Abortion is commonly defined as the “termination of a pregnancy” (or a “termination of a pregnancy prior to viability”). This may suffice in certain limited contexts in which only the medical aspects of pregnancy are under discussion. However, in the normal usage of the term, when the moral aspect of abortion is under discussion, this definition is inadequate. The simple reason is that the moral aspect of abortion is not whether or not the pregnancy is terminated prematurely. Rather, the question is whether or not the life of the unborn child was intentionally taken by the pregnancy-terminating procedure in question. Continue reading
Posted in Abortion
Being involved in the promulgation and defense of abolitionist ideology, there are occasions in which scoffers attempt to ridicule abolitionists for not using physical force and violence to stop abortions from occurring. In addition, there are times when those interested in having an honest and substantive dialogue ask why we do not condone using force and violence to stop abortions, given the human lives are being extinguished daily. In this post, in order to answer these questions and objections, I present seven principles, following from and consistent with a Scriptural worldview, that mandate a non-violent approach to the abolition of human abortion.
How should a Christian define the terms “God” and “god”? Does the Bible actually state that there are many gods (such as in Psalm 82)? In this post, I aim to present a view on these issues that is consistent with both Scripture and our normal, everyday use of language. Continue reading
When interacting with unbelievers online (and even some professing believers!), one will eventually encounter certain unpleasant and unreasonable individuals who can otherwise only be described as scoffers. In this post, I quote some verses from the Proverbs that both describe this class of individuals and offer guidance on how to deal with them. Continue reading
If a Christian speaks consistently from a belief in the Lordship of Christ over every area of thought, if it not unlikely that he will encounter, at some point, the accusation of being “arrogant,” “presumptuous,” or “pompous.” While we are likely all guilty of having spoken in an arrogant, presumptuous, or pompous manner on various occasions, endeavoring to present the Truth with “gentleness and respect” (1 Pe. 3:15) will not render one immune from this accusation. This is because, in this case, the accusation finds its source in the attitude of the unbeliever – an attitude that says “Who are you to tell me what is right or wrong for me to do?” While such an attitude is common in today’s post-Christian milieu, it is found to be fraught with problems upon further examination. Continue reading
An objection commonly launched against those who oppose the practice of human abortion is “what about the life of the mother?” In this post, I examine this objection and provide a consistent response from within the abolitionist framework. Continue reading
Posted in Abortion
I am convinced that the majority of theological problems and disagreements stem from the logical fallacy of equivocation – which itself comes from a failure to think clearly and rigorously about the terms we use in theological discourse. This is especially the case when discussing salvation. Failure to make proper distinctions between the senses of the terms that we use can lead to confusion and best, and heretical belief and practice at worst.
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
Posted in Abortion
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)