Today is the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. It is a great irony (and a work of God’s grace) that “Jane Roe” is now a pro-life advocate who is working to overturn the Supreme court decision that bears her name. Please take a few moments to read her views on the matter, expressed in her 2005 Senate testimony. More information on her pro-life activism can be found at her website: www.roenomore.org.
More information on the abolition of the practice of human abortion can be found here:
It is not uncommon for pro-choice advocates to make the claim that “consenting to sex does not entail consenting to pregnancy.” The idea is that even though the woman takes responsibility for engaging in an act of procreation, she bears no moral obligation to take responsibility for the pregnancy that results. In this post, I argue that the idea of “consenting to pregnancy,” per se, is logically incoherent, and that such claims, understood in a logically coherent way, ultimately do nothing to advance the pro-choice position. Continue reading
In a collaborative effort between Ian John Philoponus, Rhology, and myself, we recently analyzed the case of Dr. Gisella Perl, and provided a response from the abolitionist perspective. Dr. Perl was an inmate at Auschwitz who performed abortions on Jewish women to prevent them from being vivisected at the hands of Josef Mengele. Such an extreme case in such horrific circumstances seems to provide a counterexample to the idea that human abortion is always morally unjustified. In this two-part series, we analyze the scenario, and provide an ethical analysis that demonstrates the consistency of the abolitionist position.
The Consistent Abolitionist: The Extreme Case of Dr. Gisella Perl (Part 1)
The Consistent Abolitionist: The Extreme Case of Dr. Gisella Perl (Part 2)
Being obsessed as we are with numerical precision in our Western culture, questions of the following kind arise from time to time: “Is Jesus 100% God, 100% man, 100% God and 100% man, or x% God, and (100-x)% man?” In this post, I analyze the question, and provide an answer in terms of orthodox Christology. Continue reading
It is not unlikely, in the course of interacting with unbelievers, and attempting to take every thought captive to Christ (2 Cor. 10:3-5), that someone will raise this kind of objection. “I have my view, and it works for me, and you have your view, and it works for you.” At best, this sentiment is expressed to claim that rational discourse concerning our differing beliefs is pointless. At worst, it is expressed to claim that rational discourse concerning our differing beliefs is wrong. While such a sentiment is popular in today’s post-Christian milieu, upon further examination, it is found to be fraught with difficulties. Continue reading
When interacting with unbelievers in an apologetic fashion, it is not uncommon to encounter insults, especially when the unbeliever’s arguments have been refuted. This is to be expected, however, and the Christian worldview is not without a response. Continue reading
Earlier this year, I wrote a paper containing a proof of Irresistible Grace, in propositional logic, whose premises are informed by John 6:44 and John 14:6.
Earlier this year, Rhology and I reviewed Bart Ehrman’s book God’s Problem. In this paper, we review the book and provide a Biblical solution to the problem of suffering.
It is not uncommon, in interacting with Christians, for an atheist to claim that Christians and atheists are both atheists, differing only in the scope of their respective atheism. “We’re both atheists with respect to the Homeric gods,” we are told. This implies that Christians and atheists are really more alike than it might at first seem, except for one small detail – belief in one fewer deity. Perhaps it is even suggested that if the Christian were more consistent with his fundamental atheism, that he would become a full atheist as well! Unfortunately, for the atheist, this line of argumentation is untenable, as is demonstrated below. Continue reading
Someone recently wrote the following over at the Abolitionist Society of Oklahoma blog:
Question- what is exactly wrong with eugenics?
I understand that it’s wrong in the sense of basing it off of culture and race; but when it comes to diseases, it might be better to end their lives, so they won’t be subjected to a life of pain and confusion.
This type of sentiment may sound reasonable in today’s post-Christian milieu, but under further examination, it is found to be fraught with difficulties. Continue reading
