Tag Archives: Pro-Life

Scott Klusendorf makes the case for protecting the unborn

Linked here at Apologetics 315. His 35-minute presentation (no Q&A) is entitled “Making Abortion Unthinkable: The Art of Pro-Life Persuasion”. There is a presentation of the law of biogenesis and the SLED test (Size, Level of development, Environment, Degree of dependency).

A little biographical information on Scott.

For your office show-and-tell, you can buy Frank Beckwith’s 2007 book “Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice”. Since the book is published by Cambridge University Press, it’s useful to show people who think that there is no respectable case for the pro-life position.

My previous post on the case for the pro-life position in plain english is here. It contains a link to a 4-part series by Beckwith on answering arguments for the pro-abortion position.

Michele Bachmann opposes Obama’s plan to fund ESCR

Representative Michele Bachmann
Representative Michele Bachmann

UPDATE: For all the people that are searching for Michele Bachmann, this blog is FILLED with stories on Michele Bachmann!!!  Here is a good summary of some of her best material. Here’s her latest video.

More recent posts

Here are my recent posts on Michele Bachmann:

Michele Bachmann on ESCR

Michele Bachmann is my favorite member of the House, and I’ve blogged about her before, here, here and here. Today, she shows that she is aware of the recent breakthroughs in stem cell research in her speech on the floor of the House. Do not miss this great video of the most conservative and articulate legislator in the House.

More videos of Michele Bachmann are here.

(H/T: The Maritime Sentry)

UPDATE: One of my other congressional favorites Mary Fallin had these comments on the ESCR intitiative:

Every human being, no matter how small or how early in his or her development, has a right to life. By allowing federal dollars to fund the destruction of human embryos, the Obama Administration is not only denying this essential truth, it is ordering taxpayers to foot the bill for research that many, including myself, find morally repugnant.

I enthusiastically support adult and cord blood stem cell research, methods which show great promise and do not involve the destruction of human life. It is a tragedy the new administration has further weakened protections of the unborn and ignored the science behind morally acceptable alternatives to embryonic stem cell research.”

Notice how she echoes the SLED-test argument, and she understands the difference between ESCR and ASCR. That’s what I like to see!

UPDATE 2: Michele Bachmann has an even better speech on the dangers of tinkering in the free market here! This one is a must see!

12-year-old pro-life girl stuns pro-choice establishment with speech

This amazing 12-year-old girl delivers a defense of the pro-life position using reason and evidence. Be sure that you check out this video of her speech and read the full story here. She’s definitely bound for greatness!

Excerpt from the article:

“She was also told that if she went ahead with that topic, she would not be allowed to continue on in the speech competition,” Lia’s mother wrote in the email to the Moral Outcry blog.  “Initially, I tried helping her find other topics to speak on, but, in the end, she was adamant. She just felt she wanted to continue with the topic of abortion. So she forfeited her chance to compete in order to speak on something she was passionate about.”

At the schoolwide competition, the mom said one pro-choice teacher on the judge’s panel “didn’t even want to hear” the speech, and stepped down from the panel before Lia began.  After the speech, which Lia’s family said was well-received by both students and teachers, the judges initially told Lia she had indeed been disqualified.  But controversy among the judges eventually led to a reversal, and Lia’s family learned the next day that the panel agreed the girl deserved to win the competition.

Some men and women that I’ve met seemed to abandon apologetics and polemics in order to to get along with everyone. They also believe that God wants them to be non-confrontational with people. So they never disagree with others about anything. Well, let this young lady be a lesson to us all about the need to stand up to our opponents. I don’t think we should give up disagreements with others on important things, just so we can feel happy and be popular!

Lia has courage, something that I admire very much. Contrast courageous Lia with Barbara Kay’s piece on abortion, which Stephanie Gray demolished here. As someone who normally loves Barbara Kay’s pro-male, pro-marriage articles, I was really disappointed with her this time.

Lia had to fight hard to get the chance to even speak in the government-run public schools. Another example of how the pro-choice establishment responds to pro-life debaters is here. Jennifer Roback Morse notes that students can’t even defend traditional marriage in public schools, either. My own short defense of the case for the pro-life position is posted here.

The pro-life position on abortion explained in plain English

Now, you may think that the view that the unborn deserve protection during pregnancy is something that you either take on faith or not. But I want to explain how you can make a case for the right to life of the unborn, just by using reason and evidence.

To defend the pro-life position, I think you need to sustain 3 arguments:

  1. The unborn is a living being with human DNA, and is therefore human.
  2. There is no morally-relevant difference between an unborn baby, and one already born.
  3. None of the justifications given for terminating an unborn baby are morally adequate.

Now, the pro-abortion debater may object to point 1, perhaps by claiming that the unborn baby is either not living, or not human, or not distinct from the mother.

Defending point 1: Well, it is pretty obvious that the unborn child is not inanimate matter. It is definitely living and growing through all 9 months of pregnancy. (Click here for a video that shows what a baby looks like through all 9 months of pregnancy). Since it has human DNA, that makes it a human. And its DNA is different from either its mother or father, so it clearly not just a tissue growth of the father or the mother. More on this point at Christian Cadre, here.

Secondly, the pro-abortion debater may try to identify a characteristic of the unborn that is not yet present or developed while it is still in the womb, and then argue that because the unborn does not have that characteristic, it does not deserve the protection of the law.

Defending point 2: You need to show that the unborn are not different from the already-born in any meaningful way. The main differences between them are: size, level of development, environment and degree of dependence. Once these characteristics are identified, you can explain that none of these differences provide moral justification for terminating a life. For example, babies inside and outside the womb have the same value, because location does not change a human’s intrinsic value. More at Stand to Reason, here.

Additionally, the pro-abortion debater may try to identify a characteristic of the already-born that is not yet present or developed in the unborn, and then argue that because the unborn does not have that characteristic, that it does not deserve protection, (e.g. – sentience). Most of the these objections that you may encounter are refuted in this essay by Francis Beckwith. Usually these objections fall apart because they assume the thing they are trying to prove, namely, that the unborn deserves less protection than the already born.

Finally, the pro-abortion debater may conceded your points 1 and 2, and admit that the unborn is fully human. But they may then try to provide a moral justification for terminating the life of the unborn, regardless.

Defending point 3: I fully grant that it is sometimes justifiable to terminate an innocent human life, if there is a moral justification. One of the best known justifications is Judith Jarvis Thomson’s “violinist” argument. This argument is summarized by Paul Manata, one of the experts over at Triablogue:

Briefly, this argument goes like this: Say a world-famous violinist developed a fatal kidney ailment and the Society of Music Lovers found that only you had the right blood-type to help. So, they therefore have you kidnapped and then attach you to the violinist’s circulatory system so that your kidneys can be used to extract the poison from his. To unplug yourself from the violinist would be to kill him; therefore, pro-lifers would say a person has to stay attached against her will to the violinist for 9 months. Thompson says that it would be morally virtuous to stay plugged-in. But she asks, “Do you have to?” She appeals to our intuitions and answers, “No.”

Manata then goes on to defeat Thomson’s proposal here, with a short, memorable illustration, which I highly recommend that you check out. More info on how to respond to similar arguments is here.

For those looking for advanced resources, Francis Beckwith, a professor at Baylor University, published the book Defending Life, with Cambridge University Press, 2007.

UPDATE: I found a neat video over at Tough Questions Answered of a 12-year old girl making the case for protecting the unborn. This is better than I can do!