I was with Greg at a Ligonier conference in Orlando once, and was talking to a man who came up to our display table. He saw some of our pro-life resources and announced that he personally believed that abortion was wrong, but he didn't believe that we should prohibit other people who thought differently about the issue from getting abortions. He thought it ought to be legal even though he personally thought it was wrong. This is the favorite choice of religious politicians who are pro-choice.Read the rest.
If somebody makes that kind of statement, there is always a tactic you employ. You ask a question. When they say, I'm personally against abortion but I don't think other people should be prohibited from having abortions, you ask, "Why are you personally against abortion? I understand that you don't think it's right and don't want to force your views on others, but why is it that you think abortion is wrong?"
It's a very fair question. You will consistently get basically the same answer, the answer that the gentleman gave Greg.
He said, I think abortion is wrong because it takes the life of an innocent human child, but that is just my personal view.
Greg said, Okay, I think I understand your view, but let me just repeat it back to you and you tell me if I've got it right. You think abortion kills an innocent human child, but you think women should be legally allowed to do that.
He said, Well, when you put it that way....
Get this book to expand on this discussion.
3 comments:
My question is not "if" abortion should be illegal, but rather, how can we create meaningful laws when there is not a broad basis of support for that law. Should abortion be made illegal, are we prepared (as a larger population) to treat women who have abortions the same way we treat a a drug store murderer. I just cannot see that. I have a deep respect for life, but I just cannot equate abortion with murder... in a legal sense. (Moral sense, yes - pragmatic laws No.) Nor can I see judges and juries and policemen and social workers etc, doing the same. There is a difference between what should be done, and what can be done.
Kirk,
Thanks for the comment. So would you say you have respect for the life of a toddler? On what basis should we prosecute a women who kills her toddler?
(I assume we both agree this is self evident)
Ok, so now, what is the difference between the life of that toddler and the life of the unborn? What is the key difference that you would cite in saying that the toddler should be legally protected but the unborn not?
I assume that you would say its an issue of location. The baby is located inside the mother, thus is should not be protected by law. But does WHERE you are define WHO you are? Should location really be the defining factor in determining protection by law?
Post a Comment