Imagine that you have your back turned to your child when he asks “Daddy, can I kill this?”
What is the only relevant question you would ask?
It’s simple: “What is it?”
If it is a cockroach you would have one answer. If it is his sister’s hamster, you would likely have another.
The simplicity of this little illustration developed by Greg Koukl shows how basic the moral thinking behind the pro-life position really is. If the unborn is not a human being, then no justification for abortion is necessary. If, however, the unborn is a human being, then no justification for abortion is adequate. The pro-abortion folks will try to muddy the waters with different issues and scenarios, but we must keep the focus on the only question that matters.
The folks at the Stand to Reason apologetics organization have developed these ideas and tactics and have excellent training materials to equip Christians to clearly and effectively advocate the protection of the most innocent and defenseless among us—the unborn.
Talk about ontological arguments for God…this is an ontological argument for absolutes and morality. Like you said, there is something inherent, something “basic,” in our treatment of human life. Historically and culturally, life has been valued and protected, from Hammurabi’s Code to the Constitution, with the ultimate example being, of course, the OT Law.
Where did we go wrong? I believe that the inroads of evolution are the main cause of this devaluation of life. Well, if we’re talking causes, the primary cause is, of course, man’s sin nature and its tendency to pervert the very pillars of our God-given existence. But evolution has told everyone that man is descended from animals–that he is part of the animal kingdom instead of a ruler and a steward over it.
If evolution is correct, then there is no higher moral law than “survival of the fittest.” It is, then, the right of the strong to impose his will on the weak–there is no conscience involved. The very fact that I can do something to you entails my right to do so. In other words, ability is the great enabler…if you have the strength to do something, no one can say you are wrong unless someone stronger is present.
This unfortunate but logical conclusion of evolutionary philosophy is the basis of the thinking behind abortion. We know that abortion is wrong, and we know that the “justification” given for it is flawed (conscience does exist, God does exist, and there is a higher moral law prescribed by a higher being). But to the evolutionist, abortion is simply hi-tech survival of the fittest. Sadly, the strong in this case enforce their wills on the weakest and most voiceless form of human life ever. The extreme vulnerability of their victims does not make them feel any more right–but it does make it easier for them to silence what their moral sense is screaming at them. Being indoctrinated in this evolutionary worldview, they equate a lack of protest or defense to a mutual, moral consent. How much more wrong could they be? But until people see that evolution does not accurately describe this world and that mankind was created in the image of God, such atrocious conclusions and absurd (im)moral judgments will continue to be made.
I know I’m preaching to the choir, but your post got me started. 😉
Jeffrey,
What about the person who rejects evolution but still embraces abortion?
Simple answer: if you reject evolution, then the world had its origin
in the mind of a creator. If we are created, then we have a higher
authority to which to answer–a higher moral authority. All
one must do is go back to the morality prescribed for him by his
authority–if one believes God is Creator, then the Bible. If not,
then whatever religious documents he ascribes to; for with evolution
ruled out, this is a purely religious question, and few, if any,
religions condone abortion. Therefore, it is compromise for a person
to reject evolution and attempt to reconcile a creator-authority with
abortion. The person who rejects evolution but embraces abortion
holds conflicting worldviews…unless the creator’s morality allows
for this killing, which brings me to…
More complex answer: like I said, we possess an inherent sense of the
value of human life. Eric’s argument is an excellent illustration of
this point, for it is simply against our conscience to so blatantly
kill helpless people. To do so with a (mostly) clear conscience, we
have to be indoctrinated against any absolute morality; and that’s
what evolution has done. Outside of this, there is no
justification of abortion, so it’s difficult to embrace abortion without a philosophy such as evolution. Where, then, does the Intelligent Design Abortionist get his morality? I don’t know…does anyone else have any ideas on that?
Either our conscience will convince us abortion is wrong, or we can sear it through (1) a flawed worldview or (2) an incorrect morality. We can see that, in the light of the Bible, any morality that denies the sanctity of life is clearly off-base; so even if someone does believe in a creator rather than chance, he does not believe in the Creator of the universe if his “creator-authority” leaves room for abortion. Does that address your question at all?
ahhh, where’d all those extra br’s come from?
Hey Jeffrey, thanks for the reply.
Of course I agree with your conclusions – I just think the situation is more complex than just “it’s evolution’s fault.” For one thing, people were sinning long before Darwin came along.
Consider the original sin. It was a response to a temptation that questioned God’s goodness – not whether he existed or even played a part in creation.
Or this one: Cain conversed with God, and he still committed murder.
…
Hmm. It occurs to me we’re arguing different questions. I’m taking the “people find ways to justify abortion because they’re sinful” line, whereas you (and Eric when he started this thread) are on the “how can people justify abortion?” question. I’m on motives (why), you’re on mechanics (how).
If that’s correct I’ll grant you that evolution has provided no small contribution to the pro-abortion camp’s line of argument.
However, I think that the hearts of men are wicked beyond measure and are more than ready to embrace any doctrine that lets them sin with a clear conscience. It doesn’t matter whether the sin is abortion or gluttony, or whether the doctrine is evolution, or deism, or “The Force,” for crying out loud – people will conspire against God by any means possible.
…
So back to the original question. How do people justify abortion? Simple: they don’t have to. God is the only reason not to, and they either don’t believe in him, or they do – but they hate him.
Okay Hugh now I see where you’re coming from. I agree wholeheartedly, and, like I said, if we’re talking ultimate causes, or explanations, man’s sinful nature is the answer. Still, I don’t think we can deny that evolutionary philosophy, whether people consciously adhere to “I believe this baby is no better than an animal” or not, is the main justification (at least in people’s heads) for abortion today. Granted, deism and other belief systems may allow man the same sinful freedoms, but I think in our world, evolution is what had made abortion fashionable–perhaps it has not caused it, or aided its proliferation, but it has made it culturally fashionable…in much the same way as homosexuality has become popular in the past few decades. All man’s sinfulness needs is an accepted excuse, however ludicrous, to justify his public and pronounced disobedience to what he knows is wrong. Evolution has made abortion no longer a question of right or wrong, but simply a question of preference. Now, a person can condone abortion without public ridicule or ostracism; and that’s all the excuse we needed…now it can be done without immorality, without humiliation. So, perhaps evolution has not caused abortion (and I do not believe that it has), but it has undeniably made it culturally acceptable.
er, make that
Good discussion… Here is my take on how evolution fits into the abortion debate…
First, I agree that an evolutionist has no basis on which to ground any moral system other than “survival of the fittest” or “might makes right” which is really no moral system at all. And as I’ve said before, I see the issue of origins as the most strategic apologetic issue.
That said, I agree with Hugh that our sinful desire to suppress the truth of God is at the heart of the problem (Rom. 1:18-32). Evolution becomes just one more justification to deny God’s truth, albeit a grand sweeping one.
That gets me back to my original point, which was that abortion advocates justify their position by claiming that the unborn is not really a human being. I believe that this is the more relevant justification because, with a few notable exceptions, most abortion advocates reject a “might makes right” system of morality. The very same people will fight for the rights of the weaker party in the area of child abuse or violence toward women. One might argue “Hey, they’re inconsistent.” My point exactly!
If we can show that the unborn is as much a human being as a small child, or its mother, then we remove one of the most basic justifications for abortion.
As far as evolution goes, I don’t want to have to convince someone that evolution is false to convince them not to kill their child.
Getting into issues like the fossil record, carbon dating, and the like is probably going to completely derail the discussion about abortion. For that matter, I avoid any reference to God at all in arguing against abortion. It makes it too easy for them to reject my case out of hand as simply my religious conviction. The case against abortion can be made quite effectively on the secularist’s territory. Our constitution plainly protects the rights of all human beings. Some basic science and common sense reasoning can show that life begins at conception. That is all we need to defeat abortion philosophically. Of course there is more to it than that, but I’ll save that for another day.