Senator Frist is yet another in a long line of pro-life supporters who appear to not understand the basic reasoning that the pro-life position is founded on. Here is the relevant news story.
Here is the basic logic of the pro-life position.
It is wrong to kill innocent human beings.
ESCR [or abortion] kills innocent human beings.
ESCR is wrong.
This logic is very simple. No amount of scientific promise or benefit to mankind invalidates either of the first two premises; so, the conclusion is not affected either.
Reasoning that ESCR on frozen embryos is OK because they are destined for destruction anyway is the moral equivalent saying that it is OK to take the organs of severely handicapped children because they are going to die anyway.
It’s sad to find your allies don’t understand why it is that we are fighting for what we are.
See this article for a more in-depth treatment.
One of the problems is that people think that there is nothing that can be done for these embryos. They are just going to exist frozen forever or eventually die. The fact is that there are now programs for adopting the frozen embryos so that they have a chance for life. From what I have heard it is usually significantly cheaper than trying other fertility methods and/or regular adoptions.
For more information check out Snowflakes.
Arrgh! Aren’t you tired of being called “anti-abortion” while those who are, equivalently, anti-life are given the much softer title of “pro-choice”?
And how much more self-contradictory can you get? Frist: “I am pro life, I believe human life begins at conception…I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported.” I like Eric’s breakdown of logic above. Let’s break down this anti-logic:I believe is wrong to kill innocent human beings.I believe these embryos are innocent human beings.I believe that scientific research that terminates the lives of these embryos should be encouraged and supported.Hmmmmmm…
Certainly, if that is the logic that they are following, ESCR is wrong. The problem with our syllogism is above is that many people would believe in point 1, but they would redefine embryos as being non-human. Therefore, point one in Eric’s syllogism is irrelevant.
This begs the question, how do we convince “pro-choice” people that is is wrong to practice such redefining, and how can we prove that life begins at conception?
It will be difficult job. Our country, both within christianity and without, is chock full of pragmatic relativsts who are always seeking the easy road, the convenient road, the path of least resistence and most personal benefit and pleasure. I have christian friends that base their enitre pro-choice position on one greek word from which they infer that the baby is not ensouled until he draws his first breath. An entire theology based on one word taken out of context that allows for the killing of unborn babies.
Your question is easily avoided. We can prove that something is alive at conception, but is that sufficient to convince a pro-choicer not to kill it? It’s not about proving whether the embryo, fetus, zygote, etc. is alive. As the article linked in Eric’s original post says, the crux of the issue is to define what this living thing that is being killed is!! It needs to be defined. If it’s non-human, it’s okay to kill it. If it is human, most would say not to kill it.
The issue is to define what it is that is being talked about and then determine from whence “it” gets it’s value-extrinsically or intrinsically.
We might be able to win an argument here and there with our big words and intellectual prowess on this issue, but have to change the hearts of people. Have to show them Jesus. In our lives and one on one. That is the absolute best we can do.
Lets avoid making anti-supernaturalistic presuppositions on this issue.
There’s my $64,000 phrase for the week. Seems like I need to play with the big boys on this blog with some big words to keep up! 🙂
C.A., what is it that makes you say that we are trying to ‘win an argument with big words and intellectual prowess?’ And if instead we need to change their hearts by showing them Jesus, does that mean that any attempt to persuade people that abortion is wrong is misguided? In that case, was the effort to end slavery in America misguided? How about using military force and law enforcement to stop terrorism? Should we just call off the CIA and print and distribute more bibles to the Middle East?
Eric..My point was that we should not have one without the other. There are people that we will never convince on an intellectual level, though we should not give up trying, as long as we do it without getting nasty or bending the truth to try and strengthen our positions as so many politicians do. David and I discussed this in another blog here.
We should not just spin our wheels trying to argue with people that we are not going to change their minds anyway. That is why their hearts need to change. That is why we need to pray for them and our leaders, and hopefully the laws will be changed on day. We can be a part of that change by electing leaders that believe like we do, praying for them, and being a part of the debate while showing the folks on the other side that we are genuine in our faith by how we treat them and live our lives.
Last time I checked slavery and terrorism are illegal in this country with no debate on whether they are wrong or evil.
In the past there much debate, discussion, and bloodshed over slavery, and the eventually we had the emancipation proclamation.
I think there is no debate that terrorism is evil and wrong except by those Islamic extremists.
Abortion is still legal in the US, though we have also had much debate, discussion, and obviously more bloodshed from the millions of unborn, and from the wackos that kill abortion doctors. Lets hope there will one day be a proclamation protecting the unborn that is law.
Lets be part of the process, stand firm, work to change the law, but also love those people on the other side because Jesus sure does and he died for them too.
My point in referring to the effort to end slavery is that there was a time when slavery was legal. Those who felt it was immoral attempted to persuade those who did not that it was. They used all kinds of means: arguments (that might have included some big words), appeals to conscience, appeals to God, and eventually armed force.
My point is that they could have said, as I sometimes hear today, “We’ll never changes people’s minds and actions until they come to Christ; so, preaching the gospel is the only legitimate means of social change.”
Your original comments sounded a little like that argument to me. If that is not what you meant, then I’m sorry for taking it that way. In any case, it is an idea that is fairly widespread in Christian circles. In fact, John MacArthur, whom I respect tremendously, makes this basic argument.
Mr. Dirrim, I agree with you in that the most specifically relevant question to ask is that of whether or not an embryo is human. I am afraid it is an oversimplification to imply that all agree that life begins at conception and that is easy to prove.
I will leave that debate to stay on the issue that we both are driving at. I believe that the pro-life camp has done an inadequate job of proving that a fetus is human because they themselves are not clear about what makes a human being- human. Meaning their definition of what makes us human and fundamentally different from the animals is weak. This is an area where the modernism that plagues Christianity is often clearly seen.
I agree with Mr. Nix in that we must avoid anti-supernaturalist presuppositions and that point is relevant to this discussion. There are many commands in the Bible to love our enemies, brothers, and neighbors, but there is also clearly the command to defend the faith. These two works are not incompatible unless we make them so in practice. If that is the case- model repentance to a non-believer.
Throwing chum C.A.? ;^)
I think John Kerry’s political answer during the debates summarizes the general public opinion and error in thinking. Something like, “Personally I think abortion is wrong but we can’t take away people’s constitutional right to it.”
People still aren’t convinced that it’s killing someone and infringing on the child’s constitutional rights in the name of “choice”.
I find that people are either real good at making an argument against abortion and lacking in loving their neighbor or visa/versa. As an anti-abortion community we haven’t quite bridged the two levels of conversation required for such a volatile issue.
Which is what I think everyone is saying.
No chum chucking but…”I think we need a bigger boat” ~~~^~~~
That is exactly as I see it David; two levels of conversation. Both equally important. If we lean only on the logic or only the spiritual, neither will be effective for making change in people’s hearts or in changing the law. “Win the argument but lose the soul.” We should still “argue”, but with the right motives by truly caring about the person/people on the other side as well as the unborn.
To answer Eric..if this were the Civil War all over again and the issue were abortion instead of slavery, I would be in full support of the north invading the south to free the “unborn slaves”. I am surprised to hear about MacArthur’s stance as I was not aware of that. It sounds like “spiritual pacifism” to me…no outward actions to promote change. Wonder if he is against the war on terror and invading Iraq? Not me!
We can’t all go hide in our own world and just pray that things get better without any actions, but we should still pray and believe that God is bigger than our own intellect and can make change, thought sometimes he uses us as the instruments of that change.
Eric, is MacArthur a fideist?
Forgot what I originally intended to post. A question, do you guys think that it is inappropriate to argue in one’s apologetic methods? Also, what do you mean by communicating love on a “second” level?
Jason, follow the link above — I would feel conceited if I made another one. :^D The idea of two levels of conversation is explained there.
It actually applies to your question. If you are arguing like two drunks over girl then it’s probably not appropriate. If you are arguing like a husband and wife do sometimes (in a healthy maner) then sure, go ahead.
We must have discernment to sense if walls are being broken down or built up even higher in our methods.
As for MacArthur, he’s been in a battle of words with folks like Janet Parshall over the issue of the Christian’s role in society for a number of years now. I originally listened to the “The Deadly Dangers of Moralism” audio message, but I think this is the same message.
Thanks Eric! That is a very interesting read. I must admit that MacArthur really has many strong points in there that I agree with. Mainly the dangers in trying to make America moral without giving the gospel which makes the world hate us for the wrong reasons. Not hating us for preaching the gospel, but instead for trying to cram our brand of “social morality” to people who’s hearts can’t comprehend it and never will without the Holy Spirit. Here is a small excerpt from the work of MacArthur you referenced…
“This cultural morality thing is dangerous because it makes those we are commanded to lovingly reach with the gospel into the enemy, rather than the mission field.”
On the whole it does sound like he is making a case for doing little to nothing for social, political, or legal changes which I would have to disagree with. I believe we can make a difference in this world in those areas to some extent, and we should be engaged in the public arena, but not for the wrong reasons. Not just to push our morals on others because it is right, but in the hopes that others would come to Christ and see that reality in us and how we deal with each other. The hope to make a better world for our children looms large too, but we were never promised a better world here and now. Still we should do what we can to make an impact, and never disconnect ourselves and become like monks.
IMO MacArthur has an accurate analysis in many ways of the problem with arguing on moral or intellectual grounds only, but his solution is at the least a disputable matter.
In dealing with hot button subjects like abortion and homosexuality, trying to make “long term” impacts on society’s view and the law based solely on intellectual and moral grounds on is doomed for failure…IMO. Many are out there pushing cultural morality and forgetting about pushing the gospel.
I am in the camp that we need “two levels of conversation” on these important issues. Right now it is one or the other in most situations, especially on the Sunday morning talking heads shows.
So here is a challenge, if you are more of a “relationship” person as C.A. and myself seem to be, then we should become versed in the arguments and counter arguments when discussing the issue.
Maybe a small group going over Making Abortion Unthinkable: The Art of Pro-life Persuasion is in order. I remember hearing a sample of it on the Bible Answer Man Radio Show but have since forgotten too much to be effective.
As for the folks on the other side of the scale, maybe you could practice loving your neighbor more and dumb your vocabulary down to the average 3rd grader level for us. ;^D
Interesting discussion, friends! FYI, I have written about the views of Steve Camp, which are identical to John MacArthur, on the LTI blog at the links below.
Keep up the good discussions,
Scott
http://prolifetraining.com/pro-life_blog/?p=58
http://prolifetraining.com/pro-life_blog/?p=109