Posted on 02/06/2018 5:06:31 AM PST by Kaslin
Last week, I ran a column urging pastors to do more than simply tell their congregants to be bold in their faith. I also urged pastors to be specific by taking a stand themselves on specific issues. The example I gave was defending the unborn. In the process, I suggested that pastors needed to teach congregants how to defend the unborn from a scientific and philosophical perspective. This provoked several angry emails from Christian readers who insisted that we need to defend the unborn solely from scripture. I write today in response to those misguided critics.
My pro-life Christian critics understand why human life has value. The fact that we are made in the image of God makes us all valuable from the point of conception. There is simply no need to explain this to someone who is truly seeing the world through the lens of a Christian worldview. But Christians sometimes need help understanding how pro-abortion choice advocates view the world. I can help to do that because I work with such people daily.
Put simply, the pro-abortion choice advocate is usually a secularist who believes that human beings are the ones charged with assigning value to other humans. In other words, they think our rights come from man rather than God. This position creates a necessary tension with one of the secularist’s other professed values. Christians need to know what those values are before they engage important issues with these secular opponents.
To be sure, the secularist professes allegiance to a number of different values. But two of them are of specific relevance to the debate over abortion. One is the commitment to science as a means of advancing the human condition. The other is the outcome of human equality as the ultimate goal or end of advancing the human condition. In a nutshell, the secularist wants to use science to advance mankind, but only if we are equally situated after all is said and done.
The secularist’s professed love of science provides pro-lifers with a rare opportunity to destroy the opposition on their own playing field by appealing to scientific consensus. It is true that scientists are in disagreement about a number of things. The existence and extent of global warming provides a salient example. But there is no lack of scientific consensus on the issue of when life begins. You simply cannot find a credible embryology textbook that disputes the fact that life begins at conception. Yet somehow the Bible thumping pro-life fundamentalist insists on avoiding the strongest argument against abortion in the eyes of the very people he seeks to influence. He would rather re-read his Bible than take the time to look at an embryology textbook. This is the height of arrogance and intellectual laziness.
The importance of emphasizing science becomes obvious when we recognize that the vast majority of pro-abortion choice arguments are question begging. In other words, they simply assume what they are trying to prove – namely, that the unborn is not human. For example, when they say abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare” they assume abortion does not kill a living human being. Otherwise, they would not casually assert that it should be “safe” or “legal.” Similarly, when they argue that we should not force women to bring “unwanted children” into the world they are implicitly proposing abortion as a means of reducing child abuse. But abortion only reduces child abuse if you assume that the entity aborted is not a human child.
By relying upon science, the pro-lifer forces the pro-abortion choice advocate to either admit that abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being or abandon his sworn allegiance to science. Ultimately, he must do the former. Thus, he is forced to find a philosophical reason for allowing abortion despite the fact that science tells us it kills a developing human being. These philosophical justifications are dangerous to the pro-abortion choice advocate because they pose a threat to his stated value of human equality as the end of advancing the human condition.
Of course, every pro-lifer has heard these philosophical justifications. But few take the time to stop and think about their implications. I recall the example of the feminist who told me she was insulted by my suggestion that a “mere fetus” had the same value as she did - even when it was “as small as a raisin.” But by suggesting that the value of life varies with body size she was undermining her case for feminism. Clearly, women are smaller than men on average. Therefore, her argument that smaller humans are less valuable translates into a case for male superiority.
Another obvious example is the argument that the unborn are less valuable due to the fact that they are less developed. This offensive logic could be used to argue that killing a college graduate should be punished more severely than killing an illiterate. Or that killing the illiterate should be punished more severely than killing someone with Down syndrome. Such brazen arguments cannot be squared with the secularist’s commitment to social equality.
Finally, those who posit dependency as a factor reducing the value of human life run into similar problems. Those who view the unborn as “parasites” toy with a dangerous idea. If accepted, others might use this mindset to purge the welfare rolls through the means of mass murder. Such a position cannot be squared with the secularist’s commitment to socioeconomic or racial equality.
In the end, the pro-abortion choice advocate must decide whether he will choose science or remain committed to anti-science fundamentalism. Next, he must choose between a philosophical commitment to abortion and a philosophical commitment to human equality. But he cannot have both.
Meanwhile, the pro-lifer must decide whether he will continue thumping his Bible or whether he will learn to master the arguments that exploit his opponent’s weaknesses.
He probably has fundamentalist roots that he new rejects.
Nice example folks. We run off thumping the Bible at each other and the abortionist calmly says, “I have a solution for you. Come in on Thursday.”
Yes. I am too.
AppyPappy wrote:
>>>But they have to temper that message because people start to equate a person’s stand on abortion with their Salvation.<<<
>>>you do realize that Mike Adams is pro-life, do you?<<<
You appear to be suggesting that all that are pro-life are Christians.
The reply that I posted to freeper super7man in post# 20 is also for you.
What’s to thump?
For every three new babies being pushed thru the mall by a proud mama; there is a DEAD one mouldering in a trash can somewhere.
One needs no ‘bible’ to understand that this is just plain wrong!
“And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me” (2 Sam 12:22-23).
That does not change the fact that Mike Adams chose a headline that is going to offend a large portion of his readership and that is, how shall we put it? Stupid, that’s it, stupid. It sounds as if he could use someone thumping a Bible at him, himself. So do you.
So many churches are apostate. Any member of the World Council of Churches is.
They’re rainbow churches of the here and now, tolerating divorce, illegitimacy, fornication, adultery, feminization of liturgy, homosexuality and more. For example, ELCA health insurance covered abortion on demand for their clergy and staff long ago. Today, is the Pope Catholic?
Orthodox clergy have lived in fear of bible thumping for decades. IRS has sent spies into churches to bust them for political speech => tax penalty. Sodomites constantly cry hate. Single moms and teens wail over any moral judgements. Authentic men have been silenced.
Actually . . . this is possibly wrong.
Genesis 5:3-4
When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.
But; HE only made ONE of each type.
One male and one female.
From these two were all the rest 'made'.
Jesus.
HMMMmmm...
I wondering just how this works?
I’ve actually been defending things like this recently since so many people are tuning in to “The Handmaid’s Tale”.
This story, now a popular TV show depicts a post apocalyptic world where “Christian fundamentalists” hold women as slaves and prisoners, forcing both labor and reproduction.
It’s gotten many lefties and fantasy fans once again attacking the Bible.
Get used to it, it’s always there.
>>>Actually . . . this is wrong. ADAM was made in the image and likeness of God - then he fell and lost his innocence. All of his children which includes us are all made in the image and likeness of sinful man - the glory was lost in Eden.
Actually . . . this is possibly wrong.
Genesis 5:3-4
When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.<<<
Adam was a sinful man. His children were sinners as was the line up to and including the present.
And the flip side of that assumption is...
... that all that are Christians are pro-life.
You Salvation is not tied to how you side on political issues. How many times have you heard someone say “If you don’t fall on this side, you aren’t a Christian”? I hear it from the Left and the Right.
Once again; the Eagles win over the Patriots...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.