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.
‘Christ shed His blood for us *because* we are made in His image.’
what about those who preceded Christ; in whose image were they formed...?
‘He sounds like an atheist or an FR rad-trad Catholic.
he sounds like he is attempting to create interest in his article, with the use of triggering devices, as any good writer will do...
He succeeded but I suspect it’s going to come at an unanticipated price.
Creation has nothing to do with it. An Agnostic believes in the possibility of God. That’s not a belief. It’s a suspicion. That’s basically inventing a God out of thin air if you believe in it. An Agnostic may have seen unexplained incidents (miracles) but that doesn’t translate automatically into God. It could just as easily be explained as The Force.
When I was an atheist, I believed in the concept of “universal evil”(i.e. Satan) because I saw evidence of it. But I didn’t believe in God because I saw no evidence. When I began to investigate the possibility of God, I still remained an atheist because I still had no evidence.
One of my coworkers says he believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster even though he admits he has no evidence. His belief is based on “other people believe other things”. That’s not really a belief.
‘He succeeded but I suspect it’s going to come at an unanticipated price.’
are you objecting because he defends life from an extra scriptural stance, or because he used the term Bible-thumpers...?
Because he used the term “Bible thumpers” in a pejorative manner. It tells more than intended. He is hostile to a fair amount of his readership.
‘Creation has nothing to do with it.’
uh, yeah, okay...
‘That’s not a belief. It’s a suspicion.’
which is a difference between the verbs ‘believe’ and ‘suppose’...let’s say I see you coming, and your eyes are bloodshot, and your lids are drooping, and you are slouching badly; I might say ‘I believe you are tired, based on your appearance’ or I might say ‘I suppose you are tired, based on your appearance’...do you actually see any distinction there...?
Everyone--believer and non-believer, before Christ or after Christ--is made in His image.
Correct and your belief is based on evidence.
My sister “believes” that our deceased mother is sending cardinals and butterflies to remind her that our mother is thinking of her. There is no evidence of that belief at all, even though there are definitely cardinals and butterflies.
As an atheist, that how I viewed agnostics and, quite frankly, some Christians. There are some things that I suspect are true but not enough to give it a name.
Christ shed His blood for all... therefore making all humans of immeasurable worth whether they accept His gift or not.
We should follow His example and not temper ours.
The listener is responsible for his/her reception of the message, not the speaker (Providing we are speaking the correct message).
>>>Believing without evidence is a very dangerous place to be<<<
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1).
>>>‘And all of us have immeasurable worth because Christ shed His blood for us. That is what imparts value to human life, nothing less’
so non Christians have no living value at all...?<<<
Christ did not shed His blood for those that want no part of Him . . . an eternity in the lake of fire is all their intrinsic worth will get them without Christ.
All Christians are pro-life.
If you proclaim yourself a Christian that means you (the generic “you”) are a follower of Christ. How can you be a follower of Christ if you are doing, and promoting, something which Christ says not to do?
You either follow Christ or you don’t.
Please note that this does not say that Christians are sinless. We all sin, but we do not celebrate that sin and promote others to do that sin. We are shamed of our failures, repent of them and try our best to do better.
Someone who has not repented of their sin (say abortion) cannot be following Christ.
John 20:29 should answer that one.
If the above statement is your belief, how to you define "faith?"
Two entirely different cases. the first is blatantly against Christ’s word. The second has no biblical basis at all.
>>>what about those who preceded Christ; in whose image were they formed...?<<<
They had a works-based religion which required the shedding of blood and strict obedience to the law. They had the Torah . . . those that did not had not because they rejected the blood sacrifices of Noah and his sons. This is what explains the lack of a Bible-based faith in many parts of our world.
He doesn't just love those who love Him--He loves every single person on this planet who ever lived, or will live.
Christ died for every single person.
And the whole church said AMEN!
There is nothing in scripture that supports that statement.
All we know is that Eve believed she received a man from the Lord (because that is all she said)
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.