Can we be pro-life personally but pro-choice politically? The quick answer to this loaded question is: No, we can’t really be pro-life personally if we are pro-choice politically. That’s because pro-lifers recognize that the child-in-utero is a human being, so the decision to abort isn’t a strictly personal decision at all, it’s an interpersonal decision. In that sense, it’s not a “private” decision (for just one person to decide). It’s a public decision (where at least 2 people are involved). Since abortion is an interpersonal act, it bears upon society and politics. Some people might not want to have an abortion, for themselves, but that does not qualify anyone as pro-life. Pro-choicers themselves recognize a “freedom to choose,” even when that includes choosing against abortion. In summary, if you are only “personally” pro-life, then you aren’t really pro-life.
What does “personally pro-life politically pro-choice” even mean?
The good news is that if you are “personally pro-life” that means you would never go through with an abortion. Congratulations! That’s an important and heroic stance. We can disagree and argue over the “politically pro-choice” part, but if you have taken any stand against abortion, then I commend you. Perhaps if more abortion-choice advocates were to go at least as far as “personally pro-life” then we’d have even fewer abortions than we currently do. Saving baby’s lives is worthwhile, no matter who is doing it. I would rather have someone personally pro-life than totally pro-choice. Most of what follows is aimed at the “politically pro-choice” part. If it’s not clear later, then let me make it clear now, I celebrate, encourage, and wholeheartedly support the fact that some pro-choice people have let the pro-life cause take root in their personal convictions. If they are “personally” pro-life, then they are a step closer to being fully pro-life (personally and politically). My whole effort in this article is to help extend that conviction further, beyond merely personal conviction, and into a fully formed pro-life outlook.
It’s Code Language for “Pro-choice”
Just to be clear, pro-lifers typically identify as anti-abortion both on a personal and public/political level. They can say, “I would never have an abortion and abortion should be generally banned.”[i] So when people try to drop the second half of that, wanting to blend pro-life and pro-choice, they are typically trying to sample the best of both worlds. Unfortunately, this hybrid, usually means they have a pro-choice perspective overall. To say you are only “personally” pro-life is often code language for, “I won’t go as far as the most radical pro-choicers, celebrating abortion or acting like it’s no big deal, but in point of fact, I’m still entrenched in the middle of the pro-choice camp.”
Most pro-choicers, by the way, admit that abortion is “bad.” They are not “pro-abortion.” Only the most radical/extreme pro-choice figureheads will act like abortion is commendable. Pro-choice advocates, generally, aren’t trying to promote more abortions or celebrate abortions.[ii] Most everyone on all sides admits that any given abortion is regrettable. So, it’s not terribly impressive when a pro-choicer says that abortions are gross, ugly, bad, or traumatic, they just think – contrary to pro-lifers – that abortion is a “necessary evil.” Abortion is not “good” but, so they say, it is good for women to have that choice.
Often, people don the hybrid position because they are pro-life at heart, but they are politically progressive and there just aren’t any solid pro-life platforms within the Democrat party (or Libertarian, or Green, or Socialist parties for that matter). In other words, they’d support a pro-life candidate if there was ever one campaigning within their party, but when left to choose between their pro-life convictions and their political party they are too allied to the Democrat party (for example) to stop fighting in the pro-choice army. Their pro-life convictions are burdensome and expendable. With the slightest threat of turbulence, they can throw their pro-life sentiments overboard for the sake of political expediency.
If you lean pro-life but can’t find a political candidate you’d support in your party, instead of sacrificing the pro-life cause for political expediency, I encourage you to let your candidates know how you feel! Press and pressure them to hear your voice. And withhold your vote till your party can offer a pro-life candidate worthy of your support. Abortion is a big enough issue to where it deserves to be a deal-breaker like that.
It’s Confused Compassion
To be sure, this hybrid position can flow from noble motives. People may don the hybrid position as an effort to balance compassion for both the child and the mother. Conventional pro-lifers often focus attention on the child-in-utero and don’t clarify just how much compassion and concern they have for the mother. Pro-choicers often focus attention on the mother while dehumanizing and delegitimizing her child-in-utero. Both of these extremes are problematic.
With the hybrid position, however, one may be trying to draw attention to both the child and the mother. This hybrid may sound like any of the following:
“I’m personally pro-life, but I vote pro-choice”
“I would never have an abortion, but I’m politically pro-choice.”
“Abortion is wrong for me, but we shouldn’t tell women what to do with their bodies.”
Notice the word “but” in between each of these clauses. The hybrid position tries to merge two camps, bridging a hostile divide. It has the tone of a strategic compromise. Indeed, this hybrid position is amenable to almost every stripe of pro-choice politics, except perhaps for the most radical population-control advocate. But pro-lifers, cannot, in good conscience, relegate abortion to the realm of merely “personal choice.”
The hybrid position treats abortion like an entirely private personal decision, so only the pregnant mother has moral standing in deciding the fate of her child-in-utero. This line of thinking suggests that we individuals can pick and choose whether abortion is right for us, but we should not try to tell anyone else that abortion is wrong for them. Supposedly, we all decide our own ethics of abortion. And abortion is such a personal decision that even if we conclude that it’s a terrible, horrible, very bad, no good practice – what we really mean is “it’s wrong for me.” It may be “right” for someone else in a different situation, or with different needs and interests. If this smells like relativism to you, I smell it too.
Compassionate motives are great, and we should celebrate compassionate concerns for mother and child alike. But no amount of good motivations are safe from spoilage in a cauldron of relativistic ethics. Apply this kind of logic to something that we can all agree is wrong, and you’ll see how this relativistic framework is shaky. For example, “I would never own a slave, but I would never tell someone else what they can or can’t do with their property [slaves].” If we start treating the most basic human rights like they aren’t absolute, then we end up with moral absurdities like say abolishing slavery is, “True for me, but not for you,” or “murdering gay people is, bad for our society, but is good for some other society.”
It’s Emotionally Pro-life but Intellectually Pro-choice
Another reason people may choose the hybrid position is because deep down they feel abortion is wrong but for whatever reason they believe that pro-choice is still a rationally sound position because of women’s privacy rights. The loss of a little baby is awful, but abortion isn’t bad enough to deserve civil abolition – like we’ve done with murder, slavery, rape, and a host of other evils. At a heart level, they sympathize with the pro-life position, but they know too many objections and defenses for the pro-choice position, and they still care about struggling mothers, so they hold steady to pro-choice politics.
One might say this person is emotionally pro-life but intellectually pro-choice. When they look at the facts of abortion, and weigh their own conscience on the matter, they see that abortion is wicked awful stuff. And they can’t comfortably support that action. But, when they look away and trust the commercials, the articles, and word-of-mouth they’ve gathered from liberal intellectual friends, professors, and authorities on TV, they find the pro-choice position compelling.
I’d suggest that usually when people hold this position they don’t understand the pro-life side very well and they’ve been duped by pro-choice rhetoric. They may have been pro-life in their younger days but the only arguments and evidence they’ve seriously considered have been from pro-choice professors, or political advocates, or both–politically partisan academics who aren’t interested in giving the pro-life position a responsible treatment. Sadly, if you formed your current views on abortion at college or graduate school there’s a good chance that your exposure to the abortion debate has been one-sided in favor of abortion-choice. Gallup Polls have shown that the longer you spend in college, the higher the chances you’ll declare yourself pro-choice.
If you aren’t sure about the solid ground supporting the pro-life position, I commend to you: Abort73.com, AbortionFacts, Lozier Institute, LiveAction, Equal Rights Institute, AbortionHistoryMuseum, TheAbortionMuseum. Having spent most of life in pro-life apologetics, I’m convinced that the only way people can reject the pro-life position is (1) they didn’t know it’s true, or (2) they don’t want it to be true. Getting informed can help solve the first part. Getting God in your life can help with the second.
“the only way people can reject the pro-life position is (1) they didn’t know it’s true, or (2) they don’t want it to be true. Getting informed can help solve the first part. Getting God in your life can help with the second.”
It’s the Muddy Middle
Other times, I find people adopt a hybrid position because they see themselves as “moderates,” trying to find the golden mean between extremes. These same people often avoid “labels,” and don’t like to be lumped into “categories” These middlers can boast that they aren’t extremists. And they may try to mitigate and avoid conflict by finding compromise positions in every debate. Abortion is a live debate in bioethics, politics, and society. So, it’s no surprise to find some conflict-avoiders mediating the debate with a compromise position trying to affirm the dignity of mother and child, dignifying the importance of life and liberty, and equally valuing both pro-life and pro-choice positions. There’s a general wisdom in seeking moderation, balance, and middle-ground where possible.
Unfortunately, the middle isn’t always a safe place to camp. Some battles don’t permit any neutral “sideline,” so everyone is already on the battlefield presently affected by the socio-political fallout of abortion-choice policy. Permitting some rhetorical flourish, those committed to both sides are entrenched in the middle of an open battle, subject to crossfire from both sides. Having meandered into and encamped in the middle of an active battle, they are torn between two allegiances. Effectively, they are casualties waiting to happen. The hybrid position is not a friend to both parties, it’s an enemy to everyone. In a battle of ideas, playing both the pro-life and the pro-choice position is akin to a turncoat, a double-agent, an enemy in the gates committed ultimately to an irrational contradiction, at best, or a dangerous compromise, at worst. Now, that person can save the life of her own child – and that heroism deserves praise – but she betrays her efforts by refusing to intervene and protect other imperiled human beings in utero.
This warfare analogy might sound harsh, extreme, or misleading but imagine someone trying to play the moderate position regarding sex-slavery: “I would never own a sex-slave, but I’m in no position to tell someone else what they can or cannot do with their sexual property.” Clearly, that “moderate” position has granted too much to the pro-slavers because they grant that human beings can be treated, ethically, like property. Pro-choicers, similarly, treat living human beings in-utero, like property that can be disposed at the will of his or her owner. Obviously, slavery is very different from abortion, but both should teach us that human beings aren’t property and should not be treated as such.
Or imagine a moderate position on the holocaust: “I would never gas a Jew, but who am I tell tell people from a different country, in a different culture, what they can and cannot do with their citizens.” The moderate has assumed that mass slaughter of unwanted human beings is not a crime against humanity, and it could be ethical in one society but unethical in another. This “moderate” position isn’t moderate at all. Unfortunately, it’s not uncommon either – moral relativism is quite popular in many circles. Yet moral relativism betrays the very notion of human rights, and has historically played a major role in the holocaust, slavery, and in recent times, abortion.
These ugly examples demonstrate that the middle ground between two politically charged positions is not always a golden mean. Sometimes, it’s a horrific compromise. The real “moderate” position should not be between pro-life (anti-abortion) and pro-choice (abortion-on-demand), but rather between which exceptional cases of abortion should be legal–ex., rape pregnancies, or imperiled pregnancies (threatening the mother’s life).
Remember that if abortion is a moral right of women, the pro-choicers are justified in fighting adamantly for it. If abortion is morally wrong, however, then pro-lifers are justified even moreso, as the scope of this evil is deadlier than any other act of violence in world history. Abortion in the United States has already claimed far more lives, in far less time, than the entire North American slave trade ever claimed. Yet slavery had no chance of abolition if “enlightened” northerners were committed to both slavery and abolition. Slavery was too entrenched of an evil for the abolitionists to play the moderate position as if slave ownership was an excusable “necessary evil.” In the Civil War, there was no strategic advantage in trying to say that slavery deserves to be abolished and yet it shouldn’t be abolished. That position is not only a logical contradiction, it’s morally unsound and politically foolish.
This same muddy middle makes no more sense when applied to apartheid South Africa. It would be equally foolish to say, “I personally oppose apartheid, but I’m not in any position to judge whether South Africa should or should not have apartheid. That’s for South Africa to decide for itself.”
Or we could apply it to infanticide and readily see the same contradiction: “I personally oppose murdering one’s newborn baby, but who am I to judge a struggling mother who feels like she needs to smother her inconvenient little baby for squirming too much. It’s her baby, so it’s her right to kill it if she wants.”
It’s Relativism
This hybrid position also carries a tone of moral relativism. As we saw above, the hybrid position easily retreats into individual or cultural relativism where some moral principle is only as authoritative as a group vote (cultural relativism), or a personal preference (subjectivism). For one person abortion is unethical, for the next person it’s ethical, for another person it’s sometimes ethical sometimes not. There would be no factual wrongness about abortion except with respect to one’s own personal standards of right and wrong. This brand of easily slips into “might makes right” ethics, committing the “popular appeal fallacy,” and it cannot distinguish consistently between “legal” and “moral.” In cultural relativism, slavery was ethical–as long as it was the legal convention of the time.
But truth isn’t decided by vote. And evil is still evil, even when it’s popular.
There are lots of problems with relativism. But I’ll just note one more important objection here. Abortion bears upon human rights, and human rights are not the kind of thing that qualify for relativism. If women have a human right to full autonomy over their own body, up to and including abortion, then abortion is ethically permitted – and that would be an objective moral fact, regardless of what any given women should “feel,” “think,” “believe,” or “prefer” within her own subjective or conventional ethics. Now that’s a pro-choice rebuttal to relativism.
The pro-life rebuttal runs even deeper. Beneath the right of autonomy, exists the right to life, as in:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal. . . endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights . . . life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Preamble to the Declaration of Independence, 1776
Notice the right to “life” appears before the rights of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This order is sensible because only living individuals have liberty, and only living individuals with some measure of liberty can pursue happiness as they see it. These three rights do not necessarily exhaust all our fundamental human rights, but they are sufficient to show how the rights of life and liberty relate. Pro-lifers have a strong, principled, and historic case that the most basic of all human rights is the right to life. I would argue that the abortion-choice camp hasn’t even come close to satisfying their burden of proof here. They have not yet shown that the mother’s claim of liberty (i.e., personal sovereignty, privacy, autonomy) gets deep enough to undermine and nullify the child’s potential, alleged, or possible right to life.
Furthermore, since killing a human being is an irreversible, final, and permanent act against a fellow member of the species, it should never be doled out for trivial reasons or in the presence of reasonable doubt.
In summary, abortion bears heavily upon human rights, human rights are too foundational to surrender to the flight and fancy of relativistic ethics, and so, abortion is a poor fit for relativism. Subjectivism and conventionalism just aren’t serious enough among the schools of ethics to account for the moral weight of that child’s life.
It’s Pragmatism
This hybrid “logic” could also sound persuasive if you understand pro-life policy to be too impractical to work for society. Many abortion-choice advocates will use the threat of “coathanger abortions” to intimidate people into agreement. The threat is something like, “If you ban even the safe abortions, then women will be forced to get unsafe abortions.”
There’s a cold logic to this. Pro-life advocates as well abortion-choice advocates all have to weigh the practical implications of their ideals. Anyone making society-wide policy needs to consider practicality. The abortion debate is not merely moral, it’s also a judicial and political debate. It’s a legal matter, and legality is bound on all sides by practical issues of enforcement.
Real-world policies, however, should not be measured against utopia either. Banning abortion won’t stop all abortions, nor will legalizing abortion stop all coat-hanger abortions. Practical concerns pull both ways, tempering both the pro-life and abortion-choice positions. Legalizing abortion hasn’t stopped illegal and unsafe abortionists from finding scared imperiled women to prey on. We know of prolific mass murderers like Dr. Kermit Gosnell, whose abortion-mill generated hundreds and thousands of illegal abortions, post-birth abortions (infanticides), and subjected patients to unsanitary, injurious, and even fatal conditions. But besides just his case, we could cite many more clinics, doctors, and nurses who prove that the abortion-industry is intrinsically unsafe, and many of its worst offenders operate with little to no regulatory oversight regulation due in part to the knotted political landscape of abortion.
We also know, from history, that legalizing abortion at a state level in the late 1960’s and then nationwide in 1973 radically multiplied the number of abortions. Restated, that means, the prior ban on abortions radically reduced the number of abortions. That fact points out that banning abortion would greatly serve women’s health interests since the very nature of abortion is medically and psychologically dangerous for women.
Even legal and relatively “safe” abortion is inherently risky for the mother. In 98-99% of cases the abortion is not protecting the mother’s life so it’s medically unnecessary. Being medically unnecessary, all of its inherent risks of its inherent risks are unnecessary risks. The physical risks are many including cuts, punctures, bruising, heavy bleeding, disfigurement, drug interactions, incomplete abortions (leaving parts of the deceased child behind), and all the subsequent side effects that may occur with those problems including infection, sepsis, fever, headaches, dizziness, nausea, scarring, blood clots, coma, heart attack, and even death.
Possible long-term side effects and complications are often disputed but are thought to include sterility, pre-term birth, miscarriage, malfunctioning cervix, menstrual irregularities, and correlation with breast cancer. There are also a range of psychological risks – even for “safe” and “legal” abortions–which have been demonstrated in multiple studies. Pro-choicers tend to focus on the short-term sense of relief reported by abortion patients, but in long-term studies abortion patients report post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, thoughts and attempts at suicide, broken relationships, drug and alcohol abuse, divorce, broken relationships, self-destructive behaviors, and a constellation of problems correlated with serious emotional trauma. Of course, the abortion-choice industry has tried to dispute all these claims about the dangers of abortion, but it’s medically naive to think of abortion as medically inert. And, even if child-birth were just as risky or riskier, the dangers are heavily mitigated by the birth of live child. Abortion isn’t safer than childbirth. It’s not safe for the mother. And it’s just not safe.
We should also consider how the abortion industry influences our sexual choices. First wave feminists at the turn of the 20th century, for example, decried abortion as a mode of exploiting women. Instead of reigning in men and calling them to take responsibility for the women and children in their lives, abortion is one more legal excuse for males to treat women like sex objects; love ’em and leave ’em. Given the preponderance of illicit sex, sex-trafficking and pornography, combined with the declining rate of marriage there is a strong case to be made that abortion-choice policy hasn’t been very “practical” at all. It set up countless women for exploitation, loneliness, and trauma, while setting the heaviest and fatal consequence on defenseless children-in-utero.
We have more than enough reasons, therefore, to think that pro-life policy would serve women’s health fare better than pro-choice policy has. Pro-life policy is practical.
It’s Cowardice
Other people may take the “personally pro-life” position because they aren’t terribly pro-life in the first place. No abortion choice advocate wants to be seen as a barbarian or a villain. And donning some of the terminology and tone of a pro-lifer may lend a sense of tolerance and compassion. Wearing the facade of an outspoken pro-life advocate doesn’t take a lot of courage, but it does take some courage. And some people just don’t have enough courage to take a consistent pro-life stand. Perhaps they lack the conviction or the knowledge. But whatever the cause they are too timid to fully align with the pro-life position. They may still think abortion is bad but they lack the fortitude to take a firm stand against it.
It’s easy to understand why people would be timid when they aren’t well-informed on the issue. If knowledge is power, then ignorance is crippling. Courage turns to cowardice when we don’t understand the issue well enough to have an informed opinion on it. In that event, a “moderate” pro-lifer or pro-choicer may be scared to explain or defend their pro-life position. By default, they gravitate toward the muddy middle, imagining it safer to appease both camps and avoid having to state, explain, or defend their position beyond a few shallow talking points.
Many pro-lifers and pro-choicers, in my experience, stay fairly moderate on the issue and aren’t terribly informed about the risks involved in abortion, or about the size and scope of abortion, or about the wider effects of abortion on society, or the history of abortion in America. Often, they don’t even know what an abortion looks like, or what the developing child looks like in a first-term abortion. It is no surprise that people may claim to be “pro-life” but, for fear of offending a pro-choice friend or family member, they immediately buttress that position with a fatal concession to pro-choice policy. They are “personally pro-life” – which is politically neutral, and wholly non-threatening to anyone else – but they are tolerant towards anyone else’s pro-choice politics or policies. They won’t even stand against abortion-choice legislation because their “pro-life” stance is effectively hidden from the world, squirreled away in the private recesses of their personal preference within their own bedroom at home.
In other words, to be “personally pro-life” is often ignorance-fueled cowardice. Now, I don’t say that lightly, but neither do I intend this as a mean-spirited insult. All of us have something to learn about this issue, and to the extent that we don’t understand or we just don’t know the specifics we can be crippled in our convictions and prone to cowardice. The simple solution then is to get informed. Study a bit. Guard our claims, saying what we know, admitting what we don’t know, and allowing ourselves to learn in the process. We can grow in our convictions and our courage as we learn. And through it all, we should maintain an attitude of humility, grace, and love.
It’s Ignorance
Ignorance poses another problem here besides inspiring cowardice. Sometimes people simply don’t realize how incompatible are the two camps. They may ascribe to the hybrid position because they believe that being “pro-life” is nothing more than saying, “I find abortion distasteful.” But since many pro-choice advocates find abortion distasteful, then that’s hardly a defining feature. That limp and flimsy form of “pro-life” may be due to ignorance.
A more troubling trend is when people affirm the hybrid position because they really don’t want to know what is involved in abortion. They may regret that some people choose abortion, but they don’t want to get informed enough to get involved in any solution. For them “ignorance is bliss.” Ignorance is an evasive maneuver, so they don’t have to take any responsibility. Just as good samaritan laws obligate competent bystanders to help people in dire situations, a person may be morally obligated to help a pregnant friend or neighbor choose life. But they are only responsible if they are competent to help. If they don’t know enough to help, then they aren’t morally responsible to help.
The straightforward solution for ignorance is knowledge, but of course, that’s a difficult task whenever it’s willful ignorance. There’s no knowledge so penetrating that people will receive it against their will.
It’s Political Confusion
Few issues have been as politicized as abortion. So, in many people’s eyes “abortion” is just another political issue. Some people may claim to be only “personally pro-life” but not politically because the political law of the land is pro-choice and they don’t want to fight about it. In their eyes it’s expedient or even ethical, to be “tolerant,” and “open-minded” on the issue. They don’t like arguing about politics or religion, so they don’t say anything is wrong with abortion-choice policy.
There’s some cold logic to this position, as it’s part pragmatism, and it can swirl in elements of “compassion,” and “tolerance” (i.e., often in the form of relativism). For people who are wishy-washy in their politics, or they aren’t willing to disagree with flawed party platform, then the hybrid option may sound very appealing.
There is, however, nothing intrinsically political about abortion, Democrats can and have been pro-life. Republicans can and have been pro-choice. Ideally, all major parties could agree that killing one’s own innocent defenseless family members is unethical and should be banned. But, unfortunately, the political lines have been drawn and the rhetoric has been loaded like artillery so that any democrats will be fired upon like an enemy spy plane if they dare question the value of Planned Parenthood or if they suggest that abortion is barbaric. Political liberals, in this way, would do well to distinguish themselves from the Democrat establishment so they are never pressured and pulled into a party platform that they can’t support in good conscience. Likewise for political conservatives, they shouldn’t be so married to the republican party that they cannot stiff-arm any foolish unethical policies popular within the establishment. Republicans may, generally, have a better record on pro-life policies, but they have not always sided with life, especially when it’s unpopular.
I should add, that even though Democrats should accommodate the pro-life position I don’t think Republicans should be open to abortion-choice policy. Republicans should be no more open to abortion-choice than they should be open to reinstating slavery. I know that’s a touchy comparison, but policies which treat human beings like objects that can be used and disposed at will are intrinsically wrong at the level of human rights, regardless of one’s politics. We don’t even need to haggle over the definition of “person” or when “consciousness” begins. Abortion kills biological human beings as if those humans were some disposable property. Objectifying humans is wrong, whether by slavery or abortion. Just as no self-respecting democrat would support slave laws that allow for the objectification of human beings, they should likewise be able to renounce their party platform and stand on the side of life.
Abortion is the single deadliest act, institution, or event in world history.
Also, we do well to remember that we are talking about the single deadliest act, institution, or event in world history. In this way, abortion is a bigger issue than party politics. Democrats would do well to take the pro-life platform more seriously, especially since they missed the boat 150 years ago when the Democrat party sided with the biggest human rights crime of that era too. I don’t care to defend or promote republicanism or democrat politics here. All political parties have a mixed history on human rights issues. Democrats aren’t all wrong, and Republicans aren’t all right. Pro-lifers, unfortunately, have few voting options on the Democratic side these days. When it comes to the anti-abortion position, the Republican party has a better record–though not by much.
A Final Word on Being “Personally Pro-life”
Clearly, there are some glaring problems when people attempt to straddle the fence on the abortion issue. We have plenty of reasons to broadly reject the hybrid position. But it’s still better to be personally pro-life than totally pro-choice. If you personally would never go through with an abortion, I applaud you! If you refrained from an abortion because you are generally pro-choice but personally pro-life, then you still saved a life. Choosing life merits celebration every time! It is better to have a political pro-choicer personally abstain from abortion than to have a pro-lifer who betrays their conscience and aborts their unborn child. When all the smoke settles, we each still have to answer for the decisions we make in our own lives, regardless of our ideologies.
If you are “personally pro-life” but “politically pro-choice” then I encourage you to consider going the whole way and just be pro-life. Abortion is too devastating, too deadly, too violent, too harmful to women. It doesn’t even deserve half-hearted support. We all do well to consider and commit to a genuine pro-life stance. The pro-life cause goes beyond just personal opinions, preferences, or relativistic ethics. “Pro-life” refers to a fundamental recognition that the child-in-utero deserves protection; not just your child or my child, but every child. If you are only “personally” pro-life then I plead with you, don’t let your compassion stop with your own family planning prospects. Care for all the women and children imperiled by abortion. If we don’t speak for the voiceless, they will never be heard.
References:
[i] By “generally banned,” I mean the banning of convenience abortions where the mother’s life is not in danger. Other mitigating circumstances might include cases of “rape” or “severe deformity.” Pro-lifers usually, however, oppose abortion even in these exceptional cases of rape and fetal deformity, although most consider abortion justified as “life-saving” if pregnancy imperils the mother’s life.
[ii] While most pro-choice advocates do not knowingly support an increase of abortions, it’s a well known fact of groups like Planned Parenthood that abortions are a major source of revenue, and more abortions spells more profits. In this way, clinics may encourage higher numbers of abortions–but not because of any belief that “more abortions is morally better,” but merely because of profit incentive. This profit-incentive is the substance behind allegations of “abortion quotas” at Planned Parenthood clinics. Former Planned Parenthood clinic directors have attested to the quotas, but these claims have been disputed by opponents.
Recommended Resources:
Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )
Does Jesus Trump Your Politics by Dr. Frank Turek (mp4 download and DVD)
The Case for Christian Activism (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)
Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with CrossExamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of CrossExamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/48dVzcJ
Scientism -The idea that science is the only path to knowledge
1. Does Truth Exist?You have probably heard it said, “You have to prove that scientifically.” Or even in news reports that “studies have shown . . . ” Or maybe you have heard that science is the final or ultimate source of knowledge. Behind these sentiments may lie a belief called “scientism.” This mentality has even been put simply: “If I can’t see it, hear it, or feel it, it doesn’t exist.”[i]
What is Scientism?
This belief elevates science to a place of religious devotion and is known as “scientism.” Scientism is the idea that we should believe only what can be proven scientifically. That is, science is the sole source of knowledge and truth.
No doubt, science is a wonderful means of finding out truths about the world and a means of knowledge about the natural world, but science is not the final arbiter of truth. Nevertheless, some claim (or even act as if) science is the only means of knowledge and truth. Here are some examples of people asserting scientism:
Problems with Scientism
Despite all the acclaim, there are several problems with scientism:
Scientism is too restrictive. If science were the only source and final arbitrator of knowledge and truth, then whole fields of knowledge and truth would have to be abandoned, which most of us consider legitimate truths and knowledge claims. For example, if science is the only source of truth, we would have to abandon mathematical truths, historical knowledge, logical, moral, and aesthetic truths. Any theory of knowledge (such as scientism) that excludes these obvious avenues of truth must be abandoned before you abandon these truths.
Scientism is self-refuting – If the only source of knowledge and truth is science, then the claim that “the only source of knowledge and truth is science” is not knowable or true. Why? Because the claim is not true “because of science” or” known through science,” and if science is not known by science, you shouldn’t believe that only science leads to truth and knowledge.
Science is a great and noble discipline. We gain much knowledge and truth through it and will continue to gain knowledge and truth through science. But let’s not come with the mistaken belief that science is the best or only means of truth and knowledge. The attitude that only science can lead to knowledge and truth is unwarranted, misleading, and self-contradictory.
Scientism has been Thoroughly Discredited
In his excellent work Love Your God With All Your Mind, J. P. Moreland shares why we should reject scientism:
William Lane Craig dismantles the claim that Peter Atkins, a professor at Oxford University, makes that science accounts for everything: [Video]. See also, “Is Scientism Self-Refuting?” Reasonable Faith, Mar 21, 2011
J.P. Moreland, the author of Scientism and Secularism, discusses this issue of scientism in this video. See also, Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology(Crossway: 2018)
J. Warner Wallace refutes it in “The Dangers of ‘Scientism’ and an Over-Reliance on Science”Cold-Case Christianity (8 Sept. 2023).
Edward Feser also discredits this theory in “Blinded by Scientism” Public Discourse (9 March 2010).
For more Scientific Apologetics from Steve Lee see:
References:
[i] Editor’s Note: Scientism is often paired with empiricism, which is the idea that knowledge/truth can only be accessed through one’s empirical senses (touch, taste, sight, etc.).
[ii] J.P. Moreland, Love God with All Your Mind (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1997), p. 33-34.
Recommended Resources:
Why Science Needs God by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)
Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)
Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Does Science Disprove God? by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
J. Steve Lee has taught Apologetics for over two and a half decades at Prestonwood Christian Academy. He also has taught World Religions and Philosophy at Mountain View College in Dallas and Collin College in Plano. With a degree in history and education from the University of North Texas, Steve continued his formal studies at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary with a M.A. in philosophy of religion and has pursued doctoral studies at the University of Texas at Dallas and is finishing his dissertation at South African Theological Seminary. He has published several articles for the Apologetics Study Bible for Students as well as articles and book reviews in various periodicals including Philosophia Christi, Hope’s Reason: A Journal of Apologetics, and the Areopagus Journal. Having an abiding love for fantasy fiction, Steve has contributed chapters to two books on literary criticism of Harry Potter: Harry Potter for Nerds and Teaching with Harry Potter. He even appeared as a guest on the podcast MuggleNet Academia (“Lesson 23: There and Back Again-Chiasmus, Alchemy, and Ring Composition in Harry Potter”). He is married to his lovely wife, Angela, and has two grown boys, Ethan and Josh.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4fELbgL
Why Are Evolutionists Now Doubting Evolution? with Dr. Casey Luskin
PodcastIs Neo-Darwinism DEAD? Why are some prominent biologists and macro-evolutionists admitting that Darwinian evolution is in trouble and what’s fueling this newfound skepticism—even among Darwin’s long-time supporters? The answers may surprise you!
Joining Frank from the recent SES Steadfast conference is Dr. Casey Luskin, Senior Fellow and Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute and co-author of ‘The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith‘, a collective work that seeks to reconcile the complexities of the universe with the concept of intelligent design. Together, Frank and Dr. Luskin address the following questions:
Tune in as Dr. Luskin shares his enthusiasm for Christianity’s role in the modern scientific revolution and examines the flaws in macroevolutionary theory that even staunch materialists are finding hard to overlook. And for a deeper exploration of how science complements the Christian worldview, be sure to grab a copy of ‘The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith‘!
Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Learn more from Dr. Casey Luskin: https://caseyluskin.com/
The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith: https://a.co/d/fku8uAc
Why the Royal Society Meeting Mattered, in a Nutshell: https://bit.ly/3YjWBiK
Digital Voting Guide and Excellent Presentations on Why Christians Should Vote: https://voteyourfaith.net/
Why I am Pro-Life
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsBefore I go any further, I must state that this is not an attempt to apply guilt or condemnation to any woman who has had an abortion, or any man who has encouraged it. The Good News is that grace is extended to all willing to accept it by grace, through faith in Christ. With that said, I now hope to clearly explain why I am pro-life and hope to encourage you to consider your own views as you read further.
Early Ambivalence
I wasn’t always pro-life. I was more ambivalent than anything until I was in my 30’s. Yes, I am a man and I had never been in a scenario to have to consider the idea carefully. However, something happened to me to cause me to come completely to the point that I am now involved in supporting pro-life ministries locally, and share my beliefs openly, such as in this writing.
I, like many men and women I speak to, had certain preconceived notions in my head about abortion before doing the research for myself. I assumed abortion was rare, that it was almost always very early in pregnancy, that it was almost always done because of incest or rape, danger to the mother, or due to extreme hardship with no way to provide for the child. I assumed that it was also beneficial to prevent overcrowding and starvation, as well as keeping crime at bay. I also assumed that the fetus was not a human at the point of abortion.
I also understood the whole thing to be a woman’s constitutional right. These are all common talking points of pro-abortion advocates, and unless you look for yourself, there is not much to question these ideas in the mainstream of American public thought. While I wasn’t avidly pro-choice, I was at least agnostic.
I had been a Christian for many years at that point, but still never gave the issue much thought as it was never brought up in church or among friends in any meaningful way. In thinking more about the question, and with a little research in reading books like Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation by Ronald Reagan and The Case for Life by Scott Klusendorf my mind was opened to the logic and sound morality of the pro-life movement. Yes, the fact that this whole line of thinking combines religion and politics together is scary, but when are the two really not together anyway?
It was my understanding that the pro-life side had a bad reputation for being hateful to women who have had abortions, and that thought continues to keep many from expressing thoughts or questions about abortion. As a certified sinner myself, I continue to do all I can to make the issue about the sin and not the sinner. But once I thought the matter through to the end, I could not help but find my way to the most important part of the question.
In my decision to come to a decision on abortion, I eventually came to ask what the foundational question of abortion was – what was the most important thing that needed to be answered? Is abortion a question of a woman’s rights, population control, and the greater good of society? Is it about equal opportunity for women in the workforce, ridding ourselves of poverty, or is it about the mental health of the mothers?
Even as a Christian, I struggled to understand how to view this divisive subject and balance what I felt made sense with what seemed like persuasive, emotional arguments for what many consider to be the ending of a non-human entity for the greater good of society and the mothers involved.
And there it was. Is it a non-human entity?
I discovered the real question to ask in this debate, thanks to the work of pro-life writers and my own journey. The foundational question turns out to be what is the thing that we are terminating. Here is why: everyone knows that we shouldn’t intentionally take the life of an innocent human being. If the fetus is an innocent human being, we should not take their life.
My findings
It didn’t take long to come to a conclusion on the question that I determined needed to be answered for my own conclusion on the question of abortion. There is no longer a debate in science or even among more and more pro-choice advocates. The bottom line is that whatever name you call it, a zygote, an embryo, a fetus, or a “product of conception” is absolutely human, even if not fully developed, by the time the pregnancy is detectable. It is a human life before you can intentionally end it.
So, if you will grant me that the baby inside the womb rather than outside the womb is a human (not to mention an innocent human), is there something different about the same human baby before it makes its entrance into the world outside the womb? The arguments among pro-choice advocates are typically broken down into four issues that Scott Kluesendorf applies in a helpful acronym. Below is the SLED argument.
Size
The fact that the human being in the womb is tiny at first, and still very small for much of the pregnancy (thankfully!), is not in dispute. So, does the size of the human allow for the taking of its life? For all of you human beings who are smaller than other human beings, I sure hope not. A human life is a human life, no matter the size. In fact, it is usually considered noble and right to protect those humans who are considered small and vulnerable. I believe the same is true of humans prior to birth, as well as those 60 seconds, 60 months, or 60 years after birth. The size of a human does not ever give us a license to end that life.
Level of Development
The standard pro-choice argument says the unborn are nothing but a “clump of cells”. The definition of a clump of cells could be just as accurately applied to a grown person considering the complexity of even the tiniest of detectable human life. Between 10 and 30 hours, after the sperm penetrates the egg, the nuclei combine, and the DNA is already sequenced for a unique human being, the new and genetically mapped offspring of both the mother and father together. The baby’s gender is already in place, and the cells divide rapidly. Within 5 weeks, the heartbeat can be detected. I think we can agree that anything with a heartbeat is a life, and thanks to science, we know that it is a human life. So, when can we take the life of a human based on its level of development outside the womb? Never. Why should this be different inside the womb?
Environment
Somehow the fact that an unborn child is not yet in the outside world, beyond the birth canal, has become a test to see if a human is worthy of life. Many states allow abortion right up to the point of natural birth.[i]
What exactly is the difference of that baby from the time it is in the mother’s womb to the time it is outside the mother? What makes the baby’s life outside the mother different from its life inside the mother? Is there another example of when it is justified to take an innocent human life solely because of where it is located? I cannot find a logical way out of this problem for abortion. If it’s an innocent human, shouldn’t we care about it no matter where it is? Human beings risk their lives and earn their livings every day by going to very dangerous places to try to rescue human beings from the harm they walked themselves into. Why would we not extend the same courtesy to our tiniest and least guilty brothers and sisters still inside what should be the safest place on earth?
Degree of Dependence
Many on the pro-choice side argue that the fact that the baby is unable to survive without the benefit of the physiological protection and nourishment of the mother while in utero. The fact that, at least for the first half of pregnancy, the child is dependent on the mother is said to be an unwelcome and unfair burden on the mother.
While many used to say that the baby is not human until it is born, that argument has been lost to the scientific facts we now know, especially when compared with 1973, the year of the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in every state. Now the argument is more often stated that the woman does not have to allow her body to be used by an unwelcome, dependent little human. It is her right to scrape off this unwanted “parasite” as they are often referred to by some pro-choice advocates.
While it doesn’t necessarily have to be the mother of the child that cares for them, every human born is for the first years of its life in constant need of bigger, more mature humans to care for and nurture them to survive, but not just for the nine months in the womb.
If you saw someone leave a two-week-old baby on the street and heard them tell the baby, “Good luck, you’re on your own now”, you would likely (and rightly) grab the baby and seek a caretaker for it. You would also likely be incensed that someone would leave a two-week-old baby on the street. Would you also not be incensed if someone put a gun to the same two-week-old’s head and pulled the trigger?
While not in public view, why is it different if taking the baby’s life occurs inside the womb? What has changed about the baby, or the responsibility humans typically feel to care for other vulnerable humans?
The difference in the analogy above is that the baby is simply unseen in the womb as opposed to being seen in the street. I believe that is why human beings have not wholly rejected abortion – they can’t see it happen. It is out of sight and out of mind.
The Numbers
According to the Guttmacher Institute, which is the research arm of Planned Parenthood, 18% of pregnancies in the United States ended in abortion in 2017.[ii] That amounted to approximately 862,320 abortions in the US that year. 18% of pregnancies ending in abortion means that almost 1 in 5 human beings conceived were not born due to the intentional termination of their lives.
[Editor’s Note: The Abortion rate, after a trending downward since the 1990’s, has risen in recent years, including an 11% increase since 2022. There were 1,037,000 abortions in 2023 according to Guttmacher institute.[iii] This might be attributed to reactions against the Dobb’s decisions, but is undoubtedly boosted by the proliferation of Do-It-Yourself/at-home abortions by way of the Abortion Pill].
Also, according to the Guttmacher Institute, adolescents made up 12% of abortion patients in 2014: those aged 18–19 accounted for 8% of all abortions, 15–17-year-olds for 3%, and those younger than 15 for 0.2%.
White patients accounted for 39% of abortion procedures in 2014, black patients for 28%, Hispanic patients for 25%, and patients of other races and ethnicities for 9%. This is certainly not a statistically balanced fact. African Americans are aborted at rates that far exceed other races, and it is easy to see how that occurs with many Planned Parenthood abortion clinics positioned in places with high African American populations. As an example, in New York, more African American babies are aborted than are born. [iv]
And what about those conceived in rape or abortion? Shouldn’t we allow abortions for cases such as these? I used to think we should. When we consider these questions of abortion, however, we can “trot out the toddler” as Kluessendorf says. What about their situation gives us the right to take their life?
In no other situation would we have a judge or jury come to the conclusion that the son or daughter of a rapist should be murdered because of the offense their father committed? We would also not legally take a child’s life if we found out that the parents were kissing cousins after the child was born. Might that cause genetic defects in the child? Maybe, but we all have genetic defects and nobody has the right to kill us for ours.
It is lauded in the world now that certain Scandinavian countries have eliminated Down Syndrome. The truth, however, is that they have not eliminated Down Syndrome. They have only eliminated children with Down Syndrome thanks to tests determining potential issues prior to birth. Do people with Down Syndrome or any other imperfection deserve death? What makes us different from the Third Reich when we simply do this in the womb instead of the gas chamber? I know this seems harsh, but abortion is a harsh topic. Especially to those who have been its victim.
I should note here that I do understand the need for abortion in cases when the child is a clear and real threat to the life of the mother, though cases like that are rarer than I previously realized. I encourage you not to take my word for it and to explore stats from reliable sources on reasons abortions are sought.
There is nothing in our constitution about the right to have an abortion. That so-called right was really a collection of a few Supreme Court cases starting with Roe v. Wade that mandated legal abortion in every state, and now in many states, it is allowed for any reason. I grant you that the right of a woman to have an abortion currently exists, even if our legislators have been unable to craft it into a constitutional amendment. The right of slaveholders to own slaves used to exist too. Just because something is a right or a law does not make it morally righteous.
According to a recent Pew Research poll, Americans have remained divided consistently on the issue, with the approximate ratios of 59% pro-choice and 39% pro-life since 1995.[v] The percentage of people surveyed revealed that only 25% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all cases, while 26% believe it should be illegal in most cases. 34% believe it should be legal in most cases, while 13% believe it should be illegal in all cases.
In case you were thinking that I had no right to weigh in on this issue as a man, I must point out that around half of those aborted humans we are talking about would have grown into men. Therefore, I and every other man have standing. As for the statement that if you don’t like abortion you shouldn’t have one, this same saying was applied to slaves prior to the great emancipation.
Since Roe v. Wade was decided, there have been at least 44 million babies aborted in the U.S. In my home state of Illinois, there are regularly over 40,000 per year aborted. This does not speak to the total amount of abortions worldwide, where the U.S. continues to be a frontrunner in the practice, along with Russia and China. According to WHO, every year in the world there are an estimated 40-50 million abortions. This corresponds to approximately 125,000 abortions per day.[vi]
I do hope you note that, aside from my introduction, there has not been much made of my faith in the body of this writing. I absolutely believe that mankind was made in the image of God, and I also believe that all men and women in America have the Constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While I believe that God is at the beginning and end of this argument, you do not have to be a professing Christian, or Muslim, or Jew to care about the welfare of other human beings. Many atheists put Christians and other religious claimants to shame on a regular basis. I believe that being pro-life should not be seen as a purely religious stance, but rather as a human civil rights issue that can be led by the faithful and the secular alike.
But since I did bring up religion, I must note some other items from the research cited above that Christians may be interested in. Seventeen percent of abortion patients in 2014 identified themselves as mainline Protestant, 13% as evangelical Protestant, and 24% as Catholic, while 38% reported no religious affiliation and the remaining 8% reported some other religious affiliation. So, 37% of those obtaining abortions identify themselves as Christians.
Those numbers should not come as a shock, considering that the same poll found that 63% of those who identified as protestant, non-evangelical Christians said abortion should be legal in all/most cases. Of those who described themselves as Catholic, 55% believed abortion should be legal in all/most cases.
While I insist this is not just a religious issue, if the churches in America don’t provide the foundation for changing public opinion on this matter, who will? Just as the churches were a driving force in the abolition of slavery in the world, the church must work to help its congregants, and then society, see the truth in this most serious attack on the image of God in our lifetime.
To reiterate with all the love for you that I can send through writing to a stranger, if you have had an abortion or encouraged one, I pray that you know that there is real forgiveness for this and any other sin you can imagine. Jesus simply asks us to repent and trust in Him. To repent means to stop and turn away. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23) I pray we all repent of our acceptance of this assault on God and His image-bearers soon.
My prayer is that the end of abortion comes about not from a Supreme Court decision or (God forbid) a civil war but instead as a result of all people seeing the wrong of our doing and moving as one people toward life as God designed.
References:
[i] Editor’s note: The original post says “Many states allow abortion right up to the point of natural birth” but adds the following, “and actually allow for partially exiting the child from the mother to end its life so that it will count as an abortion for those who wait too long for a “normal” abortion.” Perhaps the author had some rare or obscure abortion-method in mind, but it sounds like he’s describing partial birth abortion which remains under a federal ban making partial-birth abortion illegal across the United States. See: S.3 – Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003
[ii] https://data.guttmacher.org/states/
[iii] https://www.guttmacher.org/2024/03/despite-bans-number-abortions-united-states-increased-2023
[iv] https://www.wsj.com/articles/lets-talk-about-the-black-abortion-rate-1531263697?msockid=2fe0aed392d664f11b30bdf6934565ef
[v] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
[vi] https://www.worldometers.info/abortions/
Recommended Resources:
Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)
Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3
Tony Williams is currently serving in his 20th year as a police officer in a city in Southern Illinois. He has been studying apologetics in his spare time for two decades, since a crisis of faith led him to the discovery of vast and ever-increasing evidence for his faith. Tony received a bachelor’s degree in University Studies from Southern Illinois University in 2019. His career in law enforcement has provided valuable insight into the concepts of truth, evidence, confession, testimony, cultural competency, morality, and most of all, the compelling need for Christ in the lives of the lost. Tony plans to pursue postgraduate studies in apologetics in the near future to sharpen his understanding of the various facets of Christian apologetics
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4faZKsc
Fired for Faith? Media Deception? Frank Ignoring Facts? Plus Q&A
PodcastFrank responds to listener questions and a charge that he is ignoring facts. He also exposes media deception in this election cycle, and shows the shocking connection between the abortion pill and Zyklon B (the gas the Nazis used in the gas chambers). Questions include:
You’ll also want to see Seth Gruber’s revealing documentary about the history of abortion and Planned Parenthood called The 1916 Project (NOT the bogus 1619 Project) which is available for FREE for a short time on X. It has over 1 million views in 24 hours!
And as you continue to prepare for the upcoming election, be sure to visit VoteYourFaith.net where you can use the iVoterGuide and other helpful resources to get a breakdown of all the candidates and their policies on your local ballot!
Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Seth Gruber’s The 1916 Project: https://bit.ly/4hkJUgu
Helpful Resources & Voting Guide: VoteYourFaith.net
Just Facts: https://www.justfacts.com/
Does the Media Lie About Donald Trump? https://bit.ly/3Yarxli
NewsBusters: https://newsbusters.org/
AllSides: https://www.allsides.com/
The Parasitic Mind: https://a.co/d/c0gFqtF
Undercover Planned Parenthood video: https://bit.ly/3BFt6jQ
Calling a Late-Term Abortion Facility: https://bit.ly/3BWfDEo
Fired for Faith? Media Deception? Frank Ignoring Facts? Plus Q&A
PodcastFrank responds to listener questions and a charge that he is ignoring facts. He also exposes media deception in this election cycle, and shows the shocking connection between the abortion pill and Zyklon B (the gas the Nazis used in the gas chambers). Questions include:
You’ll also want to see Seth Gruber’s revealing documentary about the history of abortion and Planned Parenthood called The 1916 Project (NOT the bogus 1619 Project) which is available for FREE for a short time on X. It has over 1 million views in 24 hours!
And as you continue to prepare for the upcoming election, be sure to visit VoteYourFaith.net where you can use the iVoterGuide and other helpful resources to get a breakdown of all the candidates and their policies on your local ballot!
Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Seth Gruber’s The 1916 Project: https://bit.ly/4hkJUgu
Helpful Resources & Voting Guide: VoteYourFaith.net
Just Facts: https://www.justfacts.com/
Does the Media Lie About Donald Trump? https://bit.ly/3Yarxli
NewsBusters: https://newsbusters.org/
AllSides: https://www.allsides.com/
The Parasitic Mind: https://a.co/d/c0gFqtF
Undercover Planned Parenthood video: https://bit.ly/3BFt6jQ
Calling a Late-Term Abortion Facility: https://bit.ly/3BWfDEo
Dear Friend: To Those Choosing to Abstain or Vote 3rd Party in 2024
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsEditor’s Note: This post from Dr. Robert A.J. Gagnon was originally posted on October 14, 2024 at FreeThinking Ministries, in the form of an open letter to everyone who is tempted to abstain from voting in the 2024 election. We’ve tried to preserve that format here at CrossExamined.
Dear friend who is inclined not to cast a vote for either Harris or Trump,
I agree that Trump deserves criticism for his weakened stance on abortion. His position on abortion has probably changed for the worse since coming to the conclusion that he can’t get elected by holding a consistently pro-life position.
But consider Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 election. Even Lincoln was not a declared abolitionist in 1860 (and also by our standards today a racist). He couldn’t have been an abolitionist and still have had a prayer to get elected. I don’t think that is a perfect analogy (even apart from the character differences of the two men) because Lincoln deep in his heart thought that slavery was a high moral evil, whereas Trump probably isn’t convinced in his heart that abortion is an evil at all stages. But the point is that *even* Lincoln had to compromise his principles in running for office. Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison wouldn’t vote for him as a result, but Garrison was wrong (as ex-slave Frederick Douglass pointed out). (Note: Garrison eventually did come around and support Lincoln in the 1864 election.)
Trump’s position on abortion is still significantly better than that of Harris. For one, Trump will still leave matters to the states. He is not going to push for a federal “reproductive freedom” bill. For another, he is not going to appoint justices who want to reinstate Roe and Doe. He would support a Born Alive bill. He would likely support additional protections for the fetus in the viability phase. He will probably continue to be a thorn in the side of Planned Parenthood. He is not going to let the Justice Department go after pro-life protestors. He is not going to sick the Justice Department on states that put various restrictions on abortion.
That is not as much as you or I want, not by a long shot, but it is far more than we will get with Harris. Trump will also carry through with his promise to put an end to the transgender insanity perpetrated on minors. He opposes chemical castration and surgical mutilation of minors, as well as compulsory indoctrination. He opposes males in female restrooms and sports. He is a big supporter of Musk’s X and he is not going to do anything to cancel or criminalize free speech or free exercise of religion.
I too wish that DeSantis had been given the nomination, but since that ship has sailed, I have to do what I can to prevent the far worse alternative. I think that Vance can be reached for a stronger pro-life position after Trump leaves office.
In my view, there is a real possibility that if Harris is elected, Republicans may not win the presidency for the foreseeable future, owing to the massive illegal immigration scam and active suppression of free speech. We really don’t have a choice but to cast an effective vote against Harris, don’t you think?
Recommended Resources:
Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )
The Case for Christian Activism (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)
Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Frank Turek (Mp3/ Mp4)
Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D., became a Wesley Biblical Seminary Visiting Scholar in the summer of 2024, teaching remotely from Pittsburgh, PA. Among his many academic publications, he is best known for The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon), widely regarded as the “gold standard” work defending the biblical view of a male-female foundation for sexual ethics. He is currently working on a popular concise book on the same subject, as well as a book tentatively entitled The Fifteen Most Important Texts in the Bible. Dr. Gagnon received a B.A. from Dartmouth College (1981, cum laude, highest honors in history), a Master of Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School (1987), and a Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary (1993, magna cum laude). His first full-time teaching experience was as a Visiting Professor at Middlebury College (1993-94), then taught at a PCUSA school, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, first as an Assistant Professor of New Testament, then as a tenured Associate Professor (1994-2017). After defending at PTS for 23 years the orthodox Christian position on the atonement and on homosexual behavior, he and the new PTS President “mutually agreed” to end his employment there. From 2019 to July 2024 Dr. Gagnon was a professor of biblical theology at Houston Christian (formerly Baptist) University. A number of his publications pre-2018 can be found at www.robgagnon.net (needs redesigning and updating!); and he is active on Facebook and X. www.robgagnon.net
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3NILB9z
Biblical Inerrancy and the Young vs. Old Earth Debate | with Dr. Hugh Ross
PodcastCan you believe in biblical inerrancy AND hold to the old earth creation model? There’s been an intramural debate brewing between old earth and young creationists, and some evangelical scholars say it’s time to rethink the bedrock doctrine of biblical inerrancy in order for Christianity to remain viable in the intellectual sphere. But what do the Scriptures, along with what we can observe scientifically, reveal about creation and the age of the earth?
To help us answer that question is astrophysicist, Christian apologist, author, and founder of Reasons to Believe, Dr. Hugh Ross, who joins Frank from the SES 2024 Steadfast conference, right before his debate with young earth creationist, Dr. Terry Mortenson. In defense of the old earth position, Dr. Hugh Ross will unpack what Genesis 1 shows us about cosmology and will tackle questions like:
Whether you’re a young or old earth creationist, this podcast episode will be packed with plenty of information that could challenge or bring clarity to your perspective on when and how God created the universe. Listen as Dr. Hugh Ross highlights where young earth and old earth Christians agree and disagree, and how God faithfully reveals Himself both in the book of Scripture and the book of nature. Grab your pen and paper, because this SES Steadfast podcast edition is sure to stretch your mind!
Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.
Resources mentioned during the episode:
BOOK: Rescuing Inerrancy
HUGH ROSS’ MINISTRY: https://reasons.org/
Personally Prolife, Politically Prochoice: A Response
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsCan we be pro-life personally but pro-choice politically? The quick answer to this loaded question is: No, we can’t really be pro-life personally if we are pro-choice politically. That’s because pro-lifers recognize that the child-in-utero is a human being, so the decision to abort isn’t a strictly personal decision at all, it’s an interpersonal decision. In that sense, it’s not a “private” decision (for just one person to decide). It’s a public decision (where at least 2 people are involved). Since abortion is an interpersonal act, it bears upon society and politics. Some people might not want to have an abortion, for themselves, but that does not qualify anyone as pro-life. Pro-choicers themselves recognize a “freedom to choose,” even when that includes choosing against abortion. In summary, if you are only “personally” pro-life, then you aren’t really pro-life.
What does “personally pro-life politically pro-choice” even mean?
The good news is that if you are “personally pro-life” that means you would never go through with an abortion. Congratulations! That’s an important and heroic stance. We can disagree and argue over the “politically pro-choice” part, but if you have taken any stand against abortion, then I commend you. Perhaps if more abortion-choice advocates were to go at least as far as “personally pro-life” then we’d have even fewer abortions than we currently do. Saving baby’s lives is worthwhile, no matter who is doing it. I would rather have someone personally pro-life than totally pro-choice. Most of what follows is aimed at the “politically pro-choice” part. If it’s not clear later, then let me make it clear now, I celebrate, encourage, and wholeheartedly support the fact that some pro-choice people have let the pro-life cause take root in their personal convictions. If they are “personally” pro-life, then they are a step closer to being fully pro-life (personally and politically). My whole effort in this article is to help extend that conviction further, beyond merely personal conviction, and into a fully formed pro-life outlook.
It’s Code Language for “Pro-choice”
Just to be clear, pro-lifers typically identify as anti-abortion both on a personal and public/political level. They can say, “I would never have an abortion and abortion should be generally banned.”[i] So when people try to drop the second half of that, wanting to blend pro-life and pro-choice, they are typically trying to sample the best of both worlds. Unfortunately, this hybrid, usually means they have a pro-choice perspective overall. To say you are only “personally” pro-life is often code language for, “I won’t go as far as the most radical pro-choicers, celebrating abortion or acting like it’s no big deal, but in point of fact, I’m still entrenched in the middle of the pro-choice camp.”
Most pro-choicers, by the way, admit that abortion is “bad.” They are not “pro-abortion.” Only the most radical/extreme pro-choice figureheads will act like abortion is commendable. Pro-choice advocates, generally, aren’t trying to promote more abortions or celebrate abortions.[ii] Most everyone on all sides admits that any given abortion is regrettable. So, it’s not terribly impressive when a pro-choicer says that abortions are gross, ugly, bad, or traumatic, they just think – contrary to pro-lifers – that abortion is a “necessary evil.” Abortion is not “good” but, so they say, it is good for women to have that choice.
Often, people don the hybrid position because they are pro-life at heart, but they are politically progressive and there just aren’t any solid pro-life platforms within the Democrat party (or Libertarian, or Green, or Socialist parties for that matter). In other words, they’d support a pro-life candidate if there was ever one campaigning within their party, but when left to choose between their pro-life convictions and their political party they are too allied to the Democrat party (for example) to stop fighting in the pro-choice army. Their pro-life convictions are burdensome and expendable. With the slightest threat of turbulence, they can throw their pro-life sentiments overboard for the sake of political expediency.
If you lean pro-life but can’t find a political candidate you’d support in your party, instead of sacrificing the pro-life cause for political expediency, I encourage you to let your candidates know how you feel! Press and pressure them to hear your voice. And withhold your vote till your party can offer a pro-life candidate worthy of your support. Abortion is a big enough issue to where it deserves to be a deal-breaker like that.
It’s Confused Compassion
To be sure, this hybrid position can flow from noble motives. People may don the hybrid position as an effort to balance compassion for both the child and the mother. Conventional pro-lifers often focus attention on the child-in-utero and don’t clarify just how much compassion and concern they have for the mother. Pro-choicers often focus attention on the mother while dehumanizing and delegitimizing her child-in-utero. Both of these extremes are problematic.
With the hybrid position, however, one may be trying to draw attention to both the child and the mother. This hybrid may sound like any of the following:
“I’m personally pro-life, but I vote pro-choice”
“I would never have an abortion, but I’m politically pro-choice.”
“Abortion is wrong for me, but we shouldn’t tell women what to do with their bodies.”
Notice the word “but” in between each of these clauses. The hybrid position tries to merge two camps, bridging a hostile divide. It has the tone of a strategic compromise. Indeed, this hybrid position is amenable to almost every stripe of pro-choice politics, except perhaps for the most radical population-control advocate. But pro-lifers, cannot, in good conscience, relegate abortion to the realm of merely “personal choice.”
The hybrid position treats abortion like an entirely private personal decision, so only the pregnant mother has moral standing in deciding the fate of her child-in-utero. This line of thinking suggests that we individuals can pick and choose whether abortion is right for us, but we should not try to tell anyone else that abortion is wrong for them. Supposedly, we all decide our own ethics of abortion. And abortion is such a personal decision that even if we conclude that it’s a terrible, horrible, very bad, no good practice – what we really mean is “it’s wrong for me.” It may be “right” for someone else in a different situation, or with different needs and interests. If this smells like relativism to you, I smell it too.
Compassionate motives are great, and we should celebrate compassionate concerns for mother and child alike. But no amount of good motivations are safe from spoilage in a cauldron of relativistic ethics. Apply this kind of logic to something that we can all agree is wrong, and you’ll see how this relativistic framework is shaky. For example, “I would never own a slave, but I would never tell someone else what they can or can’t do with their property [slaves].” If we start treating the most basic human rights like they aren’t absolute, then we end up with moral absurdities like say abolishing slavery is, “True for me, but not for you,” or “murdering gay people is, bad for our society, but is good for some other society.”
It’s Emotionally Pro-life but Intellectually Pro-choice
Another reason people may choose the hybrid position is because deep down they feel abortion is wrong but for whatever reason they believe that pro-choice is still a rationally sound position because of women’s privacy rights. The loss of a little baby is awful, but abortion isn’t bad enough to deserve civil abolition – like we’ve done with murder, slavery, rape, and a host of other evils. At a heart level, they sympathize with the pro-life position, but they know too many objections and defenses for the pro-choice position, and they still care about struggling mothers, so they hold steady to pro-choice politics.
One might say this person is emotionally pro-life but intellectually pro-choice. When they look at the facts of abortion, and weigh their own conscience on the matter, they see that abortion is wicked awful stuff. And they can’t comfortably support that action. But, when they look away and trust the commercials, the articles, and word-of-mouth they’ve gathered from liberal intellectual friends, professors, and authorities on TV, they find the pro-choice position compelling.
I’d suggest that usually when people hold this position they don’t understand the pro-life side very well and they’ve been duped by pro-choice rhetoric. They may have been pro-life in their younger days but the only arguments and evidence they’ve seriously considered have been from pro-choice professors, or political advocates, or both–politically partisan academics who aren’t interested in giving the pro-life position a responsible treatment. Sadly, if you formed your current views on abortion at college or graduate school there’s a good chance that your exposure to the abortion debate has been one-sided in favor of abortion-choice. Gallup Polls have shown that the longer you spend in college, the higher the chances you’ll declare yourself pro-choice.
If you aren’t sure about the solid ground supporting the pro-life position, I commend to you: Abort73.com, AbortionFacts, Lozier Institute, LiveAction, Equal Rights Institute, AbortionHistoryMuseum, TheAbortionMuseum. Having spent most of life in pro-life apologetics, I’m convinced that the only way people can reject the pro-life position is (1) they didn’t know it’s true, or (2) they don’t want it to be true. Getting informed can help solve the first part. Getting God in your life can help with the second.
It’s the Muddy Middle
Other times, I find people adopt a hybrid position because they see themselves as “moderates,” trying to find the golden mean between extremes. These same people often avoid “labels,” and don’t like to be lumped into “categories” These middlers can boast that they aren’t extremists. And they may try to mitigate and avoid conflict by finding compromise positions in every debate. Abortion is a live debate in bioethics, politics, and society. So, it’s no surprise to find some conflict-avoiders mediating the debate with a compromise position trying to affirm the dignity of mother and child, dignifying the importance of life and liberty, and equally valuing both pro-life and pro-choice positions. There’s a general wisdom in seeking moderation, balance, and middle-ground where possible.
Unfortunately, the middle isn’t always a safe place to camp. Some battles don’t permit any neutral “sideline,” so everyone is already on the battlefield presently affected by the socio-political fallout of abortion-choice policy. Permitting some rhetorical flourish, those committed to both sides are entrenched in the middle of an open battle, subject to crossfire from both sides. Having meandered into and encamped in the middle of an active battle, they are torn between two allegiances. Effectively, they are casualties waiting to happen. The hybrid position is not a friend to both parties, it’s an enemy to everyone. In a battle of ideas, playing both the pro-life and the pro-choice position is akin to a turncoat, a double-agent, an enemy in the gates committed ultimately to an irrational contradiction, at best, or a dangerous compromise, at worst. Now, that person can save the life of her own child – and that heroism deserves praise – but she betrays her efforts by refusing to intervene and protect other imperiled human beings in utero.
This warfare analogy might sound harsh, extreme, or misleading but imagine someone trying to play the moderate position regarding sex-slavery: “I would never own a sex-slave, but I’m in no position to tell someone else what they can or cannot do with their sexual property.” Clearly, that “moderate” position has granted too much to the pro-slavers because they grant that human beings can be treated, ethically, like property. Pro-choicers, similarly, treat living human beings in-utero, like property that can be disposed at the will of his or her owner. Obviously, slavery is very different from abortion, but both should teach us that human beings aren’t property and should not be treated as such.
Or imagine a moderate position on the holocaust: “I would never gas a Jew, but who am I tell tell people from a different country, in a different culture, what they can and cannot do with their citizens.” The moderate has assumed that mass slaughter of unwanted human beings is not a crime against humanity, and it could be ethical in one society but unethical in another. This “moderate” position isn’t moderate at all. Unfortunately, it’s not uncommon either – moral relativism is quite popular in many circles. Yet moral relativism betrays the very notion of human rights, and has historically played a major role in the holocaust, slavery, and in recent times, abortion.
These ugly examples demonstrate that the middle ground between two politically charged positions is not always a golden mean. Sometimes, it’s a horrific compromise. The real “moderate” position should not be between pro-life (anti-abortion) and pro-choice (abortion-on-demand), but rather between which exceptional cases of abortion should be legal–ex., rape pregnancies, or imperiled pregnancies (threatening the mother’s life).
Remember that if abortion is a moral right of women, the pro-choicers are justified in fighting adamantly for it. If abortion is morally wrong, however, then pro-lifers are justified even moreso, as the scope of this evil is deadlier than any other act of violence in world history. Abortion in the United States has already claimed far more lives, in far less time, than the entire North American slave trade ever claimed. Yet slavery had no chance of abolition if “enlightened” northerners were committed to both slavery and abolition. Slavery was too entrenched of an evil for the abolitionists to play the moderate position as if slave ownership was an excusable “necessary evil.” In the Civil War, there was no strategic advantage in trying to say that slavery deserves to be abolished and yet it shouldn’t be abolished. That position is not only a logical contradiction, it’s morally unsound and politically foolish.
This same muddy middle makes no more sense when applied to apartheid South Africa. It would be equally foolish to say, “I personally oppose apartheid, but I’m not in any position to judge whether South Africa should or should not have apartheid. That’s for South Africa to decide for itself.”
Or we could apply it to infanticide and readily see the same contradiction: “I personally oppose murdering one’s newborn baby, but who am I to judge a struggling mother who feels like she needs to smother her inconvenient little baby for squirming too much. It’s her baby, so it’s her right to kill it if she wants.”
It’s Relativism
This hybrid position also carries a tone of moral relativism. As we saw above, the hybrid position easily retreats into individual or cultural relativism where some moral principle is only as authoritative as a group vote (cultural relativism), or a personal preference (subjectivism). For one person abortion is unethical, for the next person it’s ethical, for another person it’s sometimes ethical sometimes not. There would be no factual wrongness about abortion except with respect to one’s own personal standards of right and wrong. This brand of easily slips into “might makes right” ethics, committing the “popular appeal fallacy,” and it cannot distinguish consistently between “legal” and “moral.” In cultural relativism, slavery was ethical–as long as it was the legal convention of the time.
But truth isn’t decided by vote. And evil is still evil, even when it’s popular.
There are lots of problems with relativism. But I’ll just note one more important objection here. Abortion bears upon human rights, and human rights are not the kind of thing that qualify for relativism. If women have a human right to full autonomy over their own body, up to and including abortion, then abortion is ethically permitted – and that would be an objective moral fact, regardless of what any given women should “feel,” “think,” “believe,” or “prefer” within her own subjective or conventional ethics. Now that’s a pro-choice rebuttal to relativism.
The pro-life rebuttal runs even deeper. Beneath the right of autonomy, exists the right to life, as in:
Notice the right to “life” appears before the rights of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This order is sensible because only living individuals have liberty, and only living individuals with some measure of liberty can pursue happiness as they see it. These three rights do not necessarily exhaust all our fundamental human rights, but they are sufficient to show how the rights of life and liberty relate. Pro-lifers have a strong, principled, and historic case that the most basic of all human rights is the right to life. I would argue that the abortion-choice camp hasn’t even come close to satisfying their burden of proof here. They have not yet shown that the mother’s claim of liberty (i.e., personal sovereignty, privacy, autonomy) gets deep enough to undermine and nullify the child’s potential, alleged, or possible right to life.
Furthermore, since killing a human being is an irreversible, final, and permanent act against a fellow member of the species, it should never be doled out for trivial reasons or in the presence of reasonable doubt.
In summary, abortion bears heavily upon human rights, human rights are too foundational to surrender to the flight and fancy of relativistic ethics, and so, abortion is a poor fit for relativism. Subjectivism and conventionalism just aren’t serious enough among the schools of ethics to account for the moral weight of that child’s life.
It’s Pragmatism
This hybrid “logic” could also sound persuasive if you understand pro-life policy to be too impractical to work for society. Many abortion-choice advocates will use the threat of “coathanger abortions” to intimidate people into agreement. The threat is something like, “If you ban even the safe abortions, then women will be forced to get unsafe abortions.”
There’s a cold logic to this. Pro-life advocates as well abortion-choice advocates all have to weigh the practical implications of their ideals. Anyone making society-wide policy needs to consider practicality. The abortion debate is not merely moral, it’s also a judicial and political debate. It’s a legal matter, and legality is bound on all sides by practical issues of enforcement.
Real-world policies, however, should not be measured against utopia either. Banning abortion won’t stop all abortions, nor will legalizing abortion stop all coat-hanger abortions. Practical concerns pull both ways, tempering both the pro-life and abortion-choice positions. Legalizing abortion hasn’t stopped illegal and unsafe abortionists from finding scared imperiled women to prey on. We know of prolific mass murderers like Dr. Kermit Gosnell, whose abortion-mill generated hundreds and thousands of illegal abortions, post-birth abortions (infanticides), and subjected patients to unsanitary, injurious, and even fatal conditions. But besides just his case, we could cite many more clinics, doctors, and nurses who prove that the abortion-industry is intrinsically unsafe, and many of its worst offenders operate with little to no regulatory oversight regulation due in part to the knotted political landscape of abortion.
We also know, from history, that legalizing abortion at a state level in the late 1960’s and then nationwide in 1973 radically multiplied the number of abortions. Restated, that means, the prior ban on abortions radically reduced the number of abortions. That fact points out that banning abortion would greatly serve women’s health interests since the very nature of abortion is medically and psychologically dangerous for women.
Even legal and relatively “safe” abortion is inherently risky for the mother. In 98-99% of cases the abortion is not protecting the mother’s life so it’s medically unnecessary. Being medically unnecessary, all of its inherent risks of its inherent risks are unnecessary risks. The physical risks are many including cuts, punctures, bruising, heavy bleeding, disfigurement, drug interactions, incomplete abortions (leaving parts of the deceased child behind), and all the subsequent side effects that may occur with those problems including infection, sepsis, fever, headaches, dizziness, nausea, scarring, blood clots, coma, heart attack, and even death.
Possible long-term side effects and complications are often disputed but are thought to include sterility, pre-term birth, miscarriage, malfunctioning cervix, menstrual irregularities, and correlation with breast cancer. There are also a range of psychological risks – even for “safe” and “legal” abortions–which have been demonstrated in multiple studies. Pro-choicers tend to focus on the short-term sense of relief reported by abortion patients, but in long-term studies abortion patients report post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, thoughts and attempts at suicide, broken relationships, drug and alcohol abuse, divorce, broken relationships, self-destructive behaviors, and a constellation of problems correlated with serious emotional trauma. Of course, the abortion-choice industry has tried to dispute all these claims about the dangers of abortion, but it’s medically naive to think of abortion as medically inert. And, even if child-birth were just as risky or riskier, the dangers are heavily mitigated by the birth of live child. Abortion isn’t safer than childbirth. It’s not safe for the mother. And it’s just not safe.
We should also consider how the abortion industry influences our sexual choices. First wave feminists at the turn of the 20th century, for example, decried abortion as a mode of exploiting women. Instead of reigning in men and calling them to take responsibility for the women and children in their lives, abortion is one more legal excuse for males to treat women like sex objects; love ’em and leave ’em. Given the preponderance of illicit sex, sex-trafficking and pornography, combined with the declining rate of marriage there is a strong case to be made that abortion-choice policy hasn’t been very “practical” at all. It set up countless women for exploitation, loneliness, and trauma, while setting the heaviest and fatal consequence on defenseless children-in-utero.
We have more than enough reasons, therefore, to think that pro-life policy would serve women’s health fare better than pro-choice policy has. Pro-life policy is practical.
It’s Cowardice
Other people may take the “personally pro-life” position because they aren’t terribly pro-life in the first place. No abortion choice advocate wants to be seen as a barbarian or a villain. And donning some of the terminology and tone of a pro-lifer may lend a sense of tolerance and compassion. Wearing the facade of an outspoken pro-life advocate doesn’t take a lot of courage, but it does take some courage. And some people just don’t have enough courage to take a consistent pro-life stand. Perhaps they lack the conviction or the knowledge. But whatever the cause they are too timid to fully align with the pro-life position. They may still think abortion is bad but they lack the fortitude to take a firm stand against it.
It’s easy to understand why people would be timid when they aren’t well-informed on the issue. If knowledge is power, then ignorance is crippling. Courage turns to cowardice when we don’t understand the issue well enough to have an informed opinion on it. In that event, a “moderate” pro-lifer or pro-choicer may be scared to explain or defend their pro-life position. By default, they gravitate toward the muddy middle, imagining it safer to appease both camps and avoid having to state, explain, or defend their position beyond a few shallow talking points.
Many pro-lifers and pro-choicers, in my experience, stay fairly moderate on the issue and aren’t terribly informed about the risks involved in abortion, or about the size and scope of abortion, or about the wider effects of abortion on society, or the history of abortion in America. Often, they don’t even know what an abortion looks like, or what the developing child looks like in a first-term abortion. It is no surprise that people may claim to be “pro-life” but, for fear of offending a pro-choice friend or family member, they immediately buttress that position with a fatal concession to pro-choice policy. They are “personally pro-life” – which is politically neutral, and wholly non-threatening to anyone else – but they are tolerant towards anyone else’s pro-choice politics or policies. They won’t even stand against abortion-choice legislation because their “pro-life” stance is effectively hidden from the world, squirreled away in the private recesses of their personal preference within their own bedroom at home.
In other words, to be “personally pro-life” is often ignorance-fueled cowardice. Now, I don’t say that lightly, but neither do I intend this as a mean-spirited insult. All of us have something to learn about this issue, and to the extent that we don’t understand or we just don’t know the specifics we can be crippled in our convictions and prone to cowardice. The simple solution then is to get informed. Study a bit. Guard our claims, saying what we know, admitting what we don’t know, and allowing ourselves to learn in the process. We can grow in our convictions and our courage as we learn. And through it all, we should maintain an attitude of humility, grace, and love.
It’s Ignorance
Ignorance poses another problem here besides inspiring cowardice. Sometimes people simply don’t realize how incompatible are the two camps. They may ascribe to the hybrid position because they believe that being “pro-life” is nothing more than saying, “I find abortion distasteful.” But since many pro-choice advocates find abortion distasteful, then that’s hardly a defining feature. That limp and flimsy form of “pro-life” may be due to ignorance.
A more troubling trend is when people affirm the hybrid position because they really don’t want to know what is involved in abortion. They may regret that some people choose abortion, but they don’t want to get informed enough to get involved in any solution. For them “ignorance is bliss.” Ignorance is an evasive maneuver, so they don’t have to take any responsibility. Just as good samaritan laws obligate competent bystanders to help people in dire situations, a person may be morally obligated to help a pregnant friend or neighbor choose life. But they are only responsible if they are competent to help. If they don’t know enough to help, then they aren’t morally responsible to help.
The straightforward solution for ignorance is knowledge, but of course, that’s a difficult task whenever it’s willful ignorance. There’s no knowledge so penetrating that people will receive it against their will.
It’s Political Confusion
Few issues have been as politicized as abortion. So, in many people’s eyes “abortion” is just another political issue. Some people may claim to be only “personally pro-life” but not politically because the political law of the land is pro-choice and they don’t want to fight about it. In their eyes it’s expedient or even ethical, to be “tolerant,” and “open-minded” on the issue. They don’t like arguing about politics or religion, so they don’t say anything is wrong with abortion-choice policy.
There’s some cold logic to this position, as it’s part pragmatism, and it can swirl in elements of “compassion,” and “tolerance” (i.e., often in the form of relativism). For people who are wishy-washy in their politics, or they aren’t willing to disagree with flawed party platform, then the hybrid option may sound very appealing.
There is, however, nothing intrinsically political about abortion, Democrats can and have been pro-life. Republicans can and have been pro-choice. Ideally, all major parties could agree that killing one’s own innocent defenseless family members is unethical and should be banned. But, unfortunately, the political lines have been drawn and the rhetoric has been loaded like artillery so that any democrats will be fired upon like an enemy spy plane if they dare question the value of Planned Parenthood or if they suggest that abortion is barbaric. Political liberals, in this way, would do well to distinguish themselves from the Democrat establishment so they are never pressured and pulled into a party platform that they can’t support in good conscience. Likewise for political conservatives, they shouldn’t be so married to the republican party that they cannot stiff-arm any foolish unethical policies popular within the establishment. Republicans may, generally, have a better record on pro-life policies, but they have not always sided with life, especially when it’s unpopular.
I should add, that even though Democrats should accommodate the pro-life position I don’t think Republicans should be open to abortion-choice policy. Republicans should be no more open to abortion-choice than they should be open to reinstating slavery. I know that’s a touchy comparison, but policies which treat human beings like objects that can be used and disposed at will are intrinsically wrong at the level of human rights, regardless of one’s politics. We don’t even need to haggle over the definition of “person” or when “consciousness” begins. Abortion kills biological human beings as if those humans were some disposable property. Objectifying humans is wrong, whether by slavery or abortion. Just as no self-respecting democrat would support slave laws that allow for the objectification of human beings, they should likewise be able to renounce their party platform and stand on the side of life.
Also, we do well to remember that we are talking about the single deadliest act, institution, or event in world history. In this way, abortion is a bigger issue than party politics. Democrats would do well to take the pro-life platform more seriously, especially since they missed the boat 150 years ago when the Democrat party sided with the biggest human rights crime of that era too. I don’t care to defend or promote republicanism or democrat politics here. All political parties have a mixed history on human rights issues. Democrats aren’t all wrong, and Republicans aren’t all right. Pro-lifers, unfortunately, have few voting options on the Democratic side these days. When it comes to the anti-abortion position, the Republican party has a better record–though not by much.
A Final Word on Being “Personally Pro-life”
Clearly, there are some glaring problems when people attempt to straddle the fence on the abortion issue. We have plenty of reasons to broadly reject the hybrid position. But it’s still better to be personally pro-life than totally pro-choice. If you personally would never go through with an abortion, I applaud you! If you refrained from an abortion because you are generally pro-choice but personally pro-life, then you still saved a life. Choosing life merits celebration every time! It is better to have a political pro-choicer personally abstain from abortion than to have a pro-lifer who betrays their conscience and aborts their unborn child. When all the smoke settles, we each still have to answer for the decisions we make in our own lives, regardless of our ideologies.
If you are “personally pro-life” but “politically pro-choice” then I encourage you to consider going the whole way and just be pro-life. Abortion is too devastating, too deadly, too violent, too harmful to women. It doesn’t even deserve half-hearted support. We all do well to consider and commit to a genuine pro-life stance. The pro-life cause goes beyond just personal opinions, preferences, or relativistic ethics. “Pro-life” refers to a fundamental recognition that the child-in-utero deserves protection; not just your child or my child, but every child. If you are only “personally” pro-life then I plead with you, don’t let your compassion stop with your own family planning prospects. Care for all the women and children imperiled by abortion. If we don’t speak for the voiceless, they will never be heard.
References:
[i] By “generally banned,” I mean the banning of convenience abortions where the mother’s life is not in danger. Other mitigating circumstances might include cases of “rape” or “severe deformity.” Pro-lifers usually, however, oppose abortion even in these exceptional cases of rape and fetal deformity, although most consider abortion justified as “life-saving” if pregnancy imperils the mother’s life.
[ii] While most pro-choice advocates do not knowingly support an increase of abortions, it’s a well known fact of groups like Planned Parenthood that abortions are a major source of revenue, and more abortions spells more profits. In this way, clinics may encourage higher numbers of abortions–but not because of any belief that “more abortions is morally better,” but merely because of profit incentive. This profit-incentive is the substance behind allegations of “abortion quotas” at Planned Parenthood clinics. Former Planned Parenthood clinic directors have attested to the quotas, but these claims have been disputed by opponents.
Recommended Resources:
Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )
Does Jesus Trump Your Politics by Dr. Frank Turek (mp4 download and DVD)
The Case for Christian Activism (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)
Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with CrossExamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of CrossExamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/48dVzcJ
Toxic Empathy | with Allie Beth Stuckey Plus Q&A
PodcastWhy are so many Christians being led astray by statements like “abortion is healthcare,” “trans women are women,” and “love is love”? These catchy phrases have convinced some believers and conservatives to adopt views aligned with social justice movements—even on issues like illegal immigration. But do these ideas truly align with biblical truth, or are they carefully packaged lies that distort Christian values?
This week, conservative commentator and Christian author, Allie Beth Stuckey joins Frank to talk about the inspiration behind her brand new book, ‘Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion‘, which explores real life examples of how compassion has been weaponized against Christians, ultimately shaming evangelicals into supporting and celebrating policies that violate the Christian worldview. During their conversation, Frank and Allie will answer questions like:
Be sure to grab a copy of Allie’s book ‘Toxic Empathy‘, and stick around for the second half of the podcast episode where Frank will answer some listener questions. Does voting to ban abortion unjustly interfere with a person’s God-given free will? Is Frank avoiding calling out his friend Andy Stanley about his LGBTQ+ views? And is there really such a thing as a “Christian nation”? Find out in this week’s episode of ‘I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be An Atheist’!
Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Allie’s Book: ToxicEmpathy.com
Allie’s Website: AllieBethStuckey.com
Helpful Resources and Local Voting Guide: VoteYourFaith.net
Does Jesus Trump Your Politics? https://bit.ly/48eRJzP
Is It Wrong for Christians to Call Out Shepherds? https://bit.ly/3zTC7W3
Shepherds for Sale with Megan Basham: https://bit.ly/4hdo5Py
Is AI Dangerous? (Part 2)
Culture and PoliticsIn Part 1, we may have virtually scared the pants off our readers with our semi-dystopian view of the future. But everything’s going to be okay, mama. You’re fine. I’m fine. Everything’s FINE!
No, really, we’re all fine.
Let me ask you something: can you give me an example of any time the future wasn’t scary? I doubt it. On this side of heaven, the future will always be uncertain. So, what we can do is cling to that which we are certain of – absolute truth. And that truth is found in a person: Jesus. Seek truth, and you’ll find Christ and His promises. Seek Christ, and you’ll find truth and clarity.
Consequently, it’s no surprise that God’s number one enemy is working relentlessly to distort our view of truth. Because that’s ALL he can do, Mama Bears – he can’t touch truth itself. So, we need to get to work to protect our kids from the enemy’s schemes. I can’t emphasize how important this is. Sports and extracurriculars are wonderful but our primary responsibility during this small window of raising children is to train them up in the way they should go (see Proverbs 22:6). We understand how overwhelming all of this can be, so we came up with a short list of foundational lessons to help you out.
5 practical ways we can prepare our kids for AI:
#1 Teach them the habit of asking “Is this true?”
I am convinced that the enemy loves to exploit our natural tendencies so that we take them too far. If you are a mom of multiple children, you already know how each child is wired so differently! Some kids are naturally trusting, so our job will be to teach them not to be gullible. On the other hand, we need to teach our doubting children to walk that fine line of shrewd skepticism without slipping into the pitfall of cynicism.
That being said, we have a real problem in this culture with people believing something is true merely because, to them, it’s believable (or by the mere fact that it’s on YouTube!). I remember having a conversation with a friend during a highly controversial and widely publicized hearing. She told me she believed the man was guilty simply because she would not be surprised if he were! What?! Mama Bears, that is not how we establish truth.
Here are some questions you can teach your kiddos to ask when trying to determine if this piece of content is true:
#2 Teach them to be slow to speak…and slow…to share
Social media is designed to trigger our emotions and get us to act – even if that’s just to engage with a post by clicking “like” or “share.”Click To Tweet
How often do we take the time to process the actual reason we want to share something (whether that’s an online or in-person conversation)?
We should ask ourselves: Is what I’m about to share truly edifying to the body of Christ or is it just building up my own image? Is it truly informative or is it propaganda (See point #3 below)? Will this help people prepare for the lies of the enemy or is it merely a way to humiliate my ideological enemy? Remind your kiddos not to allow internet algorithms to manipulate them into playing their game.[1]
#3 Teach them to recognize propaganda
Propaganda is a tactic used to influence the public to buy into a specific point of view or political ideology. The strategy promotes emotionalism (getting people to form their opinions based on their emotions as opposed to using critical thinking) and presents information in a biased and often misleading way. Propaganda is everywhere — politics, social media, advertisements, etc.![2] In politics, we should learn to recognize it on both sides of the aisle. When your kids come across something in the news or even a video (*ahem* TikTok) or image (we see you Instagram) that seems to be promoting a particular narrative, remind them to evaluate whether or not they are being presented with actual information. What are the details of this story or event? What actually happened? Is the story providing information or merely someone’s emotionally charged opinion? If you’re not getting actual information, you’ve probably encountered propaganda.
#4 Teach them proper expectations
Depending on the age of your kids, they are either using AI software or they will be eventually. Users need to understand the limits to this technology so that they are not deceived by it. In Part 1, I explained that not everything ChatGPT spits out is actually true information. There is good reason for this. As Rodney Brooks, Australian roboticist and AI expert, explains, “What the large language models are good at is saying what an answer should sound like, which is different from what an answer should be.” [3]
You see, a software program is spitting out an automated response based on complex algorithms. ChatGPT was designed to respond in a way that sounds like a human response. But it does not have reasoning capabilities like a real human. If you don’t keep that in mind, you could be easily fooled into thinking the response is true merely because it sounds correct. And it doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about ChatGPT or another AI tool. Because no matter how well AI will be able to imitate humans, it will always be something other than human.
#5 Teach them to write
Humans have a tendency toward convenience, whether or not it’s good for them in the long run. This AI language bot stuff is relatively brand new, yet the amount of articles released expressing how high school and college students have already adapted to using AI to write their papers is staggering. One article from the Chronicle is titled, “I’m a Student. You Have No Idea How Much We’re Using ChatGPT. No professor or software could ever pick up on it.”[4]
Aside from the obvious ethical concerns, most students are not aware of how important the process of writing is to our brain development. Writing develops your ability to think critically. You have to plan, organize, develop, and reflect on your thoughts.
According to Dr. M Cecil Smith,
The temptation to abuse ChatGPT and other AI tech out of convenience (and intellectual laziness) is going to be strong. What we need to drill into our kiddos is the fact that if their critical thinking skills are not constantly being sharpened, they will be vulnerable to being manipulated and controlled. No one wants to be controlled. Help them to understand the importance of writing and developing their OWN thoughts, so that they can recognize when politicians, the media, or any other person is trying to manipulate them.
Final thoughts
It might be tempting to shield our kids completely from the dangers of the virtual world – and there is totally a season for that. For those mama bears with littles, the young years are a good time to lay that foundation of critical thinking skills. But the world we live in is becoming increasingly dependent on technology and, at the appropriate age, our kids will need to be trained and prepared for it.
Consider how much of what makes up our worldview is now being delivered to us digitally. Mama Bears, this kind of training is not optional. Evaluating every message that we encounter can be exhausting. But it’s like strengthening a muscle – the more you practice it, the more you strengthen your mind and it becomes natural. Keep in mind that we are not designed to be informed about every single possible event or new piece of information on the planet. Because of the internet we have access to it all, but remind your kiddos that they are in control of what they allow to take up mental space.
We are not obligated to know everything about everything, and God never intended us to. But we would be wise to hold our opinions loosely on the things we haven’t been able to thoroughly research.Click To Tweet
When considering AI and how it will impact our kids’ futures, there is so much more to consider than we can cover here. AI tech is being used to scam people. It is raising serious ethical concerns. It could impact future employment opportunities. People could even start developing relationships with AI bots. That’s super weird but not unheard of.[6] We can see that awareness is undeniably important. But don’t let it completely overwhelm you. The world has always been a scary place with many uncertainties. But Jesus told us, “In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world” (John 16:33).
References:
[1] We recommend the film, The Social Dilemma (2020).
[2] A classic example of propaganda is the Uncle Sam poster stating “I want YOU for U.S. Army!”
[3] Rodney Brooks, quoted in Victor Tangermann, “AI Expert Says ChatGPT is Way Stupider Than People Realize,” The Byte, May 21, 2023, https://futurism.com/the-byte/ai-expert-chatgpt-way-stupider?fbclid=IwAR3bU81sys9tSkoX_7q3lWA0pnMI3pD5UPwV-60rOczsYyBFgTmKVF8-zm0.
[4] Owen Kichizo Terry, “I’m a Student. You Have No Idea How Much We’re Using ChatGPT,” The Chronicle, May 12, 2023, https://www.chronicle.com/article/im-a-student-you-have-no-idea-how-much-were-using-chatgpt.
[5] M Cecil Smith, “The Benefits of Writing,” Northern Illinois University, https://www.niu.edu/language-literacy/_pdf/the-benefits-of-writing.pdf.
[6] Maria Noyen, “A woman who ‘married’ an AI chatbot is open to finding love in the real world, but says a future partner must accept her virtual husband is here to stay,” Insider, June 15, 2023, https://www.insider.com/woman-who-married-ai-chatbot-open-to-real-world-dating-2023-6.
Recommended Resources:
Debate: What Best Explains Reality: Atheism or Theism? by Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, and Mp3
Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3
Reflecting Jesus into a Dark World by Dr. Frank Turek – DVD Complete Series, Video mp4 DOWNLOAD Complete Series, and mp3 audio DOWNLOAD Complete Series
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
Alexa Cramer is a Blog and Podcast Contributor and Video Content Creator with MamaBearApologetics.com. She’s also a homeschool mom of two. She became obsessed with apologetics after a season of doubt that nearly stole her faith. Alexa has a background in film and video and will willingly fight anyone who doesn’t agree that DC Talk is the best band that ever graced the earth.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4f64H5n