Feelings are not arguments
Article adapted from episode content.
In the realm of contentious discussions, particularly on emotionally charged topics like abortion, it is common to encounter arguments that lack formal structure and rely instead on a flurry of unsubstantiated statements. Often, individuals believe that by simply asserting various points, they have effectively refuted an opposing view, as if throwing enough “mud up on the wall” constitutes a valid case. This approach frequently reduces complex moral issues to mere subjective feelings, sidestepping the need for reasoned, objective arguments. This article, inspired by an episode of “The Case for Life show,” aims to provide insight into this prevalent issue and offer tactical tips for engaging with such conversational styles.
The problem of relying on subjective feelings was vividly illustrated in a discussion between Charlie Kirk and a young woman, self-identified as a Christian, on a secular college campus, where the topic was abortion. Throughout their exchange, the student repeatedly employed phrases like “I feel” to justify her stance. This highlights a critical distinction: stating “I feel” reduces a moral position to a personal preference, akin to choosing vanilla ice cream over chocolate. It conveys nothing about truth or reason. In contrast, replacing “I feel” with “I think” compels one to provide reasons and present a formal, objective case, which is fundamental to the Christian worldview where facts, arguments, and objective truth are paramount.
Misconceptions About Christianity and Moral Stances
One significant point clarified in the discussion is the misconception that being pro-choice automatically disqualifies someone from being a Christian. The show’s host emphasizes that salvation hinges on belief in Jesus as the sole path to salvation and His atoning work on the cross, not on one’s stance on abortion. While a pro-choice view may contradict a biblical worldview, it does not necessarily mean an individual is not a Christian; they might be a new believer, a “baby Christian,” or simply “morally untutored”. It is suggested that through the process of sanctification – aligning one’s behavior with Christ-like conduct – such an individual might eventually realize that their view on abortion does not align with biblical principles.
The Self-Refuting Nature of “Do Not Judge”
A common tactic to shut down moral reasoning, particularly on issues like abortion, gay marriage, or transgenderism, is to invoke Matthew 7:1: “Do not judge or you too will be judged”. However, this argument is fundamentally flawed and self-refuting. When someone declares, “You shouldn’t judge,” they are, by that very statement, making a judgment about another person’s actions. This is comparable to saying, “I can’t speak a word in English” or “Don’t take anybody’s advice on anything” – the statement itself defeats its premise.
Furthermore, the biblical injunction “do not judge” does not prohibit making moral judgments about right and wrong. Instead, Jesus was speaking against judging wrongly, self-righteously, or hypocritically – condemning others for behaviors one engages in oneself. Jesus himself made moral judgments, referring to Pharisees as “sons of their father, the devil” and judging others as deceivers. This common misinterpretation often stems from a lack of deep biblical theology and ethics, prevalent even in some large churches that prioritize drawing a crowd over teaching robust doctrine.
The Folly of “Making it Unthinkable”
Another problematic statement frequently heard from Christians is, “I don’t want to make abortion illegal. I want to make it unthinkable”. This is deemed a foolish assertion. The hosts challenge this by asking listeners to consider if one would say the same about spousal abuse, slavery, or lynching. If abortion is truly the intentional killing of an innocent human being, then it ought to be illegal, just as other acts of intentional harm to innocent individuals are. A good society makes harmful acts illegal, not merely “unthinkable”.
Deconstructing Common Pro-Choice Assertions
The discussion then delves into the specific assertions made by the student, highlighting how they fail to withstand logical scrutiny:
- “Difference between a living, breathing human and a fetus”: The student agrees murder is wrong but posits a “big difference” between a living, breathing woman and a fetus. Charlie Kirk’s crucial follow-up question, “What is the difference?”, is excellent because it forces clarification and sets up the opportunity to demonstrate that any perceived differences are morally insignificant in justifying the killing of one but not the other.
- Location as a Determinant of Moral Worth: The student suggests that the difference lies in the fetus being “inside of the body” and unable to “live on its own”. Charlie’s counter is astute: “Why does somebody’s location determine their moral worth?”. The absurdity of this argument is exposed through the example of fetal surgery, where a child is partially or fully removed from the womb for an operation and then returned. If location dictated moral status, the child would transition from a non-person to a person and back again within moments, which is illogical. When confronted, the student failed to engage this argument, instead changing the subject to bodily rights, a common tactic to divert the discussion when cornered. The advice for engagement is to “call timeout” and insist on sticking to the original point.
- Fetus as “Part of You”: The student asserts the fetus “is a part of you. It’s growing in you. It’s connected to you by an umbilical cord”. Charlie distinguishes: “It’s attached, not a part.”. This distinction is crucial. As philosopher Peter Kreeft humorously points out, if a fetus were truly part of the mother, a pregnant woman would have four arms, four legs, and four eyes. More seriously, the example of a white embryo implanted in a Black surrogate mother resulting in a white child at birth conclusively demonstrates that the child’s DNA is distinct and not part of the mother’s body. The child possesses its own unique DNA and gender, often different from the mother’s. This leads to a concise and persuasive slogan: “If it’s not your DNA, it’s not your choice.”.
The “It’s Just Religion” Dismissal
When her assertions are refuted, the student resorts to dismissing Charlie’s points as “religion,” asking, “how you can use religion to back up your point”. This is a common evasion rather than a refutation. When people use “religion” in this context, they often mean subjective, private, emotive beliefs that lack real knowledge. However, for those who hold a Christian worldview, faith is trust based on evidence, not a blind leap. Charlie correctly points out that he had not introduced religion into the argument. Even if he had, calling an argument “religious” does not refute it; one must demonstrate that the argument is either logically invalid or based on false premises. This demonstrates a “lazy” approach to intellectual engagement.
The Misleading Ad Hominem of the Death Penalty
The student attempts a disguised ad hominem attack by asking Charlie if he believes the death penalty is wrong. This is an attempt to create an inconsistency, suggesting that if he supports the death penalty, his opposition to abortion is hypocritical. However, this is fallacious reasoning because the validity of an argument stands independently of the person making it. “Bad people can still make good arguments”. More importantly, there is no parallel between the death penalty, which involves the execution of guilty individuals, and abortion, which involves the intentional killing of innocent human beings. While the issue of potentially innocent people on death row is acknowledged as a “good argument,” it remains a separate issue and does not negate the humanity and innocence of the unborn.
The Enduring Problem: Feelings Over Formal Arguments
Throughout the discussion, even after Charlie Kirk lays out a clear, formal case – “We agree murder is wrong. We agree it’s a human being. Therefore, shouldn’t abortion be wrong and illegal?” – the student reverts to her initial stance: “I still feel like it really like…”. This highlights the fundamental challenge: the reduction of morality and even religion to subjective feelings in contemporary culture.
This trend, where moral positions are seen as mere personal preferences rather than objectively verifiable truths, is deeply concerning. It suggests a societal and even ecclesiastical failure to convey biblical truth objectively and persuasively. For churches, this means a risk of becoming “seeker friendly” to the point of being “believer worthless,” neglecting to teach biblical theology and ethics that ground moral issues in objective truth.
Ultimately, the episode serves as a powerful reminder that feelings, no matter how strong, cannot replace coherent, reasoned arguments. Engaging effectively in such discussions requires recognizing these common rhetorical pitfalls and steering the conversation back to logical principles and objective truth. Learning to defend the pro-life view persuasively, grounded in science and philosophy, and understanding how to handle common objections is crucial for meaningful dialogue.