The challenge of engaging hostile ideas requires both intellectual rigor and remarkable composure. Recently, Allie Beth Stuckey demonstrated a master class in intellectual engagement by sitting with twenty progressive Christians who sought to challenge her biblical worldview beliefs. This demanding format—where critics approached her individually to present their challenges—provided a compelling example of how a pro-life Christian can successfully engage multiple critics simultaneously. The consensus among observers was clear: Stuckey “put on a clinic” and delivered a phenomenal performance, proving herself better equipped intellectually and biblically than her opponents.
The Pillars of Effective Engagement
Stuckey’s success in navigating this adversarial setting was not merely accidental; it stemmed from a combination of strategic preparation and exemplary demeanor. Firstly, she exhibited mastery of the material, demonstrating comprehensive intellectual and biblical preparedness. Critics generally lacked serious intellectual challenges to offer, which highlighted Stuckey’s superior equipping. Secondly, and perhaps more crucially, she possessed the ability to remain winsome and gracious throughout the exchange. She maintained control of the situation without resorting to shouting over opponents. Her approach was described as “statesmanlike,” polite, and civil, ensuring that while she scored rhetorical points, she also compelled people to truly think about the issues, preventing them from being distracted by any personal arrogance or “off-putishness”.
This kind of effective engagement is essential for Christians who are leaving the safety of churches and homes and are confronted with hostile ideas in the wider world. Organizations like Summit Ministries are instrumental in equipping students to defend a biblical worldview, teaching them how to persuasively engage a culture that often holds that moral truth is subjective and that human life lacks intrinsic value. Stuckey’s performance vividly demonstrated the value of such preparation.
Establishing the Parameters: Defining the Core Issue
One of Stuckey’s most persuasive and brilliant strategic moves was her insistence on defining terms before allowing critics to proceed with “gotcha” questions. When challenged by a progressive Christian named Jared, who aimed to start with rapid-fire yes or no questions, Stuckey paused the conversation, stating: “Can I define our terms first and then I’ll let you go and I won’t interrupt you”.
This move was vital because critics of the pro-life view often attempt to throw “mud on the wall, hoping something sticks, but never have to really defend a position of his own”. By demanding clarity on terminology, Stuckey ensured that the discussion centered on the actual argument at hand. As a foundational principle in pro-life apologetics, the most important words often boil down to three: Syllogism, Syllogism, Syllogism. The goal is to keep the argument clear and concise, sticking to the main issue: “what is abortion and what is the unborn”.
Stuckey attempted to define abortion as “the intentional killing of a human fetus in the womb”. The pro-life position is best articulated through a formal syllogism:
- Premise One: It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.
- Premise Two: Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being.
- Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is wrong.
Refusing the “Murder” Trap
The initial exchange quickly exposed a common tactic used by critics: attempting to redefine the argument to focus on whether abortion constitutes “murder”. After Stuckey defined abortion as “the intentional killing of a human fetus in the womb,” the critic responded, “I don’t agree that abortion is murder”. This was a deliberate attempt to change the subject.
The sources strongly suggest that pro-lifers should avoid allowing critics to “flip the script” to the topic of murder. The reason is rooted in legal complexities. In a court of law, achieving a conviction for murder requires proving malice, bad motives, and that the person understood the act to be malicious and evil. These are incredibly difficult things to prove concerning abortion. Pro-lifers are better positioned when they define abortion precisely as the intentional killing of an innocent human being and insist that critics refute that specific syllogism, rather than reinventing the argument to focus on intent and legal definitions of murder. Stuckey was praised for her initial definition, which properly framed the issue as an unjustified, intentional killing.
Countering Intent and Emotion
Another line of attack involved the critics’ attempt to equate the internal sins described by Jesus in the New Testament (specifically Matthew 5:28 regarding lust leading to adultery, and Matthew 5:22 regarding anger leading to murder) with the motivations behind abortion. The critic tried to draw a parallel, asking if a pregnant woman undergoing an abortion is “angry with the baby”.
Stuckey effectively pushed back, acknowledging that Jesus emphasizes that sin is rooted in the heart, not just outward behavior. However, she refused to speculate on the feelings of every woman having an abortion, noting that some might be angry, scared, or simply not want to be pregnant. Crucially, she pivoted back to the core moral principle: regardless of the woman’s feelings, “ultimately it still leads to the same outcome that an innocent human being is being killed”.
The morality of the act is not determined by the feelings or intentions of the perpetrator. If a deranged parent kills a child they claim to like, the act is still wrong because the child is an innocent human being. Feelings about a person do not determine their humanity or the rightness or wrongness of killing them. By refusing to be drawn into a debate about emotion, Stuckey maintained focus on the intentional killing of an innocent human being, effectively navigating the critic’s attempt to change the subject.
Dismantling the Pain and Violence Argument
A subsequent critic targeted Stuckey’s use of the terms “violent” and “painful” to describe abortion. This gentleman argued that because the majority of abortions occur within the first six weeks, when pain receptors have not developed (only happening perhaps at 10 weeks or later), it is wrong to characterize the act as violent or painful.
Stuckey forcefully countered this argument by asking the critical question: “Is killing only wrong if someone can feel pain?”. She affirmed that abortion is violent, noting that even taking the abortion pill is violent because it starves the human being—whether called a zygote or a fetus—of the necessary nutrients. The fundamental flaw in the critic’s position is assuming that the capacity to feel pain is a value-giving trait that determines the rightness or wrongness of intentional killing.
This point was highlighted by using scenarios outside the womb: if a person is murdered in their sleep or shot and killed instantaneously, they feel no pain, yet a very bad act has still been committed. Stuckey “absolutely nailed him on this” by pushing back on the principle that intentional killing is acceptable if the victim cannot feel it.
When the critic attempted to deflect this logic by asserting, “Abortion is health care for women who need it”, Stuckey exposed the assertion’s baselessness and diversionary nature. She demanded: “Can you tell me another situation in which killing a person intentionally is health care?”. Killing an innocent person, she concluded, is inherently not health care.
Exposing Fallacies and Calling Bluffs
Throughout the engagement, critics frequently employed fallacious arguments and diversions in an attempt to destabilize Stuckey.
First, a critic attempted to misuse scripture, citing Matthew 26:24, where Jesus says it would have been better if Judas had never been born. The critic tried to argue that this statement undermined the pro-life claim that “each conception deserves to be birthed”. Stuckey provided a “great answer,” pointing out that Jesus was speaking figuratively about the judgment Judas would endure due to his unrepentant heart. Jesus was not condoning murder or abortion; rather, He meant it would have been preferable for Judas to have never been conceived than to face the wrath of a holy God. The theological ignorance of the critic was evident, rendering this argument a “total non-starter”.
Second, the critic raised the emotionally charged issues of rape and incest, asserting that these cases justified the procedure. Stuckey, noting that such cases constitute less than 1% of all abortions, immediately called his bluff. She proposed a hypothetical challenge: “If I said to you, ‘We will only allow abortion in those 1% of cases in which it’s rape or incest,’ would you agree with me to ban the rest of abortions?”. The critic immediately evaded the question and began to “dance and avoid,” confirming the use of these scenarios as mere rhetorical devices rather than principled arguments against the general wrongness of abortion.
Finally, a critic employed the Genetic Fallacy. After being cornered on the definition of healthcare, the critic pivoted, attacking the origins of the pro-life movement, claiming it was grounded in the segregationist thinking of the “religious right movement” and the “southern strategy” in the early 1980s. Stuckey was praised for not letting him successfully change the subject, as the genetic fallacy attempts to fault an idea based on its origins, rather than refuting the argument itself. Even if the origins were questionable, this fact would not refute the fundamental moral syllogism that the intentional killing of an innocent human being is wrong. Stuckey was applauded for continuously forcing the critics to apply their logic consistently to people both inside and outside the womb, refusing to allow diversions.
Conclusion: A Model for Persuasive Dialogue
Allie Beth Stuckey’s interaction with her progressive Christian critics provided an essential blueprint for effective pro-life engagement. She demonstrated that persuasive dialogue hinges not just on rhetorical skill but on stateliness, intellectual preparedness, and unwavering focus. She consistently forced opponents to defend the fundamental principles they advanced, preventing them from shifting the goalposts or relying on emotional appeals, fallacies, or unsupported assertions. By maintaining a respectful and civil tone while simultaneously demonstrating mastery of the material, Stuckey set a high standard, showing that Christians must be “tough-minded… who know how to be statesmen and stateswomen” in defending a biblical worldview.
Analogy to solidify understanding: Allie Beth Stuckey’s performance was like a master chess player facing twenty novice opponents simultaneously. While the novices tried various tricky opening moves (like emotional appeals or logical fallacies), Stuckey didn’t allow them to dictate the game. She defined the board (the syllogism), focused on the main objective (the humanity of the unborn), and calmly countered every attempt to divert the piece, securing a win based on strategy and intellectual discipline, rather than brute force.
Episode Transcript
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.
Hello friends. Great to have you with us on The Case for Life show today. Can a pro-life Christian successfully engage 20 hostile critics at one time? Yes, she can. And today I’m going to give you an example of that. All Beth Stucky recently had 20 progressive Christians sit around a circle with her. And one at a time, they got to challenge her on her biblical worldview beliefs. And I just have to tell you, she put on a clinic on how to engage people who don’t agree with us.
And we’re going to look at some examples of that on today’s show. Pray for me. I am getting over one nasty bug. I just got back from the UK, the United Kingdom. Spent a couple of weeks there. It was wonderful, but I caught some kind of bug in Edinburgh, Scotland, and I’m still struggling with my voice. So, we’re I’m going to do my best to get through this without hacking and coughing like I’m a chain smoker. But we’re going to do our best today.
I also want to remind you that one of our primary sponsors, Summit Ministries, has open registration right now for their upcoming summer conferences for students. As you know, I teach at Summit Ministries. I’m a faculty member there. I teach all the pro-life content. And I cannot think of a finer organization at equipping our kids to engage the hostile ideas they’re going to be confronted with when they leave the safety of our churches and our homes and have to make it out there on their own in the world.
So, we really encourage you to take a look at Summit Ministries website. We’ll put that up on the screen for you so you can do that. There’s no finer group at training people to defend a biblical worldview and I am honored to be part of their work and grateful for their partnership in this as I am the life training institute which is our primary sponsor for this show that helps pro-life Christians engage a culture that thinks human life has no intrinsic value that thinks moral truth is subjective and up to us LTI does a fantastic job giving presentations and writing materials to equip you to engage those with a persuasive pro-life talk that think truth can’t be known.
So that’s what we do and I’m hoping you’ll check that site out as well. Okay, about Ali Beth, here’s what happened. She did something very clever. She had 20 progressive Christians recruited to sit in a room with her. She sat in the middle behind a desk and you’ve seen this kind of thing done before with Charlie Kirk in the past and Llaya Rose and others and one at a time they would come up and challenge her and I want to begin by pointing out why I think she was so effective.
Number one, she had mastery of the material. That’s evident as you watch this. She was better equipped intellectually and biblically than her opponents. Her opponents really did not have a lot to offer as far as I’m concerned in terms of serious intellectual challenge. But she had something else going for her that you don’t always see. She had the ability to stay winsome and gracious while she’s engaging people. You never got the sense that she was losing control of the situation. It didn’t become as often as the case a matter of trying to shout over someone.
And maybe it was in part due to the fact that these particular people who participated were a bit better mannered than others I’ve seen. At least they would listen to her at points and there was some attempt to at least follow her argument on their part. I think that’s good. But really, you got to salute Ally here. She did a very outstanding job engaging people in not losing her cool, just taking her time to unpack what she believes and why their objections to her beliefs didn’t hold water.
We’re going to look at some examples right now. We’re going to start today with the examples on abortion. We’re going to take maybe a couple of episodes to go through this because there’s such a an example here of rich content that we can engage with as Christians. And again, I want to make it clear here. I’m not critiquing Ally. She did phenomenal. I’m just looking at what these people are saying and adding a few pointers here and there that I might have added had I been in her chair.
But she did a terrific job. I really hope you’ll look at this whole clip of her engaging these progressive Christians. It’s worth your time. Let’s see what her critics have to say on abortion.
Hello, my name is Jared. What is this?
Jared. I’m Ally. Nice to meet you here. Yeah, if it’s okay with you, I’d like to start with a couple yes or no questions and then I’d like to hear your response fully without interruption.
Okay. Can I define our terms first and then I’ll let you go and I won’t interrupt you.
Okay. That was a brilliant move on her part. Her critic wanted to come in and hit her with three or four gotcha yes or no questions without defining any of the terms of the argument, without making the parameters known of what the big issue is in the abortion debate. And she would have none of it. She said, ‘Yes, I’ll answer your questions, but first, let’s make sure we agree on terms. Let’s start with, as you’ll see in a moment, what is abortion?
We need to be clear on that and agree on our terminology. We need to agree on our terminology about right and wrong. And I tell you, that was perhaps the most persuasive thing she did out of the gate is say, “Wait a minute, there’s going to be some rules here on how we discuss this.” Because what you find on critics of the pro-life view, and this gentleman here is a classic example, he’s going to throw a lot of mud on the wall, hoping something sticks, but never have to really defend a position of his own.
And by saying, “Wait a minute. We’re going to define our terms here. We’re going to be clear what the argument actually is before we go any further.” That’s exactly what we need to do as Christians. How many times on this show have you heard me say the most important words in pro-life apologetics come down to three. Syllogism. You’ve got to put your argument out there clearly so that when people try to change the subject and come back with something else, you can stop them and get back to the issue that’s at hand.
Also, another way of putting this is less is more. Stick to the main issue. Don’t try to talk about everything under the sun. That isn’t relevant to the central question. What is abortion and what is the unborn? Okay, let’s see what else he tries to do here.
Because these terms are so contentious, I just want to make sure that we agree. So, abortion, the intentional killing of a human being in the womb. Can we agree on that?
I don’t agree that abortion is murder.
Okay. Notice what just happened. She made her case as follows. Abortion is the intentional killing of a human fetus in the womb. And he came back and said, “Well, I don’t think abortion is murder.” Okay, that’s beside the point. We’re not talking here about a different category, murder. We’re talking about the intentional killing of an innocent human being and that being unjustified. That’s the terminology she used. And he tried to change it to the topic of murder. And you’re going to see why in a moment why he did this.
And if I could make one suggestion that Ally might have done early on, and that was make sure she doesn’t let him get away with redefining the terms. But let’s see what else happens.
I believe that it is killing life in the womb.
Killing a what species of life?
A human.
A human. Okay. So, we can agree that abortion is the intentional killing of a human inside the womb. Grave, just obviously, I mean, serious, moral, right versus wrong, evil, bad, wrong, sinful. So, I believe that the intentional killing of an innocent human being is evil. Do you agree?
No.
You don’t? Okay.
I don’t.
Go ahead.
Yes or no? Is abortion murder?
Yes.
Okay. This is where he did not answer her question. The question was a definitional one. Do you agree that abortion properly understood and defined is the intentional killing of an innocent human being? He did not answer the question. And he said, “I don’t believe it’s murder.” Now, he then tried to again hijack the thread by asking her, “Do you believe abortion is murder?” She said, “Yes.” I would have done one little tweak here. I would have said, “Wait a minute. Let’s go back to what I actually stated a moment ago.
I defined abortion and you agreed with it that abortion is the intentional killing of a human fetus in the womb. You did not refute that. Okay, let’s stick to the terms of what I argued. And I think this is important here for pro-lifers. Our critics want to press us to say that abortion is murder because it gives them an out. Here’s the out it gives them. It forces you then to claim to know the intentions and the motivations of the person who has the abortion.
In order to get a conviction for murder in a court of law, you’re going to have to prove malice. You’re going to have to prove that the person had bad motives for killing the individual in question. You’re going to have to prove that they understood the act to be a malicious evil. These are very hard things to prove when it comes to abortion. So, I think proiffers are much better off to define abortion as the intentional killing of an innocent human being exactly the way she did initially and not allow them to try to flip the script on us and say, “Oh, well, if you agree it’s murder, here’s why it’s not.” That doesn’t work.
Stick to the main thing. Is abortion the intentional killing of an innocent human being? Exactly as we argue in our syllogism. Premise one, it’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. Premise two, abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being. Therefore, abortion is wrong. Make our critics refute that syllogism, not reinvent it to something else they want to argue about.
In Matthew 5:28, when Jesus says that if I look at a woman lustfully, that I’ve already committed adultery with her in my heart.
Yes.
Do you agree?
Jesus doubles down on so many moral laws of the Old Testament. Yes or no? Do I agree with what?
That if I look at a woman lustfully that I have already committed adultery with her in my heart. Do you agree? Yes or no?
Yes. In your heart.
Yes.
Okay. One little thing here. I’ve noticed that critics on the left to force yes or no answers when there is room for a lot more explanation and nuance than they’re comfortable with. And they try to shortcircuit that by saying, “No, I want yes or no.” I think it’s okay to do exactly what she did right there and say, “What do you what do you exactly mean?” and make him come out and be more clear because really, it’s true. Jesus did say, “If you look at a woman lustfully, you’ve committed adultery with her in your heart.” That’s true.
Jesus takes the moral standard of the Pharisees, which was strictly outward behavior, and says, “Guess what? Obeying those standards isn’t going to get you to heaven because your evil is a whole lot deeper than you want to admit. And that’s true. Jesus did say that because Jesus is out to show that the human heart is desperately wicked. As Jeremiah points out in chapter 17, it’s so sick, who can know it? Our evil goes way beyond our outward behavior. That much is true.
But he’s trying to change the subject here to one of motivations. Let’s see what his next trick is. In Matthew 5:22 when it says that if I’m angry with my brother or sister then I have that then I am guilty of the same judgment as if I had committed murder.
Yes. Spiritually. Spiritually.
Would you
Not necessarily legally?
Would it be fair to say that Jesus is implying that lust can lead to adultery and that anger can lead to murder?
Yes, I would agree with that. But he is also saying that actually following the law is not just about what you do outwardly but what you do in your heart and what you think and feel inside.
Absolutely. Are pregnant women angry with the baby when they undergo an abortion? Yes or no?
I have no idea. I don’t think either of us can say how every single pregnant woman feels when she has an abortion. Do you know what every single pregnant woman is feeling when she has an abortion? Maybe some of them are angry at the baby. Maybe some of them are scared. Maybe some of them are desperate. Maybe some of them just don’t want to be pregnant anymore. But ultimately, it still leads to the same outcome that an innocent human being is being killed.
Yes or no? That’s all I’m asking. So you would say
I gave you more than that.
That’s fine. I just trying to one more. Then how can abortion be murder if they do not share the same intention? How can an apple seed grow an orange tree?
Jesus doesn’t say that anger is the only thing that leads to murder. As we saw in the case of David, it was lust that led to the murder of Beth Sheba’s husband.
Let me interrupt right there. Again, notice he wants to flip the script and talk about murder, not the actual pro-life syllogism that it’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. Now, Alli’s answer here is a good one. It doesn’t matter what people feel about the unborn in judging whether the act of killing them intentionally is right or wrong. Suppose you have a someone who, let’s just take a deranged parent. They actually say they like their kid, but they kill him anyway.
Does that change the rightness or wrongness of the act? No, it doesn’t. It’s still wrong to kill that child. Why? Because he’s an innocent human being. My feelings about something don’t change what it is. If I got a text right now saying one of my own kids have died, I would feel worse about that than learning that 500 kids died in Bangladesh today from malnutrition due to floods. Now, the fact I feel greater things for my own kid than I do those kids in Bangladesh has nothing to do with a their humanity or b the rightness or wrongness of killing those kids in Bangladesh.
So, my feelings about something don’t determine what it is. So, he’s again trying to change the subject here and trying to get away with doing it by pressing and insisting on yes, no answers with no explanation.
So, murder can still be murder even if the intent does not start with anger. And that is what I believe we see with abortion.
What about Matthew 26:24 when Jesus says that it would be better if Judas had never been born? Why do Christian conservatives believe that each conception deserves to be birthed when Jesus says otherwise? Well, Jesus doesn’t say that Judas should have been murdered or that he should have been aborted. It said that he should have never been born, which we can deduce probably means never been conceived. And he is speaking figuratively there that it would have been better for him to not be born than endure the judgment that he’s going to endure because of what he did.
Great answer there from Ally. The critic does not know his theology. He’s trying to come up with a gotcha here. Hey, Judas should have never been born. Jesus didn’t say it would have been better if Judas were intentionally killed. He was making the point that the eternal significance of what Judas did and his unrepentant heart makes it better really for him to have never been born. Because if you’re never born, you don’t face the wrath of God. Where those of us who don’t repent, we do face the wrath of God.
And it would be better if we were never born given the wrath that is coming from a holy God against sin. So that’s no argument against the humanity of the unborn. And by the way, if being executed by God were to mean that you were not fully human, it would follow the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, the sons of Kora, and others that God executed would not have been fully human. So his argument here is going nowhere. It’s a total non-starter.
That is not condoning killing the innocent people that Jesus defends. Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Okay, we got another guy coming up here. Let’s see his line of attack.
My concern about the way that you present the abortion issue.
Okay.
Is you have claimed in the past that the liberal pro-choice position
Is that we don’t give the whole truth about the abortion issue. And you as violent. You’ve described it here as killing.
Abortion is violent
And painful.
Yes. For the child. Absolutely.
My pro my concern is that you are doing the same thing by not telling women the truth that when the majority of abortions happen, which is in the first six weeks of pregnancy, that fetus has not developed pain receptors. That doesn’t happen till maybe at the earliest 10 weeks. So are you saying experts say 22 to 24 weeks?
Is killing only wrong if someone can feel pain?
It’s wrong for you to characterize it as violent painful when it’s not.
It is violent. Of course it’s violent. Even when you take the abortion pill, you are starving that human being. If you want to call him or her a zygote or a fetus. Here’s a gentleman trying to make the claim that because the unborn cannot feel pain, abortion is no big deal and we shouldn’t call it intentional killing. Well, this is ridiculous. I mean, if you murder someone in their sleep, you’ve killed them. They don’t feel it, but you’ve still committed a very bad act.
Or suppose you shoot somebody in the head and they die instantaneously. You annihilate them in a split second. They don’t feel it. Have they still been wronged? Well, of course. How does my feeling something or not feeling it count as an argument for the rightness or wrongness of intentionally killing me? This guy presents no argument for that. And he presents no argument for why feeling pain in the first place is valuegiving. Now, I want you, those of you watching, to take notice something here.
It is very common for people to throw out assertions about abortion and about the humanity of the unborn that go something like this. Well, they’re not self-aware. They can’t feel pain. They don’t interact with their environments without ever attempting to argue for why those traits are valuegiving in the first place. And what we don’t want to do as pro-lifers is say, “Oh, the unborn can feel pain at week 10, therefore abortion’s wrong.” No, we do exactly what Ally did here. She pointed out that he was arguing that somehow feeling pain is what determines whether killing you is right or wrong.
She called him on the right point there. And he basically ignores it. Let’s see where else he tries to go.
If you want to call him or her a zygote or a fetus, that’s all fine. Those are all stages of development that all of us went through, that all children go through. It is still the killing of a human being. And when you take the abortion pill, the two-part abortion pill, you are starving that human being of the nutrients that he or she needs to survive and that is violent. Are you saying there are a lot of people who are murdered who can’t feel it?
Are you saying that that murder is justified because they can’t feel it? No, we’re talking about
Oh, no. No. She nailed him on this. She absolutely nailed him on this and he tried to deflect it. No, no, we’re talking about something different. Abortion. No, she got to the principle he was advancing. And she did it very cleverly. Look, the principle this gentleman is advancing is that intentional killing is not wrong if the person that’s being killed can’t feel it. That’s the principle she’s pushing back on. And rightfully so. And he’s just trying to deflect here.
No, we’re talking about abortion. We’re not talking about something else. We’re talking about abortion.
But I’m trying to understand your logic. You are saying that abortion is okay because babies don’t feel it. So I’m asking you is killing another innocent person when they don’t feel it. Is that justified?
Abortion is health care for women who need it.
Okay. Notice what he just did there. He just responds with an assertion to change the subject. Abortion is health care for women who need it. How does that respond to her very lucid point that he’s advancing a principle that it’s okay to kill you if you don’t feel it? He dodges that by changing the subject and redefining abortion arbitrarily. Well, it’s health care for women who need it. That is not persuasive at all, sir.
Case is killing girls who have been raped, who have been have experienced incest. Ally,
That’s less than 1% of all abortions. Can we agree?
So, most abortions happen within the first six weeks.
If I said to you painful and violent,
If I said to you, okay, fine. We will only allow, which this is not my position, but if I said we will only allow abortion in those 1% of cases in which it’s rape or incest, would you agree with me to ban the rest of abortions?
The denial,
Absolute bingo here. She called his bluff. Now, notice what he goes to next. He throws out this assertion that abortion is healthcare. Then he goes right into throwing mud up on the wall. Remember what I began the show with? Critics love to throw a bunch of mud on the wall and see what sticks. So now he’s brought up rape and incest. Okay. And she called him on it correct correctly. So she said, “Okay, suppose I allow abortion in cases of rape.
It’s not my position, but suppose we did allow it for that reason. Will you join me in opposing all other abortions that have nothing to do with rape?” And then you see him start to dance and avoid the question once again. She called him on it though. It was perfect. The denial of abortion healthcare to women is 100% harmful to the woman who absolutely needs
Abortion is 100% harmful to the childare physical healthare.
Killing an innocent person is not healthcare. Can you tell me another situation in which killing a person intentionally is healthare?
Here’s the problem with the whole pro-life movement. You talk a lot about look at look at the evil origins of these movements. Look at your movement ally. The religious right movement started with the southern strategy and it didn’t start with abortion. Okay, th now notice what he’s doing. This is a classic case of the genetic fallacy trying to fault the proifers ideas based on their origins. He says look at Ally, look at the origins of your movement. They were grounded in segregationist thinking of the southern strategy in the early 1980s.
A very racist and segregationist movement. Now, forget for the moment that’s utter BS, and it is. It’s BS. However, the real thing here is even if it were true, how would that refute the argument that it’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being? Abortion does that. Therefore, it’s wrong. This is what we mean by the genetic fallacy. Even if you can fault the origins of something, that doesn’t mean you refuted their argument. Bad people could still make a good argument.
Suppose we found out that the anti-slavery movement was grounded in some respects in spiritism, which it was, and it was grounded in some other questionable people as well. Does that mean that just because you can cite some questionable sources that the basic argument against slavery is a bad one? Of course not. This guy is just gone from bad to worse.
It was a great issue to raise a lot of money. No, no, no, no. This is your issue. We’re No, my argument is that abortion is a grave moral evil. You say it’s not because babies in the womb don’t feel pain until a certain point in gestation. I’m asking you to apply that logic to people outside of the womb. Is murder okay when the victim doesn’t feel pain. And why or why not?
Here’s the issue. Jesus
Apply your logic to people outside of the womb. Tell me why.
Okay, she just nailed him again. She’s not letting him get away with changing this subject. Salute you, Ally. Very good. He’s trying to change it and talk about anything but the point he is weakest on and that being that the feeling of pain determines whether or not it’s okay to kill you. Well, we need to take a break. When we come back, I have a few more thoughts about this segment and then we’re going to let you go for this session.
We’re going to pick this up in a subsequent edition as well because I think there’s so much we can interact with here. And I want to remind you before the break, if you have not taken advantage of the course we have to equip yourself to defend the pro-life view, much the same way you see Ally doing here, I encourage you to look at that course. You can visit it on our websites to see information about it. Let’s take a break and I’ll see you on the other side.
Welcome back everyone again. I highly recommend you take a look at this full episode of Ali Beth Stucky interacting with progressive Christian critics. She puts on a master class of the right tone and I want to come back to that in the concluding thoughts here. A lot of times I have seen Christian conservatives come off as exceptionally arrogant and snarky and you know it ends up you score some rhetorical points maybe but you don’t make people think you don’t give them something to think about because they can’t get past your own personal lack of a better term off-putishness.
That’s not even a word but run with it for now. The reality is though she’s very statesmanlike. She’s in control. She keeps forcing them to answer the principles they’re advancing. She doesn’t let them change the subject, but she either, or I should say, she also doesn’t shout them down. She’s statesmanlike, polite, tries to maintain a civil, friendly stance. I think this is so commendable, and I encourage you to watch it. This is exactly the kind of interaction we need. And if you’re wondering a resource that can help you with that, I again commend to you this book, The Case for Life, which will equip you to engage the toughest pro-life arguments as well as the popular street level ones.
Friends, we need to be toughminded Christians who know how to be statesmen and states women. And I salute Ally here for a great job. We’re going to look at some more from this conversation in the next episode.