This transcript was generated from the episode’s YouTube captions and lightly edited for readability: filler words and the mid-show announcements have been removed. It may still contain transcription errors.

Welcome friends to The Case for Life show. We have one goal on this show and that is equip you to make a persuasive case for the pro-life position with unchurched friends and people who don’t necessarily share your biblical worldview. I think we all know people like this who think, hey, what’s this thing about Christians opposing abortion? Why do they oppose abortion? Why do they oppose invitro fertilization? Why are they against assisted suicide or anything like that? Why do Christians have such a narrow-minded, intolerant view of these things and why do they try to force their views on others?

We’re going to help you learn to overcome those kinds of objections on this show, and today we’re going to begin right at the starting point of all efforts to make a case for Life, stating clearly what we are going to argue now. Any of you watch watching today who have been married more than, let’s say, 5 years, maybe even less than that, you already know this. You know that if you’ve ever been in a how do I put this delicately a discussion with your mate, that was not going your way.

You knew you were losing every rational mind in the universe, knew you were losing the Lord, knew you were losing and what? What inevitably happens in that case? Well, we tend to change the subject. We start talking about things that don’t apply in order to distract from the weak argument we have, or the weak position we’re holding that we don’t want to just fess up and admit is a bad position. So we change the subject. Well, one of the best ways to deal with that is to begin a discussion on a pro-life issue with a clearly stated argument.

Now let me define my terms here. By an argument, I don’t mean insulting someone. I don’t mean saying: you know you’re not very good-look, and neither is anybody else with your last name. That’s an insult, not an argument. An argument is a way of formally stating what you believe so that people can interact with the argument rather than worry about you, the person. And a key truth at the beginning of this that I want you to tuck away and never forget is this: arguments stand or fall apart from the people making them.

You could have a very bad person who nevertheless makes a very good argument. For example, if Joseph Stalin argues that enslaving peasants is wrong and he makes a good argument for that, that argument stands apart from the fact that he did in fact, enslave peasants and the Googs and starve many of them to death. In fact, it’s estimated he starved millions of his own people to death with famine and with canceling produce, growths and harvesting. But that doesn’t mean his argument was a bad one.

Likewise, when a pro-lifer makes an argument, it’s not going to work to dismiss his or her argument by saying, hey, I don’t like you, or you’re a man, or you know what. You’re, just a religious fanatic. Name calling is not an excuse for refuting an argument. You got to do the hard work of actually refuting an argument. So we’re going to give you the perlie argument today and tell you how you can defend it in a minute or less. You’ll leave this show knowing how to defend your pro-life argument in a minute or less and, most importantly, you’ll know what the actual pro-life argument is.

Okay, our critics out there are always fond of saying: well, you pro-lifers, you just hate women. You want to impose your narrow-minded agenda on people. You’re a bunch of religious zealots. You’re freaks? Well, maybe we are, maybe we aren’t, but that has nothing to do with the merits of the argument we’re going to look at here. So what is that argument here? It is very simply premise one: it is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings. It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.

Prem two: abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings. Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings. Conclusion, therefore: abortion is wrong. It’s wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings. Abortion does that. Therefore it’s wrong. Now look that argument may be mistaken. It’s possible, for example, that the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises. I don’t think that’s true, but you could at least in theory say it’s possible, or it could be. You might argue that one or more of the premises in that argument premise one or premise two is factually wrong and therefore the whole argument falls apart.

But notice something: right out of the gate, the pro-lifer in this case has presented an argument, a way of formally stating his or her case. That case must be engaged, it must be refused, Ed, or accepted. It doesn’t do any good to dismiss it because you don’t like the individual making the actual argument. So rule number one in dealing with pro-life apologetics or making a case for your pro-life view, is to clearly State your view upfront. It’s wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.

Abortion does that. Therefore it’s wrong. Now I want you to notice something else: prol lifers are going to defend that Sil olism, that those couple of premises followed by the conclusion that we just went over. And they’re going to do it not by appealing to a subjective opinion, they’re not going to do it by appealing to how they feel. I mean it’s possible to like something and still say it’s wrong, right. So it’s not about likes or dislikes. The only issue here is: are pro-lifers correct that it’s wrong to intentionally kill inocent human beings?

Abortion does that there, for it’s wrong. Now we’re going to defend that with science and philosophy. So let’s start off with science. The science of embryology is unmistakably clear that from the earliest stages of development, from the one cell stage, you were a distinct, living and whole human being. You weren’t part of another human being. Like skin cells on the back of my hand that I’m pinching right now, you are already a whole, living member of the human family, even though you would yet to grow and mature and it won’t do to say, well, that’s just a clump of cells.

No, you weren’t a clump of cells, you were already a distinct, living member of the human family. Mere clumps of cells do not organize themselves internally and direct their own development from within. Rather, they are parts of larger human entities that already exist and these cells contribute toward the health and growth of that other individual. But the cells themselves are not distinct living whole human beings the way you were at the embryonic stage, the way I was at the embryonic stage.

Sperm and egg are mere parts of larger human beings from whence they come, but they are not distinct living whole human beings from the beginning, the way that you were. That that’s the science of embryology, that from the earliest stages of development each of us was a distinct living and whole human beings. And you can look up embryology textbooks like langman’s embryology. You can look up Keith Moore’s the developing human. Pick any embryology textbook you want in the world and they will say exactly what I just said to you.

But we don’t stop there, because although science can tell us what kind of living thing The Unborn is, it cannot tell us how to treat The Unborn, and so for that we need to turn to philosophy, and don’t let that big word throw you off. We’re going to make it very simple for you all we’re doing here when we engage. Philosophy is asking: is there any relevant difference between you, the embryo, and you, the adult, watching this program that is morally relevant in such a way that we can say it was okay to kill you then, as an embryo, but not now as an adult.

And as Steven Schwarz has pointed out, there’s really four main differences between you, the embryo, and you, the adult, and none of them are good reasons for saying we could kill you then but not now. There’s a difference of size, there’s a difference of level of development, there’s a difference of environment, meaning where you’re located, and there’s a difference of degree of dependency. You can use the acronym sled SL to keep track of these differences. Let’s look at them quickly and see if any of them are morally relevant.

Size: there’s your s in that sled acronym. Yes, it’s true, you were smaller as an embryo than you are today. But why does that matter? Why does body size determine your value and right to life? Two-year-olds are smaller than 20-year- olds. Generally speaking, does that mean the 2-year-old has less of a right to life? We don’t think that Shaquille O’Neal, the former basketball star, who was 7 fo 2 in tall, is more human than all of us because we’re a foot shorter.

On balance, rather, we recognize that body size does not convey one’s value. What about level of development. There’s your l in that acronym. Yes, you were less developed as an embryo again. So what? Why does your level of development or your body size determine your value? They need to argue for that, not merely assert it. And what tends to happen is people love to assert that things like body size or your level of development are value, giving things for you as an individual before you can have a right to life.

But they don’t argue for it, they just assert it. You should not buy it. Make them answer the question: how developed do I have to be not to be killed? And why that level of development and not something else? I mean I could just as arbitrarily argue that having a belly button that points out rather than in is what gives one a right to life. And I would be no less arbitrary than the person who says you got to be a certain height or a certain level of development before you count as an individual with a right to life.

Size. Level of development: what about environment, where you’re located? A lot of people love to say, well, until that child comes out of the womb, it’s not a living human being. Okay, wait a minute. Notice the hidden and undefended premise that your location determines your value or your status? How does where I am determine either what I am or what rights I have? How does a mere location determine that? I mean? A few minutes ago I walked about 70 yards from a different room in the house to the one I’m in right now recording this show in the studio.

I changed location. If a journey of 70 yards did not change me from one kind of thing to another, how does a journey of 7 in down the birth canal suddenly transform you from a non-human, non-valuable thing we can kill to a valuable human being? We can’t. And the answer is: if you weren’t already human, inv valuable? You’re not getting there just by changing your address. And finally, degree of dependency. How does my dependency on another human being mean that I can be killed?

Sure, as an embryo I depended on my mother, absolutely. But if dependency on another human being means you can be killed, newborns fail to test because in many cases they can only tolerate their own mother’s Milk. What would we think of a mother who unplugged her child and said: my body, my choice, he depends on me, let him starve. I mean, we would think that mother a moral monster, would we not. So size, level of development, environment and degree of dependency are not good reasons for saying we could kill you then, but not now.

When we come back, I’m going to teach you how to communicate everything I just said to you in a minute or less, and then we’ll look at the five most common ways people are going to respond to that argument, which are not legitimate responses. Stay tuned, we’re going to keep on equipping you.

Welcome back everybody. Great to have you with us. On The Case for Life show. We’ve been talking about the formal pro-life argument that goes like this: premise one: it’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. Premise two: abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being. Conclusion therefore: abortion is wrong. We also talked about how prol lifers defend their case with science and philosophy. What I want to do right now is teach you how to make that case in a minute or less.

I want you to pretend. You have an Aunt Betty who lives in Boston she’s not a Christian, she’s not pro- and she thinks you’re kind of odd that you’re against abortion. In fact, at the Thanksgiving table she’s polite, but she finally drops her fork between bites of turkey and stuffing and she looks at you and says: now could you tell me again why you are pro-life? Here is your answer and I think you’ll see I’ll get this done in a minute or less.

Start the clock. Aunt Betty, I’m pro-life because it’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being and the science of embryology is clear that from the earliest stages of development, from the one cell stage, you were a distinct, living and whole human being. You weren’t part of another human being like skin cells on the back of my hand. You were already a whole Living member of the human family, even though you had yet to grow and develop, and you know what else.

Aunt Betty, there is no essential difference between you, the embryo, and you, the adult that you are today, that justifies killing you at that earlier stage of development. Differences of size, level of development, environment, meaning where you’re located in degree of dependency, are not good reasons for saying we could kill you then, but not now. All right, stop the clock. I think I got that done in under 45 seconds. Notice something, though: I did not cite any Bible verses, not because I disbelieve the truth of scripture.

I most assuredly do affirm the truth of scripture. But when talking to someone who does not accept the Bible, it’s important that I at least begin the discussion with an appeal to something they can’t dismiss as being a mere matter of personal opinion. Most Americans you talk to today divide religion and science into two entirely different categories. They think religion is in the category of subjective opinion. You like chocolate ice cream, I like vanilla. We have different preferences. If religion works for you, great, but don’t assume it’s for everybody, or I may have a different religion than you do.

They don’t think that religious truth claims count as real knowledge. If you start by quoting Bible verses, they’ll dismiss you out of hand now. Later they’ll be an opportunity to bring scripture to this, and those of you that are perhaps smart on this issue can see right away that the pro-life position is indeed grounded ultimately in the view of the IMO day, that that humans have value because they bear the image of God. That’s true, but it doesn’t follow from that that you must begin the discussion by immediately quoting Bible verses.

So we didn’t do that, but we did convey a biblical truth: that all humans have value, regardless of their size, their appearance, their abilities or their dependency. They have value intrinsically. They are valuable because of the kind of thing they are. And we also commun communicated the truth that the embryo is alive, and we know that from the science of embryology. Okay, now here are the bad ways people are going to respond to this. If you think, Aunt Betty’s just going to drop her fork and slap herself on the thigh and say: I am so glad I came to Thanksgiving dinner because you straightened out all my Twisted bad thinking.

Thank you, I appreciate you. That is not going to happen. Most assuredly, I can tell you that’s not going to happen. If it does, it’s very, very rare. Instead, Aunt Betty is going to give one of five typical responses to that argument we just made. The first kind of response she’ll give is to simply assume rather than argue, and here’s what I mean by that. She will simply assume The Unborn aren’t human, without presenting a formal argument for that conclusion. She’ll say things like: well, why don’t you respect a woman’s right to choose?

Or how come you don’t trust women to make their own personal decisions? Or why do you reject a right to privacy? And when you hear these kinds of arguments, I want you to ask yourself this question: would this work as a good argument for killing a toddler? Not in a million years. The only reason people argue this way with abortion is they assume ahead of time, without arguing that The Unborn aren’t human. But that’s not going to work. You’ve got to make an argument: The Unborn aren’t human, not merely assume they’re not human.

Would anybody argue for choice in who decides if we were killing three-year-olds or fiveyear olds or teenagers? Some of you are going: wait a minute, teenagers, let’s discuss that. But all kidding aside, the reality is none of these arguments that appeal to Choice, privacy, trusting women, self-determination work, because they all assume The Unborn aren’t human. Would anybody you know argue that married couples should have a right to rough up their kids in the privacy of the bedroom and we should trust them to make that decision?

No, it only works if you assume The Unborn aren’t human, and I think what you should say to Aunt Betty in this case is simply this: Aunt Betty, look, I’m an open-minded person. Perhaps I’m mistaken about both the humanity of The Unborn and how we also ought to value them. If you can give me an argument that The Unborn are not human, I will accept your point of view, but I need you to argue for that, Aunt Betty. I am vigorously pro-choice on women choosing their own husbands, choosing their own religion, choosing the clothes they want to wear, the cars they want to drive, unless they’re Priuses.

I am pro-choice on a whole bunch of issues, but intentionally killing innocent human beings isn’t one of them. Now again, you could be right that The Unborn are not human, but I need you to argue for that with evidence, not merely assume it. The second bad way Aunt Betty May argue is to attack rather than argue she’ll. She’ll say things like: well, you’re a man, you can’t get pregnant. What right do you have to speak on this issue? Okay, time out.

First of all, you could be snarky, and I don’t recommend this. You could look at her and say: well, how do you know that I’m a man? Don’t do that. But it would illustrate the point, and that is this: arguments don’t have gender. People do. Pro-life women use the same argument as pro-life men. You have to respond to the merits of the argument, not FCI justly attack a person because of his or her gender. By the way, if no man can speak on abortion, roie Wade should have been overturn decades ago.

Why? Because who decided roie Wade? That’s right. Nine men on the Supreme Court. So if men aren’t allowed to speak on this issue, roie Wade was bad law right out of the gate. But again, I want you to note the key point here: arguments stand or fall on their merits, not the person making them. The second bad way, PE or third bad way, rather, that people will argue is they’ll do something like this. They’ll simply assert rather than argue. Well, women have a right to choose.

Is that an argument or an assertion? Well, it’s an assertion, because I gave you no, what? No evidence, no steps to the logic. I just made a claim out of thin air. Now see if you can spot the difference between the statements I’m about to make. Make statement number one: Socrates is a man. All men are mortal. Therefore, Socrates is Mortal. Is that an argument? Well, yes, it is, because I gave you premise, conclusion. Now, how about this claim? Well, I have a right to do with my body, whatever I want.

Is that an argument? No, it’s just an assertion. All right, let me give you one more. My wife is not here today. Therefore, she is eloped with Michael jackon Jackson in Las Vegas and Elvis is doing the music for the ceremony. Argument or assertion? Well, it’s an argument. You might say, wow, that’s a really bad argument. You’d be right. But here’s the thing I want you to catch: a lot of times, when it comes to abortion, people don’t even rise to the level of making an argument.

They just make assertions. They don’t actually argue, they just assert something. Well, an assertion is not something you have to fall for. You’re within your rights to very politely say, but directly, why ought I believe a thing like that? In other words, what’s your evidence for your claim. You don’t have to just take it because they make an assertion. If they assert that embryo doesn’t have a right to life, if they make an assertion that why that embryo isn’t even self-aware yet, notice the hidden and undefended premise, namely that selfawareness is what gives us our value.

So call the assertion out by saying: well, let me pause here for a moment. Why is self-awareness value giving in the first place? Make them argue for that, not simply assert it. The fourth bad way people are going to argue and this would include Aunt Betty is she’ll confuse preference claims with moral claims. She might say something like this: well, if you don’t like abortion, well don’t have one, but don’t impose your views on others. But wait a minute. When we argued that abortion was wrong because it intentionally killed an innocent human being, we were not making a claim about what we like.

We were making what was known as an objective truth claim that we believe corresponds to reality. It is wrong in every situation to intentionally kill an innocent human being. Abortion does that. Therefore, it’s wrong. Now again, you might be able to show the argument as misguided by being invalid or unsound, but you can’t just dismiss it as a preference claim, like you were talking about preferring chocolate ice cream over vanilla. You got to do the hard work of refuting the argument and, of course, the worldview behind this is relativism, the belief that right and wrong are up to you, the individual.

There’s no objective claims or standards we need to line up with as human beings. But I think moral relativism, which is often something you hear when people say Don’t force your morals on me, or something along those lines, that worldview is seriously flawed. Number one: it’s self-refuting. If I were to say to you my brother is an only child, or I can’t speak a word in English, or you’re in rare form, as usual, you would immediately notice that those statements were self-refuting.

They literally refute themselves in the process of stating them. And the same is true when someone says, well, you shouldn’t force your morals on me. It’s like they’re saying, oh, there are no moral rules, oh, but here’s one. You better not claim to be right on a moral issue. That’s a self-refuting claim. So they’ll hide behind the hard cases also. That’s the fifth bad way people argue. They’ll bring up things like rape or they’ll bring up life of the mother, and that’s really not their true position.

Their true position is that abortion should be legal for any reason whatsoever, and you’re going to want to call their bluff if they’re using the hard case to try to hammer you. Now there are genuine people who have concerns about things like: well, what? What if the woman is pregnant due to rape? You’ll be very gracious and asking a very simple question of them: how should a civil society treat innocent human beings that remind us of a painful event and let the question just hang there: is it okay to kill them so we can feel better?

In other words and anybody with a functioning conscience is going to recognize, no, you can’t kill someone just because it makes you feel better. But most people bring up rape as a crusader. They want to just make you look bad. You’re going to call their bluff. So when they say, how can you possibly call yourself a passionate person yet want to force women who’ve been raped and end up pregnant to carry their children to term, when the kid May remind them of what they went through forever, I want you to very calmly but directly call their bluff.

And here’s how you do it. You say to them: let’s go ahead and grant, for the sake of argument, that we allow abortion in cases of rape. Not my position, but let’s say we do that. If I do that, will you join me in opposing all other abortions? I promise you, 100% of the time the answer will be no and they will say: well, women have a fundamental right to an abortion that should never be infringed upon. Okay, if you believe that the right to abortion should have no restrictions whatsoever, be a man and step up and argue for that.

Don’t hide behind rape victims as a way of covering up your own position. In fact, Francis J Beckwith puts this real well in his book defending life. He says: you know, when people argue for unlimited abortion by appealing to rape, it’s kind of like arguing that we ought to get rid of all traffic laws because you might have to rush a loved one to the hospital in an emergency. It just won’t do to appeal to the hard case to justify the vast majority of abortions that have nothing to do with rape.

So look for the five bad ways people argue. They assume rather than argue, they attack rather than argue, they assert rather than argue, they confuse preference claims with moral claims and, finally, they hide behind hard cases. Once you recognize those F five bad ways, you can slot their objection into one of those categories and make sense of it. Thank you for joining us on the program today. It was great to have you with us. We want you equipped to make an intelligent case for life, and we aim to do that in every episode of this show, and I really look forward to seeing you on the next edition.