly, they began to assure me that I was wrong, and that consciousness
offered the best mark for determining value. The young lady emphatically stated, “It is
the only thing that separates us from the insects and other animals.
It is why we can just squash an ant but it is wrong to squash
children.”
This new twist required that we all recognize
what had just happened. It also set up the opportunity to point
out some interesting inconsistencies in their views. “First of all,
this young man claims he thinks there is nothing that we can do to
another human being that is objectively wrong. But right now you both
are claiming that consciousness is what makes us valuable. As I
mentioned previously in my talk, consciousness isn't attained until months
after we are born. Does that mean that both of you are willing to
follow that view to its full implications and state that there is
nothing morally wrong with killing newborns?”
Both of them affirmed this was the
case, with the young lady categorically stating that she would own
that position. “Can I just point out to both of you something that
I find a little startling in our conversation? We
started with you aggressively and emotionally challenging me
on my position on rape and abortion as inhumane.” The young man
hung his head and smiled a little.
“I called you inhumane and then I
just said there is nothing wrong with killing newborns.” I nodded
in agreement.
Both of these young people came into
the conversation emotionally charged. We talked for an hour, with a
couple of other students joining in, and it was respectful and
reasonable the rest of the way. We made certain to define our terms
and be consistent in our arguments. As we wrapped up our time together, they both
promised that when I came back they would be better prepared.
Monday, March 17, 2014
Fallacy Monday: A Discussion of Fallacies [Clinton Wilcox]
I've decided to institute a series called Fallacy Monday, in which each Monday I will take a particular logical fallacy, give a brief examination of it, discuss why it is a fallacy, and how it relates to the abortion issue, giving examples of the fallacy being used on both sides of the issues. Why Fallacy Monday instead of Fallacy Friday? Because Fallacy Friday is cliche, despite the sweet, sweet use of alliteration.
I'll admit it: one of my pet peeves is when someone throws around a fallacy in an attempt to dismiss a well-intentioned argument, especially if the person throwing the fallacy around doesn't really understand what the fallacy is. It goes something like this: Person A makes an argument, Person B responds with "that's just fallacy X. Try again." To this kind of person, engaging with arguments becomes simply a game of Spot the Fallacy. He is not trying to honestly engage with the argument. The problem is you must first engage with an argument before you can decide whether or not it is fallacious, because most fallacies are not always fallacies.
There are many different forms of logic, but the most common argument you'll encounter (even if someone doesn't frame it in this way) takes the form of a syllogism, which is just an argument containing two or more premises that lead to a conclusion (sometimes there will be multiple conclusions if the argument gets more and more complex; but usually simpler arguments are seen as more reliable since there's less of a chance that the argument will go wrong somewhere). A syllogism looks like this:
Premise 1: All men are mortal.
Premise 2: Socrates was a man.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates was mortal.
An argument is said to be valid if the conclusion follows from its premises. If it is impossible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true, the argument is valid. If a conclusion does not follow from its premises, it is invalid.
If an argument is valid and all of its premises are also true, then it is sound. Otherwise, it is unsound. It's important to recognize these distinctions because an argument can be valid, but unsound. Take the following argument:
Premise 1: All fish are mammals.
Premise 2: All mammals have hair.
Conclusion: Therefore, all fish have hair.
Now, this is a valid argument. If all fish are mammals, and all mammals have hair, then it follows that all fish have hair. However, this argument is unsound because as we know, fish are not mammals. So while valid, the argument is unsound.
So what is a logical fallacy? Simply put, it is an error in reasoning. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says about fallacies, "Traditional accounts define a fallacy as a pattern of poor reasoning which appears to be (and in this sense mimics) a pattern of good reasoning...Such accounts are a problematic basis for a general account of fallacies insofar as what appears to be good reasoning to one person may not appear so to another. In assessing ordinary arguments, these issues can be avoided by understanding fallacies more simply, as common patterns of faulty reasoning which can usefully be identified in the evaluation of informal arguments." To reiterate, one must engage with all arguments because an argument that appears fallacious on the surface may not actually be fallacious once you really understand the argument. Most fallacies are not always fallacious. Fallacies are not recognized so we can try and poke holes in someone's argument, they are recognized to help us avoid errors in reasoning.
So on Mondays for an indefinite and undetermined number of weeks, I'll be looking at a different fallacy. I am a big believer in taking people and their arguments seriously, especially those who disagree with us. You just can't know if your argument is right unless you're interacting with the arguments of those who believe differently than you do. You also can't respect someone if you don't take their arguments seriously. So let's take our conversations to the next level. Rather than engaging in pithy statements and bumper sticker philosophy, let's really look at the issue seriously and see which side has the stronger case.
I'll admit it: one of my pet peeves is when someone throws around a fallacy in an attempt to dismiss a well-intentioned argument, especially if the person throwing the fallacy around doesn't really understand what the fallacy is. It goes something like this: Person A makes an argument, Person B responds with "that's just fallacy X. Try again." To this kind of person, engaging with arguments becomes simply a game of Spot the Fallacy. He is not trying to honestly engage with the argument. The problem is you must first engage with an argument before you can decide whether or not it is fallacious, because most fallacies are not always fallacies.
There are many different forms of logic, but the most common argument you'll encounter (even if someone doesn't frame it in this way) takes the form of a syllogism, which is just an argument containing two or more premises that lead to a conclusion (sometimes there will be multiple conclusions if the argument gets more and more complex; but usually simpler arguments are seen as more reliable since there's less of a chance that the argument will go wrong somewhere). A syllogism looks like this:
Premise 1: All men are mortal.
Premise 2: Socrates was a man.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates was mortal.
An argument is said to be valid if the conclusion follows from its premises. If it is impossible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true, the argument is valid. If a conclusion does not follow from its premises, it is invalid.
If an argument is valid and all of its premises are also true, then it is sound. Otherwise, it is unsound. It's important to recognize these distinctions because an argument can be valid, but unsound. Take the following argument:
Premise 1: All fish are mammals.
Premise 2: All mammals have hair.
Conclusion: Therefore, all fish have hair.
Now, this is a valid argument. If all fish are mammals, and all mammals have hair, then it follows that all fish have hair. However, this argument is unsound because as we know, fish are not mammals. So while valid, the argument is unsound.
So what is a logical fallacy? Simply put, it is an error in reasoning. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says about fallacies, "Traditional accounts define a fallacy as a pattern of poor reasoning which appears to be (and in this sense mimics) a pattern of good reasoning...Such accounts are a problematic basis for a general account of fallacies insofar as what appears to be good reasoning to one person may not appear so to another. In assessing ordinary arguments, these issues can be avoided by understanding fallacies more simply, as common patterns of faulty reasoning which can usefully be identified in the evaluation of informal arguments." To reiterate, one must engage with all arguments because an argument that appears fallacious on the surface may not actually be fallacious once you really understand the argument. Most fallacies are not always fallacious. Fallacies are not recognized so we can try and poke holes in someone's argument, they are recognized to help us avoid errors in reasoning.
So on Mondays for an indefinite and undetermined number of weeks, I'll be looking at a different fallacy. I am a big believer in taking people and their arguments seriously, especially those who disagree with us. You just can't know if your argument is right unless you're interacting with the arguments of those who believe differently than you do. You also can't respect someone if you don't take their arguments seriously. So let's take our conversations to the next level. Rather than engaging in pithy statements and bumper sticker philosophy, let's really look at the issue seriously and see which side has the stronger case.
Friday, March 14, 2014
Pastors Are Fallible, Too [Clinton Wilcox]
A pro-life friend from Michigan heard a pastor on the radio defending legalized abortion. I've heard all sorts of Biblical arguments made to try and defend abortion, but this one was especially bizarre. As Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason says, never read a Bible verse. In other words, don't just read one verse out of context. All sorts of heresies have begun that way. Sometimes to understand the meaning of a verse you have to read the entire chapter or sometimes the entire book. The Scriptures were originally not written with chapter and verse markings, and in many cases these markings are unhelpful because the chapter ends before a thought or argument is completed.
So which verse did this pastor use to support legalized abortion? Deuteronomy 30:19, which states: "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live,". This is where the pastor ended his "quote." Notice the comma at the end; the thought wasn't even completed and in fact extends for another verse: "So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, by loving the Lord your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them."
This is a pretty shameful and blatant misrepresentation of Scripture. The immediate thing that jumps out at us is this: in context, this verse isn't even talking about abortion. What is it talking about? Let's take the entire passage in context, Deuteronomy 30: 15-20: "See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the Lord your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it. But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today that you shall surely perish. You will not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess it. I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, by loving the Lord your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them."
So what is the choice we're talking about here? Whether to continue a pregnancy or end it by aborting the human offspring? Hardly. The choice that Moses is setting before the people of Israel is this: Choose whether or not you are going to serve the Lord and follow His commandments. If you do, your life will be extended in the land. But if you don't, if you turn your heart away from the Lord and follow pagan gods, if you choose the curses rather than the blessings, you will not enjoy the blessings of the Lord. God is the giver of Life and sustains us, but if we are not willing to perform our duty as those who serve God, we will have to suffer the consequences.
This pastor asserts that God is telling us here that God wants us to be pro-choice, that we can't force life on anyone. You can't choose life if you aren't given the choice. But that's not what this passage is saying, at all. I don't understand the people who claim that we must be given a choice if we are truly capable of making a choice. It doesn't follow from that that we must be legally permitted to have a choice in order to be able to make one. We all have a choice whether to murder, rape, or steal, even though these things are not legally permitted. And just because I am a free agent does not mean I have any right to make a choice that harms or infringes on the natural rights of another person, another being made in God's image.
Conversely, I also see well-meaning Christians using this verse as a prooftext that God wants us to choose life for our babies. I believe wholeheartedly that abortion is wrong, it is an act of murder, and God wants us to choose life. But this passage does not speak to that. This passage speaks to the Israelites having the choice of whether to serve God, and receive his blessings, or to turn their backs on God and follow pagan gods, who are impotent and worthless.
In short, to reiterate Greg Koukl, never read a Bible verse. You can get the Bible to say anything you want it to say by ripping one verse from its context. That is unwise and poor Biblical hermeneutics. And by searching the Scriptures, as the Bereans did in the book of Acts, you will be able to prevent yourself from being taken in by poor Biblical interpretations.
So which verse did this pastor use to support legalized abortion? Deuteronomy 30:19, which states: "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live,". This is where the pastor ended his "quote." Notice the comma at the end; the thought wasn't even completed and in fact extends for another verse: "So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, by loving the Lord your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them."
This is a pretty shameful and blatant misrepresentation of Scripture. The immediate thing that jumps out at us is this: in context, this verse isn't even talking about abortion. What is it talking about? Let's take the entire passage in context, Deuteronomy 30: 15-20: "See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the Lord your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it. But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today that you shall surely perish. You will not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess it. I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, by loving the Lord your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them."
So what is the choice we're talking about here? Whether to continue a pregnancy or end it by aborting the human offspring? Hardly. The choice that Moses is setting before the people of Israel is this: Choose whether or not you are going to serve the Lord and follow His commandments. If you do, your life will be extended in the land. But if you don't, if you turn your heart away from the Lord and follow pagan gods, if you choose the curses rather than the blessings, you will not enjoy the blessings of the Lord. God is the giver of Life and sustains us, but if we are not willing to perform our duty as those who serve God, we will have to suffer the consequences.
This pastor asserts that God is telling us here that God wants us to be pro-choice, that we can't force life on anyone. You can't choose life if you aren't given the choice. But that's not what this passage is saying, at all. I don't understand the people who claim that we must be given a choice if we are truly capable of making a choice. It doesn't follow from that that we must be legally permitted to have a choice in order to be able to make one. We all have a choice whether to murder, rape, or steal, even though these things are not legally permitted. And just because I am a free agent does not mean I have any right to make a choice that harms or infringes on the natural rights of another person, another being made in God's image.
Conversely, I also see well-meaning Christians using this verse as a prooftext that God wants us to choose life for our babies. I believe wholeheartedly that abortion is wrong, it is an act of murder, and God wants us to choose life. But this passage does not speak to that. This passage speaks to the Israelites having the choice of whether to serve God, and receive his blessings, or to turn their backs on God and follow pagan gods, who are impotent and worthless.
In short, to reiterate Greg Koukl, never read a Bible verse. You can get the Bible to say anything you want it to say by ripping one verse from its context. That is unwise and poor Biblical hermeneutics. And by searching the Scriptures, as the Bereans did in the book of Acts, you will be able to prevent yourself from being taken in by poor Biblical interpretations.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)