Approximately 24 hours ago Ray Comfort and his Living Waters Ministry released the short 180 Movie regarding the subject of abortion, which has not only exploded across social media but also reignited conversations all over North America over the moral question about abortion. A bit skeptical about the film, given the hype and build up to its release, I decided to give it a viewing, mostly because I knew I would encounter conversations about it in my circles and wanted to be properly informed. And good thing, too, for the conversations have been plenty. While many of those conversations have regarded the biblical and theological integrity of the Way of the Master gospel witnessing techniques, one of them tonight regarded the issue for which the film was made in the first place, which I want to share with you here. While I have changed the young man’s name to protect his identity, the following is the conversation that we had tonight over the moral question about abortion. He did not explicitly state his position on the subject but I gathered that for him the issue remains a somewhat open question (due to things he had said prior to the part I am sharing here), having not settled definitively on one side or the other. He is a Christian but converted quite recently, a matter of a few months ago. We pick up the conversation mid-stream, where he is critically evaluating the merits of defining life in the womb as human.

~ * ~

JOHN: I don’t think the biological distinction between “human” and “non-human” is the morally relevant question.

DAVID: What then is the morally relevant question as it pertains to valuing human life?

JOHN: It’s like I said: “persons” are afforded full dignity and value. In fact, we already know that not all persons are human beings anyway.

DAVID: Who or what defines personhood?

JOHN: Oh, well God, I should think.

DAVID: Does Scripture give any indication at which point such personhood becomes morally relevant?

JOHN: I have looked and, actually, I don’t think it’s very clear.

DAVID: So the Bible is unclear about human life in the womb?

JOHN: It doesn’t seem to be very clear on that issue.

DAVID: Are you familiar with Psalm 139:13-15 and Jeremiah 1:5?

JOHN: Yes.

DAVID: What is unclear about the moral relevance question in those passages?

JOHN: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.” I don’t see how that is going to make your case.

DAVID: That rather clinches it, I should think. Not only does God knit together the human life in the womb, but that life belongs and is known to him before that life is even conceived. Does that not indicate fairly clearly the moral relevance pertaining to the value of human life?

JOHN: It seems to be a statement of God’s foreknowledge, more than anything. I don’t think you can extrapolate anything else from that, particularly not anything helpful about dealing with a full-fledged person in the womb.

DAVID: That bothers me somewhat, that you don’t think anything beyond God’s foreknowledge can be extrapolated from that—such as, for example, his purpose for that human life, to which it is already set apart (consecrated) before it is even formed in the womb. The text rather explicitly states this. Ergo, you certainly can extrapolate more than God’s foreknowledge from this—not to mention what can be understood from this text and Psalm 139 about human life belonging to God.

JOHN: But the verse isn’t about that. It’s about God’s purpose for Jeremiah and foreknowing his destiny. I’d be more convinced if that verse was combined with more explicit statements about the topic, but that seems to be as good as it gets.

DAVID: How is what you said essentially different from what I said (vis-a-vis God’s foreknowledge and purpose for that human life)? You repeated what I said as if it was different from what I said.

JOHN: So, God making statements about foreknowing Jeremiah’s destiny implies that human life begins at conception? Non-sequitur.

DAVID: God foreknows Jeremiah’s destiny because he ordained it; before he was born God knew him, God consecrated him, God appointed him to a particular purpose.

JOHN: Yeah, right. So?

DAVID: What it implies, again, is that God not only knits together the human life in the womb but that human life belongs and is known to God before it is even conceived. That indicates rather clearly the moral relevance vis-a-vis the value of human life.

JOHN: Right, and God also foreknew that his parents would get together in the first place. I don’t think any relevant conclusion could be drawn from that, could it?

DAVID: John, that life is knit together in the womb by God; that life belongs and is known to God before it is even conceived. That life does not belong to itself, or to the mother or the father. It belongs to God. That is the morally relevant question as it pertains to human life.

JOHN: Yes, before he was even conceived God knew him. Obviously before he was conceived he wasn’t actually a person.

DAVID: Indeed. And yet even then that life belongs to God—because he is the one who brings it forth, knitting it together, having a purpose for it. If that life belongs and is known to God before conception, what about at conception or thereafter? You see what I mean?

JOHN: Okay, but in the situation outlined by the verse itself, God states that before Jeremiah was conceived God knew him. I think the “before” part is actually a problem to the argument.

DAVID: I cannot imagine how.

JOHN: Because if God knew Jeremiah even before he was conceived, then it must be that his parents had to get together or they’d be doing something wrong, frustrating God’s plans, not forming the life which is properly his, etc. And that seems highly implausible.

DAVID: That is an interesting and separate question from the one we are looking at.

JOHN: Well, I am arguing that perhaps the verse should not be taken in that direction, at the risk of implausible conclusions.

DAVID: Okay, let me address that. First, this subsequent issue you are raising pertains to the parents and their coming together, whereas our question pertains to the issue of moral relevance with respect to the value of human life. Therefore, it is a fallacious avenue to pursue (ignoratio elenchi). Second, we can certainly pursue that question if you like, but not until after the present question is settled. Third, your objection, at any rate, carries the implicit assumption that it is possible the parents could fail to come together (and thus do something ‘wrong’).

JOHN: I’m employing what I understand to be an analogous argument to yours about the nature of the verse, to demonstrate a reductio.

DAVID: See the second point.

JOHN: Yeah, I realize you think they are separate issues. But it strikes me as the same sort of reasoning being applied to different parts of the verse.

DAVID: Let us assume for the sake of argument that the verse carries the implication that I am arguing for. Let us continue in that vain. So, if that verse carries the implication I am arguing for, then what does that tell us about the moral relevance pertaining to the value of human life?

JOHN: That’s a loaded question (which is, by the way, what I think Ray Comfort was doing).

DAVID: An ‘arguendo’ does not a loaded question make.

JOHN: No, that’s not it. It’s the term “human life.” But setting that aside for a moment…

DAVID: Do we need to get into imago Dei? I would point to Psa 139:15 (cf. Job 10:9–11) as answering that question with its implicit reference to Genesis.

[A pause in the conversation for a few moments.]

JOHN: I think I lost track of what exactly I should answer—what the consequence would be of agreeing the verse implies that God directed the development of Jeremiah in the womb, or of agreeing that God directs the development of everyone in the womb? Sorry, I’m getting tired.

DAVID: You raised the issue of what the morally relevant question is with respect to valuing human life (with respect to the abortion issue in the context of The 180 Movie). My answer, calling upon those two texts from Scripture, seeks to answer you on that score, showing that the morally relevant question is answered by the fact that all human life belongs to God—not only in the womb but even prior to that. That is, abortion is wrong because that life belongs to God. Not to itself, nor to its mother, but to God. That answers what the morally relevant question is.

JOHN: Right, okay, which to me seems to leave us precisely where we started—namely, what counts as “human life.” The fact that God knew Jeremiah even before he was conceived (when obviously Jeremiah the person, the human life, was not around) doesn’t help to settle that question.

DAVID: If that person belongs and is known to God before it is a human life, would that not also apply to when it is a human life?

JOHN: If I accepted your interpretation of the verse for the sake of argument, that God knitting Jeremiah in the womb suggests that any developing embryo, fetus, etc., belongs to God and therefore only God has the right to direct what will or will not happen to that (developing) life, then yeah, I could see how that could apply to the morality of abortion. But I would suggest that that is a different argument than relying on defining a blastocyst as a human person or life or whatever. And I think that is a lot of weight for a single verse to carry, when the verse isn’t explicitly about that.

DAVID: Answer that question I asked you, please: “If that person belongs and is known to God before it is a human life, would that not also apply to when it is a human life?”

JOHN: You are assuming it all counts as human life. That is precisely what I question.

DAVID: I am getting to that.

JOHN: Okay. Then yeah, I granted that with my previous comment. (Also, I need to get going soon, after your next point.)

DAVID: All right, now observe the following. If that person belongs and is known to God before it is a human life (which answers the question of moral relevance), and if that person constitutes a human life upon being born (infant), then the moral relevance of abortion is answered at every stage in between—from conception to infancy.

JOHN: Right, which I just granted.

DAVID: At what point you happen to consider it a human life is irrelevant if that person belongs and is known to God even before it is a human life.

JOHN: Well, it wouldn’t be a person. But yes, I granted that.

DAVID: It would not be a person according to who or what?

JOHN: If the issue is that the (developing) human life or person “belongs to God” and therefore only God has the moral right to direct its progress or non-progress, then okay. That is an argument different from arguing that it is wrong because the blastocyst is a human life or person.

DAVID: Right. Whether it is a person, a human life, a potential human, etc., all of those points are irrelevant, given the answer to the moral relevance question.

JOHN: Okay. And I did explicitly state in the other conversation that a different argument could be advanced using a different morally relevant fact. So I think I will tentatively agree that, if I grant that interpretation of the verse, the argument could then follow.

DAVID: There are countless ways to answer this question. I have simply advanced two.

JOHN: Sure.

DAVID: The prior one I never actually got to finish because our conversation was hijacked.

JOHN: Yeah, the topic can rile people up.

DAVID: Are you too tired to argue for how that interpretation creates a problem for my argument?

JOHN: I think so. I am supposed to get up fairly early tomorrow. But, if you’d like, I’m game to pick it up another time.

DAVID: Sure thing.

JOHN: Okay, cool.

~ * ~

Have you watched The 180 Movie? Has it sparked conversations in your life about the moral issue of abortion? Do you have any positive encounters to share?

Scott Klusendorf, of the Life Training Institute, is arguably one of the world’s premier pro-life apologists, persuasively arguing for, and training others to defend, the sanctity of human life – especially the unborn.

When asked what a layperson can do to be a part of this mission, he suggests two foundational things that are “necessary, but not sufficient.”^[1] In other words, this is pro-life apologetics training 101.

1. READ. Read a lot! Get informed. The reason you need to become an aggressive reader is to build a knowledge foundation from which you can draw the raw material you need to engage people on this issue. It also builds confidence. When you know you have read the literature that is out there from many of the most important thinkers, then you’ll know that if you get asked a question, you won’t be caught totally off guard.

2. TEACH and EQUIP others to defend the inherent value of all human life. Some of you will notice that this is not dissimilar to the Christian commission, which requires us, after coming to place our trust in Christ, to become more informed about the basics of Christianity, and then to go out into the world to tell others and to train those who respond to do the same.

Read the rest of this entry

Modified: 11 December 2010 (“Objections and questions”)

For some of our readers and most of our staff, this argument is not exactly new. It was an argument I had formulated back in May of this year, in support of an article Adam had written against “pro-choice” rhetoric on abortion (Morgan, 2010). After having evaluated this argument from different angles and subjecting it to several tests from critical opponents, it appears that the argument is unassailable. Thus I want to use it as an illustration of what a strong argument is and what goes into it.

The anatomy of an argument

First, a few words about arguments, starting with what they actually are. Most people think of arguments as being a quarrel between two people, such as spouses or siblings, in which heated words are exchanged, voices raised, doors slammed and so forth. While that is the colloquial or informal sense, it is not how the term is used here, which is the formal sense of being a set of propositions intended to establish a conclusion. (A hat tip must be given to Michael Palin for this definition, which he expresses in the comedy sketch “Argument Clinic” in Monty Python’s Flying Circus [Cleese, 1972]. Sure it was comedy, but his definition of an argument was spot on). So to give an argument is to demonstrate the reasoning by which some belief is reached, where the belief functions as the conclusion that is then established by supporting reasoning.

Now there are two tests an argument must satisfy in order to be persuasive: it must be valid and it must be sound. Validity is the primary or most important test because the truth of the premises must logically guarantee the truth of the conclusion, otherwise the truth of the premises is made irrelevant (by failing to justify the conclusion). That is why the other test, soundness, is predicated on validity and thus secondary. In other words: (a) an argument is ‘valid’ if and only if the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion; (b) it is ‘sound’ if and only if the argument is both valid and the premises actually are true. Consequently, an argument that is valid and sound should be persuasive. ^[1] (It is worth pointing out that only arguments can be valid or invalid, not propositions, and only propositions can be true or false, not arguments.)

An example of a strong argument

Having said that, I would like to present what appears to be a sound argument; i.e., it is logically valid and the premises are actually true. In the face of critical evaluation by myself and several opponents, the argument holds firm. Even though the conclusion is highly controversial, neither premise can be easily denied.

Read the rest of this entry

So Tavarish published his “last reply” defending failed pro-choice rhetoric (at his blog ironically called The Usual Rhetoric), tackling my recent response to his five so-called counter-arguments against the pro-life stance. Since his arguments have not changed in any way, and my response already confronted them head-on, there is very little for me to add to this dialogue. This will be, then, a very brief summation.

Read the rest of this entry

In what is thus far the most commented article on this site, penned by our newest staff member Adam (see “How to respond to empty pro-choice rhetoric”), one of our regular visitors and a gentleman I enjoy talking with, Tavarish, recently posted five counter-arguments against the pro-life stance advocated by our staff writers. Not wishing for these issues to get archived deeper into the site as the article ages, I am addressing his five counter-arguments in a fresh article. And I am addressing each of them head-on, as he seems to suggest that no one has directly confronted them. For a full and proper context, please see the comments field to Adam’s article.

Read the rest of this entry

Last weekend, our very own Adam brought to our attention an article that was published in Australian’s Sydney Morning Herald on Wednesday 5 May. The author, Ms Nina Funnell, lamented that she believes women still do not have total authority over their own bodies. There is the Pill (which, I might add, recently became 50 years old) but yet there is still no widespread abortion-on-demand in Australia. On the latter, she is of course right: in Australia, only the State of Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory have decriminalized abortion. In all other states and territories, abortion remains illegal in just about all circumstances. As Ms Funnell points out in her article, a 19 year old woman and her boyfriend face a possible jail term of up to seven years for procuring an abortion in the state of Queensland. She doesn’t, however, provide any reason as to why this couple sought an abortion but we are expected to feel sorry for them, regardless.

Read the rest of this entry

I found this gem in a Sydney newspaper a couple of days ago. The article by Nina Funnell generated many comments, but it was the responses to Ms Funnell by one person in particular (Adrian) that I wanted to isolate here to highlight the bankruptcy of the pro-abortion view. I encourage you to read the article first, it’s not very long. 

The following exchange has been edited for clarity only (e.g. spelling, formatting, etc): 

Reproductive rights? Just because you give something a name it doesn’t mean it brings a concept into existence. You just made that rubbish up. And it’s a total nonsense. 

It’s just like a bloke who doesn’t want to pay child support simply claiming he is exercising his financial rights! It’s his money and he should be able to do what he wants with it. 

Or someone swearing and carrying on in a public place simply claiming that they are exercising their vocal rights. It’s their voice and they should be allowed to do what they want with it. 

Or someone going around breaking shop windows simply claiming they are exercising their physical rights to put their own fist wherever they see fit. It’s their fist and they should be allowed to do what they want with it. 

The concept of reproductive rights is as [ludicrous] as those three examples, and on par in its level of stupidity. 

Does the word “responsibility” mean anything to you? 

Nina, a philosopher you’re not. Stop trying. You really are failing quite miserably, even if your cheer squad think you’re a big thinker with big ideas!! Go on, make me laugh… 

Adrian | Adelaide – May 05, 2010, 11:06AM 

… Finally I think the best post here is the one that clearly articulates that abortion is first and foremost a MEDICAL issue. 

Nina Funnell | Sydney – May 05, 2010, 1:44PM 

[Nina Wrote:] “Finally I think the best post here is the one that clearly articulates that abortion is first and foremost a MEDICAL issue.” 

LOL!! Me dying from laughter is a medical issue much more so than abortion is. 

I’d love to know how you managed to reach that conclusion? My retort is quite simple – pregnancy isn’t a disease!! 

Dehumanise it if it makes you feel better. But remember that history [has shown] that dehumanisation is a standard pre-requisite to genocide. 

Abortion is a human rights issue Nina – encompassing rights of parents as well as children, born or unborn. That’s the philosophical spectrum that it falls into. 

If you can’t see that, then it’s no wonder that all your conclusions on this issue are so wrong. 

Adrian | Adelaide – May 05, 2010, 2:19PM 

Read the rest of this entry

There is little doubt in my mind that the pro-choicer today doesn’t have much of an argument that he can hang his hat on. When flailing and pontificating about abortion as a “choice”, his only real avenue is to resort to a discussion of rights. He cannot say that the unborn are not human – it is a medical fact that they are – and therefore that abortion doesn’t kill human beings. No – the pro-choicer must resort to other arguments; in fact, in advocating abortion he attempts to rationalize for the legal killing of an innocent human being by advocating for women’s rights. Hence, while his argument may concede that the unborn are indeed human beings he then declares that that ought to have no bearing on a pregnant woman’s rights to her bodily autonomy. But does the woman really have the right to kill her own offspring? Does the bodily autonomy argument hold up under close scrutiny? Well, if a recent discussion I had on the topic is anything to go by, I really do think the argument is left wanting. And if so, then surely the pro-choicer has no choice but to abandon his ill-fated position.

It Started at the End

I had been reading Ravi Zacharias’s book, The End of Reason: A Response to the New Atheists, which was written in response to the vitriol published by Sam Harris in his book, Letter to a Christian Nation. There was one particular discussion in Zacharias’s book that I took a liking to – not at all related to Harris’s book when taken out of its context, but one which served effectively well as a conversation starter on the topic of abortion and morality. Read the rest of this entry

If Mathew will forgive me for stepping into what is normally his arena, I would like to share an editorial published today in The Daily Courier, a local Kelowna newspaper.

Over the last few years, pro-life advocacy and activism has really begun to blossom in Kelowna, especially among the Millennial Generation (those under 30), and of course this is really getting under the nose of abortion supporters. In response to an editorial published last week by Kevin Ade, in which he vilified the pro-life movement (probably in response to the recent 40 Days for Life campaign across North America which had participants in front of Kelowna General Hospital), today Marlon Bartram, Executive Director of Kelowna Right to Life, wrote a poignant response to Ade that cuts succinctly to the heart of the matter, which I simply must share with you.

The following is Bartram’s editorial (almost) in full:

 
Normally I do not bother responding to ignorant, pro-abortion rants such as the one put forth by Kevin Ade in last Wednesday’s edition of The Daily Courier, but considering that his harsh attack was directed at my fine colleagues at Trail-Rossland Right to Life, I feel it my place to chime in.

There is not enough space here to comment thoroughly on Ade’s tacit support of China’s barbaric one-child policy (wherein forced sterilizations and abortions are routinely carried out on unwilling women and dead babies are found washed up on riverbanks), nor his approval of the mass culling of the most defenseless and innocent members of the human family in the name of “population control” … or his hateful demonization of pro-lifers as “deceitful,” “liars,” and “terrorists.” I will take time to respond on what I perceive to be the thesis of his column: the denial of any causal link between abortion and breast cancer.

Ade might be surprised to discover (if he dares to engage in a little open-minded research) that 80 percent of the 70 studies done on the issue since 1957 show a positive correlation between breast cancer and abortion. In addition, Ade seems to have missed the rather abundant media reports revealing that (former) fellow denier Louise Brinton of the National Cancer Institute (U.S.) admitted in a 2009 study that abortion does indeed raise the risk of breast cancer by 40 percent.

Although some of the aforementioned studies show as much as a 200 percent risk increase, let’s go with the lower 40 percent figure and put that into some context.

It is estimated that living with a smoker increases a non-smoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent. So I think it is safe to conclude that the risk of contracting lung cancer from public second-hand smoke is far less, given the comparatively reduced exposure. Yet that minimal public risk has resulted in massive anti-smoking campaigns and scores of legislation aimed at deterring, reducing, or outright banning smoking in public places.

Surprise, surprise, no such campaigns aimed at deterring, reducing, or banning abortion are undertaken when its harmful effects are uncovered. Instead, abortion groups, the media, and misguided politicians all minimize, ignore, and even libellously attack anyone who points to any health risk associated with abortion.

It is not just the breast cancer they rail against, but infertility, sepsis, hemorrhaging, death, depression, trauma, substance abuse, and scores of other physical, emotional, and psychological harms known to be associated with abortion. They do so not because it is in the best interest of women to be denied information on these risks; rather, they do so in order to preserve and promote their abortionist ideology.

Ade recklessly purports that “proselytizing is an abuse of privilege” and “the enforcement of bias upon others is terrorism.” Call it a hunch, but I suspect the self-avowed social activist and environmentalist fails to see any ‘terrorism’ involved when he proselytizes and enforces his left-wing, environmental, population control, abortionist bias on others. Let me guess: it’s only ‘terrorism’ when people with views different than your own speak out. Otherwise it’s just another benign editorial in a newspaper. Is that it?

So who, really, is acting in the best interest of women, children, and society here? Those who work to make the harmful effects of abortion known, or those who deny them in order to preserve their abortionist ideology at all costs, even at the cost of down-playing or ignoring very serious health risks to women?

Ade closes out by suggesting the pro-life movement “do the right thing and apologize.” In reality, when the day comes that abortion is seen for the horror it truly is and the terrible harm it has done to women, it will be the Kevin Ades of the world doing the apologizing.
 

Bartram, Marlon. “Only Those Who Disagree Are Apparently ‘Terrorists’.” The Daily Courier (Kelowna) 6 Apr. 2010, Letters sec.: A7. Print. (For more information on the link between abortion and breast cancer, see www.abortionbreastcancer.ca.)

But then who could put it more powerfully than John Piper did?

The truth of the phrase “a picture tells a thousand words” holds much persuasive power. The media has long used a variety of images to convey the truth and reality of situations far removed from the every day viewer; we use images to provoke, to emotionally stir and to captivate people’s attention. We are, by and large, a visually stimulated people. The success of the movie industry and of TV programming is testament to that. Yet can we intentionally use graphically disturbing pictures to promote a cause or to bring awareness of an issue to the uninitiated? Can we use images to sway our opponents on the abortion issue? If they’re used appropriately, then the answer is an emphatic, “yes”.

The use of pictures does have its place; the use of factual pictures entomb the truths of an event for future generations. One man who understood this in totality was General Eisenhower who, on visiting the Nazi concentration camp at Ohrdruf on April 12th, 1945, ordered that every citizen of the nearby town of Gotha visit the camp; that media personnel make full documentation; and that military cameras be sure to capture the horrific scene, immortalizing in photographs the barbarity and cruelty.

Said Eisenhower, “I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to ‘propaganda.’”^[1] Eisenhower envisaged that the documentation was necessary because, at point in the future, he believed there would be people who would deny that such astrocities ever took place, perhaps thinking them some elaborate conspiracy to stir the hearts and cloud the minds of a gullible people. Yet there are groups who deny the holocaust; I’m sure Eisenhower would not be surprised.

Read the rest of this entry