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.
That's not what bhis own words say.
Matthew 15:
[23] But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
[24] But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
[25] Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
[26] But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
[27] And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.
[28] Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
John 3:
[16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
[17] For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
[18] He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
I’m not saying everyone will be saved. I am saying that His offer of Grace is open to everyone.
And I’m saying that those that reject His offer of salvation only proved that so far as they are concerned, Christ didn’t die for them.
Context . . . context . . . context
Interesting reading.
Interesting reading.
Galatians 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Abortion advocates should leave any church they hear a Right to Life message at.
A person cannot support killing babies and claim to be saved.
Recommend how to stop it.
>>>I live by the faith of the Son of God<<<
What grabs me from Galatians 2:20 is that it isn’t even ‘our faith’ that keeps us saved . . . but Jesus’ faith.
I’d say we are on a sound foundation standing on the solid Rock!
Oh for heavens sake ... they were not.
Show me anywhere in the Bible that states God created Adam and Eve perfect.
If they were perfect they could not have fallen.
Bible says that Jesus ‘learned’ obedience through the things that He suffered . . . and He was perfect.
“Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered” (Hebrews 5:8).
A perfect man can be tempted? Yup!
“For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted” (Hebrews 2:18),
“Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures”
So he made Heaven and Earth but He is too weak to Save a Pro-Abortion person.
You’re claiming that it is a matter of faulting God.
I’m affirming that it is a matter of faulting the abortion advocates.
The question was ... show me in the Bible where it says God created Adam and Eve perfect ...
You look for a while ... then go back to sleep ...
Romans 5:7-10 New International Version (NIV)
7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! 10 For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!
‘There are some things that I suspect are true but not enough to give it a name.’
we appear to be at loggerheads over a distinction without a difference...
‘Christ shed His blood for all... therefore making all humans of immeasurable worth whether they accept His gift or not.’
I’m certain that reassured all those who died before Christ’s recorded appearance, and who had no choice in accepting or not...SOL, apparently...
There is no “must abide” by logical arguement for any secularist as there is no higher arching logical authority to govern his or her pre biased thinking.
For the flexibly moral progressive it comes down to cleverly crafted tomes by which he may convince the majority of the simple minded to agree and accede to his point of view and/or to leverage the thinking of those who are trained militarily to enslave or slaughter those who will not bow to his proposed “utopia”. This is the essence of Washington’s warning concerning the “man on horseback”, that citizens, weary of infighting, might be tempted to turn to.
Washington’s advice was that it would be “religion and morality” that would be the “twin pillars” upon which our freedoms should rest.
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.