Resources on Partial Birth Abortion
Babies
Articles by Greg Koukl:
Morally Velocitized
What happens when a culture's decline in values begins to pick up speed? It becomes velocitized. What was unthinkable yesterday is thinkable today, and ordinary and commonplace tomorrow, like partial-birth abortion.
Nothing Hidden in D&X
The controversy surrounding D&X is not like other abortion debates, because D&X is no ordinary abortion. One strains to be able to understand the procedure in civilized terms. Partial-birth abortion make irrefutable what has been obvious to so many for a long time.
Partial Birth Abortion Is Not About Abortion
When we justify the killing of a fully human child because of severe, congenital defect, we are not making a case for abortion; we're promoting something much more chilling. Even the mothers involved know what's going on.
Partial Birth Abortion: Objections and Misunderstandings
Objections to a ban on partial-birth abortion fall into three categories: the silly, the false, and the inconsequential. Here are the facts on each one.
Stepping Over the Line
The partial-birth abortion debate puts us at a crossroads. In many ways, we've already stepped over the line in this quiet but desperate revolution in ideas.
Products:
In His Image
In His Image
by Steve Wagner
At the heart of some of the most divisive issues of our day (abortion, embryo research, cloning) lies the key question, "What makes human beings valuable?" The Bible gives a satisfying answer: A Being of sufficient power and authority created us with value. In this presentation, a survey is given of key Biblical passages that make the case for human value. Then the Biblical message is applied to the issue of abortion by focusing on one question, "What is the unborn?"
Precious Unborn Human Persons
Abortion and Human Rights
Gregory Koukl
Greg convincingly describes how the issue of abortion is truly no different than the issue of slavery. The issue to be considered is the issue of human rights.
divider
Let me ask you a question. Are you against slavery? Do you believe that the issue of slavery is a moral position? Are laws legislating that particular moral position appropriate? What you've said is that it's appropriate to legislate certain moral issues and that you'd be in favor of that. The economic issue would actually be on the side of the South because slavery is what propped up the economic system of the South. When slaves were emancipated it gutted them of their economic force. Let's remove the economic argument.
Based solely on morality, are you willing to say that the moral issue of slavery should be enforced simply as a moral issue? This is a very important point. Many people have offered the objection that we should not force a particular morality in the issue of abortion. My questions are very pointed and leading, and they were simply to make the point that virtually everybody who makes that kind of objection actually does believe that there are cases in which morality should be legislated. We talked about the obvious issue of slavery because there is the human rights issue that is at stake.
divider
The question for us is whether the unborn child is a human being that has inalienable rights in the same way that a black is a human being that has inalienable rights.
divider
My encouragement to you and anyone else who would espouse the same position is to understand that the pro-life side is arguing this issue on the basis of human rights. The question for us is whether the unborn child is a human being that has inalienable rights in the same way that a black is a human being that has inalienable rights. If that is the case, it is just as appropriate for us to legislate on the abortion issue as it is in the slavery issue. It's not just a casual parallel because in 1859 Judge Taney on the Supreme Court handed down the Dred Scott decision that declared that black people were not human beings and did not deserve protection under the law. That was a Supreme Court decision that was later overturned by The Emancipation Proclamation.
The point I'm making is that if you don't address this issue on a human rights basis then you're not addressing it on the basis that pro-lifers are addressing it. The questions should be asked about the appropriateness of abortion or about laws against abortion based on a human rights issue. To be honest with you, I and virtually every other pro-lifer will abandon the fight if the unborn child is not a human being worthy of being protected. We're not interested in getting into people's bedrooms and telling them how to have sex and how to live. We're not interested in restricting choices because we are bigoted and want to make people's lives miserable. We're interested in human rights just like those who argued against slavery.
If you are to reject my position on abortion, that's your prerogative. I respect your right to do that. But I would encourage you to engage intellectually the real critical issue: is the unborn child a human being? If you can answer for yourself with some rationality that there is no reason to believe that this is a human being, then I think you've justified your position. But I don't think the simple objection that it's not appropriate for one person to force their morality on someone else is ultimately legitimate. When questioned a little bit you acknowledge that that's not a valid way of approaching human rights issues.
What about cases of rape and incest?
divider
During the slavery debate, both in this country and at the turn of the century in England, the issues were framed in the same way: choice, the government shouldn't be in the position of legislating morality, the government shouldn't tell us how to run our private lives. Yet there a human being clearly was at issue.
divider
I don't say that it's permissible in those cases. I think you're pointing out an inconsistency in this discussion that is very valid. I agree entirely and this is why I do not hold that abortion should be allowed in those cases. This really demonstrates how important the question of the human rights of the child is because it compels us to certain conclusions. It removes from us the liberty of making ad hoc decisions based on our emotions. We must approach this in a disciplined way as a transcendent human rights issue. If we don't do that we are not doing the issue justice.
But what I don't want anybody to do is to mistakenly frame this issue as one of choice. It is not an issue of choice any more than slavery was an issue of choice. It's not an issue of what a woman can do with her body. Frankly, a woman can't do what she wants with her own body and neither can men. Laws restrict those freedoms given the right set of circumstances.
The issue to be considered here is the issue of human rights. It's unfortunate that the press and certain people arguing for one position have framed the question differently because they have missed the entire point. During the slavery debate, both in this country and at the turn of the century in England, the issues were framed in the same way: choice, the government shouldn't be in the position of legislating morality, the government shouldn't tell us how to run our private lives. Yet there a human being clearly was at issue. Even then when you had a living, breathing human being standing there staring back, they still could argue that way. I'm not a bit surprised that it could be done with an unseen infant that is growing out of sight in the womb of its mother.
Anyway that's my personal challenge to you to rethink this issue in a different fashion.
This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1992 Gregory Koukl
For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org
Kids: Have an Abortion, But Not a Smoke
Gregory Koukl
What's wrong with saying a kid cannot smoke or buy cigarettes?
divider
Today I'm starting with two compelling observations in Letters to the Editor of the LA Times on abortion freedoms and smoking restrictions.
A writer from Venice, California, notes: "I'm puzzled when I read that some politician has a moderate view on abortion. Abortion is killing an unborn child. I can approve this, or I can oppose it. But how can I have a moderate view on it? Between life and death there is no middle ground. Death is not moderate in any sense of the word. There is no way to be a little bit dead. Permitting the child to live is the moderate position since it leaves all other options open and possible. Pro-life is not an extreme. Those who target the vulnerable unborn for death are the extremists."
I like this observation, ladies and gentlemen, because it touches on something very important, that when a middle ground is offered as a "moderate view" on abortion, it's never moderate at all.
I've read a number of pieces promoting a kind of middle ground--a so-called "moderate view" on abortion. Every single one of them is pro-abortion. Every single one! How does one offer a moderate view that turns out to be a pro-abortion view? It may be moderate in terms of the reasons , but the result is still the same...a dead child.
Even if I weren't willing, for the sake of being careful not to put a "spin" on my language, to call the unborn an unborn child , as this writer does, still it's an unborn human being . That ought to be clear. And moderate positions and extreme pro-abortion positions both end up the same way, with dead, unborn human beings.
The pro-life position may seem extreme in that no killing of unborn children is allowed (Isn't it odd to be labeled extreme because you believe that the killing of an innocent child is unacceptable?), but it does seem to offer the most options, as the writer points out. I think it's a very compelling point. Good for you, Roderick Gereeney of Venice, California.
divider
Laws that protect human life are vital, and human life is what is at issue with abortion.
divider
Another piece also caught my eye. It comes from Mary Alice Altorter in Santa Maria. She writes: "Hasn't President Clinton been the premier advocate of the freedom to choose since his first day of office? He contradicts himself with limitations that he now puts upon smoking. Choice is at issue here. Pandering for new votes, the President compromises his previously-held position on this matter. If a minor girl has the inalienable right to an abortion, then she and her boyfriend should have the same right to a smoke also."
I frequently see letters like this one which address the issue of consistency on both sides of the political aisle. Sometimes the criticism is on target, but sometimes it misses the boat, because it ignores critical details.
For example, Republicans are called inconsistent because they say they want to decrease government intrusion in our lives, but then try to restrict a woman's choice to have an abortion. But this miscasts the Republican position. Their appeal for smaller government doesn't mean they believe there should be no laws whatsoever. Laws that protect human life are vital, and human life is what is at issue with abortion. There's no inconsistency here. This objection treats protecting the lives of unborn children as trivial and inconsequential intrusion into our private lives.
But Mary Alice's objection about President Clinton and smoking seems right on target. If a woman, even a teenager, even a minor, even without her parents' consent has an inalienable right to have an abortion, then how does one argue she can't do something less violent to her body than such a medical procedure, and less violent to the body of another human being--the unborn child--than smoking? How does one argue this is no longer an acceptable choice?
This relates to the question of paternalism. How much should the government be involved in taking a fatherly role in protecting you? Whenever the government forces you to protect yourself, that's paternalistic. The government says, "I know what's best for you. I'll protect you from yourself. Do as I say."
There are different views on the amount of government paternalism that is appropriate. I personally think cigarettes are damaging and unhealthy. But I don't think the mere fact that something is unhealthy gives the government liberty to restrict it. I think I'd tend to be in favor of government letting kids smoke if they wanted to--of not restricting that option--because of the issue of freedom. And I'd also be in favor of people driving motorcycles without helmets. I tend to be more libertarian here.
However, with freedom comes responsibility. The two go together. If a smoker gets sick, he shouldn't expect the government to bail him out. If you ride a motorcycle without a helmet and crack your head open, don't expect the government to pay the bill. If you want the government to come in like a father and take care of you, then you surrender the freedom to anything you want, just like a child does. As I said, the two go together.
This is where many politicians are inconsistent in their philosophy of government. If the government is not responsible for my personal choices about my own health, fair enough. If I want to smoke, I can smoke, and if I want to drive without a helmet, I can drive without a helmet. That's my own business. If the government is going to get out of private decision making-- especially private decision making that pertains to individual health as opposed to how my actions effect the health of other people--then they should get out of it and let people make their own decisions.
Whatever the threshold, the issue of consistency is important. The irony with the abortion/smoking confusion is that abortion kills another human being--which ought to be the legitimate province of law--yet smoking threatens only the health of those who choose to take the personal risk.
Mary Alice makes a fair point. If the government is willing to say that something as extreme as abortion is a private, personal choice (so much so that even the real father of the girl seeking the abortion can't interfere), then how do they justify their own paternalism by taking a cigarette out of the hand of a teenager because she just isn't old enough to decide for herself?
This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1996 Gregory Koukl
For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org
Resources for Additional Study
Title Author Contents Price
Pro-Life 201: Beyond the Basics Scott Klusendorf 4 cassettes & study notes $16.95
Bad Thinking from the Ivory Towers: Answering New Arguments for Abortion Rights (Masters Series 2000) Scott Klusendorf 2 cassettes $8.95
Abortion & Moral Chaos: The Role of the Clergy in Building Christian Thinkers Scott Klusendorf cassette $5.95
<
© 2005 Stand to Reason ARR | 1438 East 33rd Street, Signal Hill, CA 90755
Voicemail (800) 2-REASON TM | Local phone (562) 595-7333 | Fax (562) 595-7332 | questions@str.org
Partial-Birth Abortion Is Not About Abortion
Gregory Koukl
When we justify the killing of a fully human child because of severe, congenital defect, we are not making a case for abortion; we're promoting something much more chilling. Even the mothers involved know what's going on.
divider
If there is no good reason to allow partial-birth abortion, then why the intense resistance? Why is there so much confusion on this? Why do so many--mothers, doctors, Senators, members of Congress--accept such bad reasons for this barbaric practice?
As I turned this question over in my mind, I realized in a flash of insight why people don't see the obvious. They misunderstand this procedure--partial-birth abortion, D&X abortion--because of one very misleading term: abortion.
Abortion is sacred to many in this country. "Abortion is a woman's Constitutional right, therefore all abortions must be defended," you'll hear. "Make one type of abortion illegal and the dominoes begin to fall," others warn.
There's a problem, though. Simply calling a procedure an abortion doesn't make it one. A thing is what it is, regardless of the name used for it. Language may change perception, but it doesn't change the thing itself.
An abortion is what happens to a child within the womb of its mother. This is clear from every court case dealing with the issue. In partial-birth abortion, however, the delivery is 85% complete. The child is not on the inside of its mother when it's killed; it's on the outside.
If partial-birth abortion is not really an abortion, then what is it? Let me ask a question. What is it called when a newborn child is killed outside the womb? It's not called an abortion; it's called infanticide. The chilling truth is this: Partial-birth abortion is not really abortion; it's infanticide. It's the killing of an innocent human child outside his mother's body, often solely because of the baby's handicap.
Even the Mothers Know
Coreen Costello had a partial-birth abortion last spring, midway through her third trimester. In her testimony before the Senate she said, "Our darling little girl was going to die."[1] Why was her little girl going to die? Because she had a lethal neurological disorder, and therefore Mrs. Costello, a Christian pro-lifer, chose a D&X abortion.
Please, do not mistake the argument here: "'We must kill our darling little girl.' 'Why?' 'Because she's severely handicapped and is going to die anyway.'" Even if you sympathize with Coreen's reasons, realize this is not an argument for abortion; it's an argument for infanticide. When you justify the killing of a human child because of a severe, congenital defect, you are making a case for euthanasia, not abortion.
(In Mrs. Costello's case, it's not clear she even had a partial-birth abortion as defined in HR 1833. In a moving account distributed nationwide by the New York Times News Service, Costello claims her pregnancy was life-threatening, and that the anesthesia killed the baby before delivery. Both conditions would exempt her from the restrictions of this bill. Nevertheless, my point still stands. Here is a clear admission of the full humanity of the child before its birth. Costello even refers to her little girl by name, Katherine Grace.)[2]
Both of the women I heard in radio discussions said they held their babies and sang to them after their partial-birth abortions. Why would a mother gently cuddle the dead body of her aborted child? Would she cradle her extracted tonsils and sing softly to them? Would she affectionately name her spleen after it's been surgically removed from her body? "This is different," she'll tell you. "It's my baby."
This is a tacit admission that these children were human beings. If the baby's body is a human corpse after the abortion, then how can one ever deny the baby was a human child before it was killed?
Do you know what this tells us? Their actions and their words prove they're talking about taking the life of a fully human baby. It tells us that even the mothers know that human children are being killed because of their handicap. Do you know what you call that? You don't call it abortion; you call it infanticide.
Changing Tactics
Pro-abortionists know this. Graham Walker of the Orange County Register points out, "Schroeder and Boxer didn't stick to pro-choice logic. They didn't oppose the criminalization bill on the grounds that a woman's reason for choosing an abortion is no business of anyone's except the woman and possibly her doctor. Instead, they opposed the bill on the grounds that the reasons women elect this particular abortion procedure are 'good' reasons, not frivolous ones."[3]
Since Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the courts have spoken. They have not allowed any meaningful restriction on any kind of abortion. Abortion is a matter of privacy and choice. Period.
If D&X is really an abortion, then why any further defense or justification? Here's why: the same action taken on the same baby at the same stage of development would be felony infanticide if the child moved a mere three inches further down the birth canal.
Dr. Pamela Smith of Mt. Sinai Hospital in Chicago told the House Judiciary Committee, "The surgeon must move quickly to insure that the baby does not manage to move the inches that are legally required to transform its status from one of an abortus to that of a living human child."[4]
Pro-abortionists know that D&X is not a standard abortion, so the standard justifications--a woman's right to privacy or her right to choose--don't work. I have yet to hear the challenge, "You can't tell me what I can do with my own body," applied to partial-birth abortion.
The emerging baby is clearly not her body--not a piece of tissue, or a "conceptus," or even a fetus--but a child's body coming forth from hers. It's her son or daughter, squirming and writhing, struggling to complete its entry into the outside world.
Pro-abortionists know they need stronger justification, so they switch to arguments traditionally used to defend euthanasia. Everybody knows intuitively what's going on here. The mother knows. The doctors and nurses know. Pro-abortionists know. But it doesn't seem all that bad.
We listen to heart-rending personal anecdotes by anguished moms who desperately wanted their babies, but something went wrong. Moved with emotion we concede, "Well, I can understand her decision. I'd do the same thing myself." Coreen Costello said, "[I] always believed abortion was wrong. Then I had one."[5]
Such personal glimpses are moving, even compelling, but unfortunately cause us to lose sight of the real question at hand: How ought we treat physically imperfect children, even if they are destined to die soon after birth?
The answer now being given is the wrong one and increases the velocity of our moral decline as we slide further down the slippery slope.
Slipping Down the Slope
Ethics makes a distinction between two kinds of slippery slopes. The "causal slippery slope" is like a line of dominoes falling. An action that might be morally benign in itself, leads to something else that's immoral, casting a shadow on the first. For example, if pornography causes violence against women, then pornography may be morally suspect.
The second is called a "logical slippery slope." When one thing is immoral, and a second is logically similar in a morally relevant way, the moral quality of the one slips over into the other. Murder is immoral, and some think capital punishment is similar enough to murder to make capital punishment immoral too. That's how it works.
A logical slippery slope can slip in either direction. If you have a morally acceptable thing, and something else is logically similar to it, then arguably the second thing becomes morally acceptable, too.
Judith Jarvis Thompson justifies abortion using a logical slippery slope tactic in her famous argument, "A Defense of Abortion."[6] Thompson describes a woman surgically connected, against her will, to a world-famous violinist who has a lethal kidney ailment. The connection is temporary--only nine months--and is necessary to save his life.
In Thompson's view, the woman is morally justified to disconnect the violinist even though he'll die. Abortion is a meaningful parallel to unplugging the violinist, according to Thompson. Therefore, it's moral to abort a child, even if he or she is a fully human person, just like the violinist. The moral acceptability of the first act, the argument goes, "slips" over into the second act.
The Real Reason
The partial-birth abortion question places America at a critical juncture in the sanctity of life debate. Which way will we slide?
When you start with the view that abortion is a sacred right, then by reason of a logical slippery slope, you must argue for anything called abortion. "All abortions ought to be legal. D&X is an abortion. Therefore, D&X ought to be legal, too." Slide a bit further and it looks like this: "If partial-birth abortion is moral, and partial-birth abortion is essentially the same as infanticide, then infanticide must be moral, too."
We could, however, regain our moral sanity and slide the other way. If this atrocity is made illegal, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the very same thing is happening out of sight inside the womb in every late-term abortion. If the first is morally grotesque and illegal, then the second is grotesque and should be illegal, too.
Pro-abortionists know this, and that's why they're fighting so hard. They want freedom of choice at any cost, regardless of the moral consequences. When they raise the alarm, "This is the first step towards making all abortions illegal!", we finally have their real objection to HR 1833.
It's a legitimate fear. Once one realizes D&X abortions are clearly immoral, it's going to be hard to justify any late-term abortion. On the other hand, if it's clear that a living human child is being butchered, yet D&X remains legal simply because abortion is legal, then even the hardiest libertarians should realize there's something terribly wrong with the current state of abortion law.
No Clear Moral Intuitions
The question we now face is, "Which way will we slip?"
Will we admit D&X is really infanticide by another name? Will we then recognize that any late term abortion under cover of the mother's womb is enough like D&X to be immoral, too? If partial-birth abortion is de facto infanticide, what meaningful moral distinction is there between infanticide and any other late-term abortions? They all destroy a little human being.
Or will we slide the other way? Will the public, will the Congress, will the President admit that pro-lifers are right (that partial-birth abortions are virtual infanticide), but then conclude that since abortion is moral--and here we slip the other way--then infanticide must be moral, too?
We can go either way. That's why we're at such a critical juncture.
Don't count on much help from clear-case examples, either. These depend for their force on having a fairly robust moral intuition intact to begin with. If one asked, "Would we do this to a two-week-old child?", many would shrug their shoulders and say, "Why not? Take the baby's life right now and use its organs for somebody else."
Even as I write, the LA Times features a letter from Dr. Charles Plows, Chair of the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association. He wants the liberty to harvest organs from children born anencephalic, missing most of their cerebral cortex.
Dr. Plows calls it a "life saving" policy considering the "numbers of infants born with vital organs that are incapable of sustaining life who are dying because of the lack of donors...."[7] But the donors he has in mind are living children who would be euthanized, sacrificed for their body parts.
Of course, you'll never hear any put it that way. You won't hear the word infanticide. Instead, you'll hear about the safest late-term abortion technique yet: deliver the baby completely, then kill it.
What kind of abortion is this, you ask, where the doctor delivers the child before taking her life? Why, it's a post-natal abortion, of course.
The Ostrich Fallacy
This debate is like the proverbial ostrich hiding its head in the sand, blocking out the world to escape trouble. We use the illustration to discredit someone who won't see the obvious. He is a fool who, like the ostrich, thinks the real world disappears when his head is covered and his eyes are closed.
Those defending partial-birth abortions want to define the real world of the child by where its head is located. But how much of a newborn's body must be inside the mother to justify killing it? The baby's arm? His little fist? Why not just one finger?
If the baby was a bird, we'd call this stupid. Instead, it's considered sound ethics. Those who hold this view are themselves sticking their heads in the sand. They ignore what's obvious to anyone who has his eyes open: D&X abortion is infanticide with the baby's head covered.
[1] Quoted in Robin Abcarian, "Lifesaving Option or Criminal Conduct?", LA Times, Nov. 26, 1995.
[2] Coreen Costello, "Late Abortion Tragic, Private Matter, Not Decision for Congress to Make," New York times News Service, featured in LA Daily News, Conejo Valley edition, Dec. 4, 1995, p. 2.
[3] Graham Walker, Orange County Register, "Why Stop at the Third Trimester?", Nov. 10, 1995.
[4] Dr. Pamela Smith, testimony before the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, June 15, 1995.
[5] Costello.
[6] Judith Jarvis Thompson, "A Defense of Abortion," Journal of Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1 (1971), p. 47. I'm currently working on a full critique of Thompson's argument for a future edition of Clear Thinking.
[7] LA Times, January 17, 1996, B-8.
This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©2003 Gregory Koukl
For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org
Rape & Abortion
Gregory Koukl
Greg wonders why pro-life candidates seem unable to articulate these clear responses when challenged on abortion in the case of rape.
divider
I really dislike politics.
Why are major pro-life presidential candidates so bad at answering for the pro-life position?
During the 1992 race, vice-presidential candidates Gore and Quayle went face to face. Quayle fumbled badly when Gore asked him directly, "Would you take away a woman's right to choose abortion?" Here was a great chance to bring some moral clarity to the discussion. Instead, he babbled.
Mr. Quayle might have simply answered: I think the question is phrased wrong. Rather, "Why do you think it's OK to kill an innocent human being just because it's in the way and can't defend itself?" If Al Gore objected to that characterization, it would be very fair to say, "Which one of my terms is inaccurate? Kill? Innocent? Human being? Defenseless? In the way? (Maybe you'd prefer "troublesome," "expensive," or just simply "crippled"?)
The most recent squandered opportunity came last night. (Alan Keyes went on a hunger strike. Maybe if that doesn't work he'll just hold his breath until he turns blue. That'll really show 'em.)
"If a woman was brutally raped and would be emotionally traumatized by carrying to term, would you allow her to have an abortion, or would you force her to have the child?"
This is a perfect forum for clarifying this issue, an ideal opportunity for a leader to offer clearheaded advocacy for the unborn, a terrific time to clear the rhetoric from the air and get to the real issue.
The simple answer is: Why complicate the crime of rape with the crime of taking an innocent child's life? Or, to put it another way: Why should the child pay with its life because its father is a rapist? (This is even a better response because it asks a question.)
Now that's the basic idea, and there are many variations that would really instruct the American people.
He could say: Why should this revolting crime against a woman be answered by taking the child's life? Oh, I understand that might ease the mother's pain, it might make the mother feel better (though, it may make things more difficult, too). But even if it did, even if she felt great afterwards, is that a good reason to take the life of an innocent human being, because it removes the reminder of the terrible violation she experienced? We wouldn't even allow the mother to kill the rapist, the one who did the crime, to make her feel better. Why should we then let her kill the child?
This last idea could be put more succinctly: Should we allow the mother to summarily kill the guilty rapist if he was caught, so she would feel better? Then why should she be allowed to kill the innocent child to feel better?
Now, why couldn't he think of this? Or why couldn't his handlers work this out for him if he couldn't do it on his own?
Or he could say: If we allowed an abortion under those circumstances it would send a terrible message, that when someone reminds you of something extremely painful you can eliminate them. But you can't kill another human being just because their existence makes your life physically or emotionally burdensome.
"But," you might say, "it's my body and I can do what I want with it."
First, that's simply not true. This country is laced top to bottom with laws that govern what you can do with your body, and they're especially restrictive when your actions might harm another person. But second--and more to the point--if that's really true then this exception for rape completely misses the issue. If you really can do what you want with your body, and if your body and no one else's body is involved, then abortion shouldn't just be allowed in the case of rape or incest; it should be allowed in every case.
He could say further : I'm really glad you brought this up, because it clarifies for us what the real issue is in abortion: What kind of living thing is resting in its mother's womb? If the unborn child is not a living person, then no excuse for abortion is necessary. If it is, then no excuse for abortion is adequate.
Ladies and gentlemen, let me make a very important point. These are not slick ways of sidestepping a tough issue. This is not clever "handling," or putting a deft "spin" on the issue. This is not rhetoric; it's moral education. And our country's leaders should not just tell us what to believe, they should give us understanding and justification. They should be able to tell us why to believe it, why this is a sound, moral, course of action. They should elevate us. That's what leaders do; they lead.
He could add: If I had a law on my desk that restricted abortion except in the cases of rape or incest I would sign it, even though I don't think rape and incest ought to be exceptions. I'd just rather save 98% of the children whose lives are taken through abortion rather than none.
"Well, Koukl, maybe you couldn't think of all these answers on your feet either." Maybe you're right. But first, I'm not running for President of the United States. Second, maybe I should be able to rattle that off in any situation when needed even if I wasn't running for President. Maybe every pro-lifer should be able to do that. Think of what's at stake. Are we concerned enough about this--or any important issue--to be able to understand what's at stake and be able to articulate it in a snappy way?
This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1996 Gregory Koukl
For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org
Resources for Additional Study
Title Author Contents Price
Making Abortion Unthinkable: The Art of Pro-Life Persuasion Mentoring CDs Gregory Koukl and Scott Klusendorf 6 CDs $24.95
Bad Thinking from the Ivory Towers: Answering New Arguments for Abortion Rights (Masters Series 2000) Scott Klusendorf 2 cassettes $8.95
Pro-Life 101: A Step-by-Step Guide to Making Your Case Persuasively Scott Klusendorf booklet, 69 pages $7.00
Abortion: If You Can’t Beat ‘Em, Join ‘Em?
Gregory Koukl
The last few years have witnessed a stunning development in the pro-life movement, one worth considering.
The problem: More and more pro-lifers refuse to discuss abortion. A new wave of pro-life leaders insist that victory will not be gained if the debate centers principally on the morality of killing the unborn.
Paul Swope calls it “a failure to communicate” when right-to-lifers focus primarily on the unborn instead of on the felt needs of women. “The pro-life movement must show that abortion is actually not in a woman’s own self-interest,” he says. Reframing the debate will enable the movement to “regain the moral high ground in the mind of the American public.” The message is clear: Focus on the life of the mother, not the death of the child.
But it’s hard to imagine how appealing to self-interest could be an effective general strategy. Here’s why: It’s almost always in a woman’s short-term self-interest to abort. This is precisely why the pro-abortion side has been effective. A focus on felt needs favors death, not life.
How can we “regain the moral high ground in the mind of the public” if we retreat from the moral debate? The whole point of an ethical argument is to turn people from selfish interests to what is right. Felt needs are the problem, not the solution.
This approach completely sabotages the pro-life position. Crisis pregnancy centers do not exist to handle pregnancy (hospitals and clinics do that). They handle crisis pregnancies, those that will likely end in abortion. They don’t exist for the woman, strictly speaking, but for the child whose life is in danger. Women should not have abortions precisely because abortion is a moral tragedy. If not, then why oppose it?
By contrast, this new tactic implicitly promotes the vice of selfishness instead of the virtue of sacrificial motherhood. Ideas have consequences, and this one may have, as Frank Beckwith observes, “the unfortunate consequence of increasing the number of people who think that unless their needs are pacified they are perfectly justified in performing homicide on the most vulnerable of our population.”
Shifting the focus away from the unborn is morally disastrous, undermining the legitimacy of the entire pro-life case. Our position just is a moral one, period. Abandoning the ethical foundation for a trendier message means the pro-life movement no longer has any reason to exist. Instead, if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.
Our growing reluctance to advance moral arguments and instead focus on the self-interest of the mother is a tacit admission we either don’t have a moral case to offer or that it simply doesn’t matter because it’s irrelevant. In either instance, pro-lifers have not just abandoned the moral argument, they’ve abandoned the fight altogether. This we cannot do.
Partial-Birth Abortion: Objections and Misunderstandings
Gregory Koukl
Objections to a ban on partial-birth abortion fall into three categories: the silly, the false, and the inconsequential. Here are the facts on each one.
divider
Suggested defenses of partial-birth abortion usually fall into three categories. First, detractors say the legislation is unnecessary because the procedure is so rare. Second, D&X abortion is a vital medical option necessary to save the life of the mother. Third, the fetus dies even before the abortion takes place, so the procedure is morally benign.
Objection #1: The Procedure is Very Rare.
This was one of the first objections raised by Sam Donaldson on a recent broadcast of "This Week with David Brinkley."[1] He noted that only about 450 partial-birth abortions are done each year. Only two doctors (Haskell and McMahon) did the procedure, he added, and one of them (McMahon) was now dead. This is the same information quoted in National Abortion Foundation materials.[2]
Haskell and McMahon, however, are not the only doctors using this procedure. The New York Times, November 6, 1995, quoted a gynecologist at a New York teaching hospital who said, "Of course I use it, and I've taught it for the last 10 years....So do doctors in other cities."[3] Further, Haskell and McMahon have written on and promoted this technique for years (I quoted earlier from Haskell's instruction manual).
Even if this objection was true, it hardly seems significant. George Will pointed out that two jumbo jets crashing would result in "only" 450 casualties, but who would minimize such a disaster?
This objection turns out to be silliness. If the fetus is nothing more than a blob of tissue, then a million abortions a day have no moral consequence. However, if these abortions kill innocent human children, then why ignore even a single, preventable death?
Another rare occurrence might bring this objection into focus. Since the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion on demand, there have been five killings of abortion providers. That's "only" one dead every four and a half years. That was enough, however, to stimulate a barrage of legislation. Why should partial-birth abortion be different?
Objection #2: D&X Abortions May Save the Life of the Mother.
The National Abortion Federation literature states unequivocally, "Women seeking later abortions do so for very serious reasons. All abortions taking place in the third trimester are for reasons of serious fetal abnormality or a risk to the life of the woman"[4] [emphasis in the original]. They cite as their source the Abortion Fact Book published in 1992 by the Allan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, and the NAF quarterly statistical reports of 1994.
But that's not what the doctors who've performed most of these abortions say.
The American Medical News--the official newspaper of the AMA--documented Dr. Haskell's forthright admission during a tape-recorded interview. "And I'll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range. . . . In my particular case, probably 20% [of these abortions] are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective."[5]
Dr. McMahon voluntarily submitted to the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee a sample of 175 partial-birth abortions he performed. In its official report the committee notes that 22% of the total abortions were for reasons of depression, not protection of the mother's life.[6]
Interestingly, even in the NAF material the reasons cited for why some doctors prefer this procedure have nothing to do with the life of the mother. It "prevents unnecessary bleeding and has a low complication rate. Reaction from the patients is positive [and] they found the surgery less painful and difficult than they expected." Some families just "want a chance to say good-bye."[7]
These may all be important considerations, everything being equal, but note that no doctor mentions threat to the mother's life, even in the pro-abortion material. There's a reason the doctors don't emphasize it: there is no threat.
Dr. Pamela Smith, Director of Medical Education in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Mt. Sinai Hospital in Chicago, said, "There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life of the mother."[8]
In fact, breech births after the fashion of D&X are more dangerous. Partial-birth abortion is a variation of a breech-birth technique used by obstetricians to deliver a living child, often a twin.[9] Ironically, this procedure has been largely replaced by Caesarean section, specifically because a c-section is safer.[10]
There's a simpler way of dealing with this objection, though. Just ask, "If the law allowed this procedure when it was necessary to protect the mother's life, would you drop your objection?" It does.
The Senate version of the bill, in Sec. 1531. (a), states, "This paragraph shall not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury, provided that no other medical procedure would suffice for that purpose."
Breech delivery is risky. Standard delivery is the safest. D&X abortion does not protect the life of the mother. When there is an exception, HR 1833 permits a partial-birth abortion.
Objection #3: The Anesthesia Kills the Baby Before the Abortion Begins.
Robin Abcarian, defending D&X in her LA Times column, wrote, "[The mother] was given enough anesthesia and analgesic that her baby was dead before he was delivered."[11] A USA Today editorial on November 3, 1995, also claimed, "The fetus dies from an overdose of anesthesia given to its mother."
Senator Carol Moseley-Braun (D-Il.), Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, and Ellen Goodman in her widely syndicated column all made the same claim. Most depend on a statement Dr. McMahon made in a written submission to the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee on June 23, 1995.[12]
Such misinformation sent a shock wave through the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA). Dr. Norig Ellison, president of the 32,000 member organization, took heated exception with the claim before the Senate Judiciary Committee, November 17, 1995.
Dr. Ellison said McMahon's statement is "entirely inaccurate." He added, "I have not spoken with one anesthesiologist who agrees with Dr. McMahon's conclusion, and in my judgment, it is contrary to scientific fact. It simply must not be allowed to stand."[13]
Dr. Haskell knows from personal experience that the child is often alive during this procedure. Because of the misinformation circulating on this question, American Medical News has released a transcript of a taped conversation with him from 1993.
AMNews: Let's talk first about whether or not the fetus is dead beforehand....
Haskell: No, it's not. No, it's really not....In my case, probably about a third of those are definitely are [sic] dead before I actually start to remove the fetus. And probably the other two-thirds are not."[14]
Not only is the pro-abortion claim false; even if true it's irrelevant to this legislation. In Sec. 1531. (a) (1) the legislation specifically defines a partial-birth abortion as, "an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery" [emphasis added].
If the child is dead before delivery begins, then the abortion does not fall under the restrictions of this bill, so the point is moot. Simply put, if the child is dead, then the law does not apply. The procedure is allowed.
Silly, False, and Inconsequential
Let's review the objections. The first one, that the procedure is extremely rare, is silly. Further, if it's so rare, then why object to the ban? Other abortion procedures unchallenged by this law can accomplish the same end.
The second one, that this kind of abortion protects the life of the mother, fails on two counts. One, the amended bill provides for D&X when it's the only thing that will save the mother. Two, such a circumstance almost never occurs. Other forms of legal abortion are safer. The breech birth required in a partial-birth abortion is much more dangerous for women than a normal birth. Ask any obstetrician.
The third one, that the baby is dead before the delivery, is inconsequential. If this was true (which it isn't, in most cases), then the legislation simply wouldn't apply.
Every objection to a ban on partial-birth abortion fails completely. Then why the vigorous resistance by pro-abortionists? Because there's more at stake here than meets the eye. Partial-birth abortion is not just about abortion; it's about much more.
[1] Dec. 10, 1995.
[2] National Abortion Federation, "Later Abortions: Questions and Answers," The Abortion Rights Activist, p. 2.
[3] Cited in Douglas Johnson, "Facts on Partial-Birth Abortion," NRLC, Nov. 29, 1995, p. 3.
[4] NAF, "Later Abortions: Questions and Answers," p. 1.
[5] Statistic noted in Diane M. Gianelli, "Outlawing Abortion Method," American Medical News, AMA, Nov. 20, 1995, p. 70. Actual quote taken from American Medical News audio tape transcript, on file with Barbara Bolsen, AMN Editor.
[6] NRLC brief, "Senate Hearing Explodes Pro-Abortion Misinformation About Partial-Birth Abortions," Nov. 28, 1995, p. 5; and "Facts on Partial-Birth Abortion," NRLC, Nov. 29, 1995, p. 4.
[7] NAF, "Later Abortions: Questions and Answers," p. 2.
[8] Gianelli, p. 3.
[9] "Why, if it's dangerous to the mother's health to do this when your intent is to deliver the baby alive, that this should suddenly become...the safe method when your intention is to kill the baby?" Dr. Pamela Smith, testimony to Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, cited in Johnson, p. 11.
[10] See Williams Obstetrics, the most widely used textbook used to train obstetricians, p. 520-21, 865-66.
[11] Robin Abcarian, "Lifesaving Option or Criminal Conduct?", LA Times, Nov. 26, 1995, p. E-1.
[12] Diane M. Gianelli, "Anesthesiologists Question Claims in Abortion Debate," American Medical News, AMA, Jan. 1, 1996, p. 4; also, NRLC brief, "Senate Hearing Explodes Pro-Abortion Misinformation About Partial-Birth Abortions," Nov. 28, 1995, p. 3.
[13] Statement of Norig Ellison, M.D., before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Nov. 17, 1995.
[14] Quote taken from American Medical News audio tape transcript, on file with Barbara Bolsen, AMN Editor.
This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©2003 Gregory Koukl
For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org
Links to Bio-Ethics Sites
Please Note: Stand to Reason does not necessarily endorse everyviewpoint expressed on these sites. Nor does the absence of a link to aparticular site imply any disapproval of that site.As always, please use Biblical discernment as you read.
Organizations
American Collegians for Life The nation's oldest pro-life organization wholly devoted to educating college students about the medical and ethical issues of abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide.
Culture of Life Foundation A Catholic organization dedicated to communicating the medical and scientific research that confirms the truth about the sacredness of all human life. Provides resources against abortion, euthanasia, and related issues from the disciplines ofmedicine, biology, law, theology, sociology, and economics.
International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide A non-religious site with in-depth material on the moral issues surrounding euthanasia, assisted suicide, and bio-ethics in end-of-life care, as they relate to public policy andmedical practice. (You may be shocked to learn how much ground has been lost on this issue just in recent years... abortion must not be our onlybioethical concern.)
Life Issues Institute, Inc. An organization serving the educational needs of the pro-life movement. The Institute also provides a dailyradio commentary hosted by Brad Mattes.
Life Training Institute Scott Klusendorf's new organization that trains pro-lifers to present the pro-life message fearlessly, passionately, and persuasively.
Ohio Right to Life Society Promotes and defends the rights of all innocent human beings from the time of fertilization until natural death by educating against practices such as abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia.
Priests for Life An association of the Catholic Clergy addressing the topics of abortion and euthanasia, and providing resources and training for the entire pro-life movement.
Self-Evident Truth
SET’s motto is: “The humanity of the unborn is evident.” It is their goal to help others understand the horror of abortion, and to equip pro-lifers to help others understand that as well. The reason that abortion is so horrible is because the unborn are fully human. Abortion kills that human life.
Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation Terri was a brain-damaged (but not comatose) youngwoman who was the center of a titanic legal struggle between her husband, who wanted to end her life by court-ordered starvation and dehydration, and her immediate family, who fought to gain control of her care.
Authors & Speakers
Wesley J. Smith Mr. Smith, a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, writes books and articles on current trends in the areasof euthanasia, assisted suicide, "futile care", cloning, stem cell research, transhumanism, and animal rights movements.
Resources & Research
Abortion: Questions & Answers The complete text of a book by Dr. & Mrs. J.C. Willke. From the Ohio Right to Life web site.
AfterAbortion.org The web's most complete source of information on the aftereffects of abortion, and post-abortion healing. Consider ordering the book Victims and Victors to get the tools you need to combat the argument that abortion is helpful-or even necessary-for women facing a sexual assault pregnancy.
The Moral Question of Abortion The complete text of a book by Dr. Stephen Schwarz thatpresents a thorough analysis of all aspects of abortionand pursues the questions to their logical conclusions.
Magazines & Journals
Human Life Review *NEW* A journal devoted to life issues in the culture. Many articlesare available in the archives.
LifeNews LifeNews.com is an independent news agency devoted to reporting news that affects the pro-life community. Topics covered by LifeNews.com include abortion, assisted suicide and euthanasia, bio-ethics issues such as human cloning and stem cell research, campaigns and elections, and legal and legislative issues.
© 2005 Stand to Reason ARR | 1438 East 33rd Street, Signal Hill, CA 90755
Voicemail (800) 2-REASON TM | Local phone (562) 595-7333 | Fax (562) 595-7332 | questions@str.org
Do Abortion-Advocates Assume Theism When They Speak of a Woman's Fundamental Right to an Abortion? Are Humans Really More Special then Animals?
Dear STR, At a debate last week in my political science class, a pro-abortion speaker insisted that pro-lifers must rely on religion (specifically, theism) to make their case that abortion is morally wrong. Hence, the only true secular view is the pro-choice one. He also said that pro-life advocates assume a religious view whenever they claim that human beings have inherent dignity that animals do not. Is he right?
Gillian
divider
Hi Gillian,
Thanks for contacting STR with your questions.
Your critics hit you with two issuesone regarding the alleged role of religion in the pro-life argument (critics claim you cannot make your case without theism)the other, why should we treat animals differently than we do humans?
1. Regarding the first questionreligion--the truth is that both sides of the abortion debate assume theism in their arguments, as I will show in a moment. However, you should first notice that nothing in the question brought by your critics refutes the scientific and philosophic case you made for the humanity of the unborn. Just because they accuse you of holding a religious view does not mean they have successfully refuted the scientific evidence that you presented. Remind them of that.
It's true, however, that although we do not overtly state theism while making our case for the pro-life view, we ultimately presuppose it in our belief that human beings are intrinsically valuable.
But alas, we are not the only ones who borrow from theism. So do abortion advocates. They do this each time they assert rights claims (i.e., "Women have a right to an abortion.") and each time they make moral claims ("You should not interfere with a woman's right to choose abortion!")
Consider the following dialogue that took place between me and a student at the University of Alberta last November. The questioner insisted that women have a fundamental right to an abortion that should not be infringed upon. She also claimed to be an atheist, but as you will see below, her statement presupposed theism. The exchange went something like this:
Student (S): You argument that human being are special (i.e. intrinsically valuable) is inherently religious. As an atheist, I reject that claim. My pro-choice view is secular. Yours is religious.
Scott (SK): Oh, in what way?
S: You assume that humans have inherent dignity that animals don't have. That is a religious claim.
SK: I have a hunch that you also are making a religious claim. In fact, I'm pretty sure you cannot make your case for abortion rights without borrowing from theism.
S: What do you mean? I'm lost.
SK: Let me ask you this: Do you believe that women have a fundamental right to an abortion?
S: Of course. It's her choice and it is wrong to interfere with that personal decision. It's her right.
SK: Well, I guess that means we are both theists then, doesn't it?
S: What? I told you that I am an atheist.
SK: Yes, but you are borrowing from theism to make your claim that women have a right to an abortion. Hence, you also are a theist.
S: Excuse me? What do you mean? Please explain.
SK: It's really quite simple. Where does the right to have an abortion come from?
S: The government of Canada, namely the Supreme Court, has said women do. You know--the Morgantaler decision of 1988.
SK: Yes, I am familiar with that case. So you are saying that the right to an abortion comes from the government?
S: Yes.
SK: Very well. A government that grants rights can also revoke them. So if the government of Canada decides next month that fetuses are persons and that women have no right to kill them, you would be okay with that decision?
S: Hell no. I absolutely wouldn't be. I would fight it. Even if the government takes away our right to choose, we still have a fundamental right to have an abortion. It's our right.
SK: Oh really? And where does that right come from?
S: I told you. The Supreme Court has said...
SK: Actually that won't work. Remember: we just finished stipulating that a government that grants a right to abort can, at a later date, go back on that decision and declare that fetuses are persons. So, if rights come from the governmentThe Supreme Court or Parliament--and not some transcendent source, what reasonable argument can you make against a law that protects fetuses as it does other human beings?
S: But women have a fundamental right to an abortion regardless of what the state says.
SK: In other words, you are saying women have a right to abort that transcends the state, correct?
S: Yes, exactly.
SK: Okay, fair enough. Where does that fundamental right come from?
S: I don't get it.
SK: Where did that fundamental right to abort come from? In other words, who or what grants that right?
S: What is the point of your question?
SK: Simply this. You are trying to pluck rights out of thin air. But that clearly will not work. Rights must be grounded in something and it seems to me that you have only one of two choices here. Either rights come from the government (in which case government is free to grant or revoke them) or, they come from a transcendent source that supercedes human agency. So which is it? Do rights come from the state or from a transcendent source?
S: I told you, women have a fundamental right to an abortion that the state is wrong to restrict.
SK: So the right to abort comes from a transcendent source, right?
S: Yes, I guess that is true.
SK: Congratulations. You, too, are a theist.
S: What? I told you I am an atheist.
SK: But you don't really believe that because you borrow from theism when it suits you. Here is what I mean. To claim that women have a fundamental right to an abortion that transcends the state assumes that a transcendent source grants that right. Ergo, theism. Admittedly, this does not prove Christianity, but it does rule out atheism. Furthermore, when you say that it is wrong for the state to restrict abortion you again assume theism and hence are making a religious claim.
S: No way.
SK: Well, you may not like hearing that, but you are making a religious assumption when you say it is wrong to restrict abortion. You are sneaking theism back into your argument.
S: How is that?
SK: Are morals real things or are they just personal preferences--like choosing one's favorite ice cream?
S: What is right for you may not be right for me. We shouldn't force our morality on others. We should respect differing views.
SK: Your claim that we shouldn't force our morality on others and that we should respect differing viewsis that a true moral statement or just your own personal preference?
S: What do you mean? I don't get what that has to do with anything.
SK: Don't you find it odd that on one hand you assert that we should respect different views, while on the other you insist that no one should claim to be right?
S: What?
SK: Okay, I will simplify it. If my morality says it's okay to torture female slaves for fun, would you object or would you respect my view?
S: Of course I would object. It's wrong to torture people.
SK: Is it objectively wrong or just personal preference?
S: It's evil.
SK: Says who? I thought you just said morals were personal and we shouldn't force them on others. So why are you telling me it is wrong to torture others for fun? What right do you have to force that view on me?
S: You are nuts. I don't understand.
SK: Then let me clarify. In order for you to say it is wrong (evil) to torture people for fun, you must assume that evil is objective and not a personal preference. However, in order for evil to exist objectively, morals must also exist as real, objective things. Otherwise, torturing women or toddlers for fun is not truly evil; it's just a personal preference like choosing one's favorite flavor of ice cream. If morals are real things, however, you're going to have a hard time accounting for them apart from a moral law-giver. Ergo, theism. Again, you claim to be an atheist, but you smuggle theism back into your argument whenever it suits you. You cannot have it both ways.
S: That's not so. I believe that morals just evolved, like everything else in the universe. They are the products of random chance and natural selection, not design.
SK: But if that's the caseif morals are accidental and random things with no authority behind themwhy should I obey them? Suppose that I am playing the board game Scrabble and randomly notice the words "quit now." Am I obliged to obey them? Of course not. There's no legitimate authority behind them. It's just a random selection of words. The same is true with morals. If they are random and accidental, I am under no obligation to abide by them. Hence, the moral claim "You shouldn't torture female slaves" would merely be a random suggestion, lacking moral authority. Furthermore, if your atheistic premise is correct, then to ask me to put females on equal footing with my own gender is ridiculous. To the contrary, nothing makes more sense in a Darwinian "survival of the fittest" universe then subjugating other organisms, human or otherwise, to my use. Ayn Rand is correct: If there is no God, we should live selfishly. In the final analysis, you've provided no compelling reason for me to act morally.
2. Regarding animal rights--Perhaps your critics are making the more specific claim that animals have equal value to humans and only a theist can deny that truth. But again, they really don't believe what they are saying. Greg Koukl makes a good point: If animals have the capacity for moral thinking as do humans, should we hold animals responsible for crimes against other species (for example, eating them for lunch)? Should we incarcerate cats that torture mice for fun? Animal rights activists would say no.
Why, we might ask? "Because animals are different." Ah...They don't really believe animals are the same as humans, do they? If animals have the same rights as humans, they also have the same moral obligations. Objection: "But we don't know what the lion is thinking when he rips apart his prey. We don't know if his motivations were evil." True, we don't. So how do you know, then, that he has the capacity for moral thinking as a human being?
Here's a tactic. When animal rights people assert that there is no essential difference between animals and humans, you could ask: "Do animals make excuses?" In other words, do they feel the need to offer justifications for their behavior?
You can then remind your critics that human beings have a propensity to ask moral questions that animals don't have.
The following resources will also help:
1. Greg Koukl, "Cosmic Junk"
2. Greg Koukl, "Animals are only Human"
Hope this helps,
Scott Klusendorf
Director of Bio-Ethics, Stand to Reason
©2002 Scott Klusendorf. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only.
For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org
STR Abortion Violence Statement
Gregory Koukl
Some imply that STR condones abortion violence. Find out the truth about STR's position.
divider
It's always wrong to take a human life without proper justification. Abortion is such a wrong because it takes the life of a valuable, innocent, human being without good reason. Therefore, it is morally obligatory for civilized people to campaign vigorously against such a wrong and use appropriate means to end it.
In opposing this evil, one is justified in using only the degree of force necessary to stop any harm that it is within his power to prevent. Therefore, one is never justified in using lethal force when other measures are available.
Since there are no imaginable circumstances in which lethal force is the only means available to end the harm of abortion, then lethal means are never justified.
Killing abortionists is, therefore, also an example of taking human life without proper justification. To do so would be to violate the basic principle of life that pro-lifers are committed to defending.
Therefore, Stand to Reason does not condone violence to end the harm of abortion and does not knowingly associate with those who do.
This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1999 Gregory Koukl
For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org
No comments:
Post a Comment