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.
All I pointed out was that the TEXT did not say so.
Was not Adam STILL 'made in the image of GOD' after the fall?
Thumping the Bibile at a secularist over abortion only makes one look like a kook. He simply does not understand. That is what Mike is saying. Evangelism needs to be done carefully to be effective. "To the Jew is am a Jew, to the Greek I am a Greek."
You are right.
The ‘True’ Scotsman’ fallacy.
We also hear it in our churches!
Genesis 4:1
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
If you are Pro-Abortion, you can’t be a Christian.
or
If you are opposed to Medicaid Expansion, you can’t be a Christian.
>>>Was not Adam STILL ‘made in the image of GOD’ after the fall?<<<
Yes he was . . . he was created thus - but he lost the immediate likeness at the fall.
It was restored soon after by God’s grace and Adam’s reception of the cure . . .
“Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them” (Genesis 3:21).
In order for God to make those ‘coats of skin’ an innocent sacrifice was made and the blood of those animals was shed.
This pictures the day when Jesus Christ would be the ‘lamb of God’ on the cross of Calvary. His resurrection sealed the deed and the Christian cross is now empty - like the tomb.
As a card-carrying “fundamentalist Bible thumper”, and I actually have a card, a membership card for the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship dated 1987, I would like to speak in defense of the kind of Bible quoting to which Professor Adams objects.
Of course he is perfectly logical about using and framing arguments that are designed to convince and persuade your opponents. Similarly, Ben Shapiro, an orthodox Jew, has explained why he never uses the Bible in argument as he feels it is an appeal to authority which shuts down actual discussion.
I could agree with the attitude if I were to accept the simple assumption that God is not really real practically speaking, we just pretend He is, we hope He is, but at the end of it all, He ain’t gonna actually boil anybody’s grits.
In a Deacons meeting one of the men said, “Pastor, prayin’ is fine, but we gotta DO something!” I knew exactly what he meant, so we did not “do” what that deacon wanted; we did nothing but pray. God answered with a $5000 donation completely out of the blue. That Deacon resigned and left the church.
When I quote the Bible, it is my way of including God, the actual, real, living God in the conversation, and I am pretty sure He doesn’t mind at all. (Psalm 94:7)
>>>And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.<<<
Eve mistakenly believed that Cain (the firstborn) was the fulfillment of the prophecy of Genesis 3:15 - but he was a murderer.
“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”
Her first mistake was thinking that Cain was from the seed of a woman . . . he was from the seed of the man.
Jesus Christ came from the seed of the woman whereby he avoided the curse of Adam.
Secular humanists believe in evolution. Man is just a highly evolved animal that is not different in kind from other animals. If other animals don't have an inalienable right to life then neither do humans.
HMMMmmm...
And yet...
HMMMmmm...
‘Abortion is wrong whether if you are a believer or not.’
I say ‘amen’ to that; I have become quite agnostic about the concept of deities; I don’t outright deny their existence, I simply find it highly unlikely...if by definition, this causes me to be a secularist (and/or libertarian), then the article is spot on, as the secularist must abide by his views on the equality of status for individuals, and the libertarian must hold to his views on personal freedoms...ipso facto, a secularist/libertarian can’t possibly be anything but pro life (as was dragged out of Chris Hitchens by Dennis Prager in an interesting interview)...
it is beyond belief that someone could criticize the author for defending life because he dared do so upon extra scriptural grounds; the word ‘moron’ is bandied about, and here it applies...
>>>and thou shalt bruise his heel - Genesis 3:15<<<
Did you know that crucifixion is the only form of capital punishment that ‘bruises’ the heel?
The cross was predicted 4,000 years before the fact.
>>>and thou shalt bruise his heel - Genesis 3:15<<<
Did you know that crucifixion is the only form of capital punishment that ‘bruises’ the heel?
The cross was predicted 4,000 years before the fact.
If a Christian or a Jew does not base his arguments on Biblical principles, which does not necessarily mean quoting specific verses in Scripture, on what does he base his arguments? There is natural law, but someone who interprets natural law as, say, B.F. Skinner did would be entirely at odds with someone whose understanding derives the writings of Thomas Aquinas.
An atheist is someone who believes there is no God because they have seen no evidence to lead them to believe in God.
An agnostic is an atheist who is trying to hedge his bets. :)
If you have seen no evidence of God/s, you shouldn’t believe in Him or them or whatever. Believing without evidence is a very dangerous place to be.
‘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...?
‘An agnostic is an atheist who is trying to hedge his bets. :)’
sorry that is nonsense...an agnostic is entirely aware of the fact that he/she cannot possibly know how creation came about, no matter the extent of his scientific learning, nor the fervency of his belief...
‘Believing without evidence is a very dangerous place to be.’
where did I say I believed in anything other than logical analysis...?
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.