Friends, welcome. Welcome to a crucial discussion about the challenges we face when advocating for the defenseless. I want to address a tactic that many of you, I know, have encountered time and time again: the deflection of substantive argument through personal attacks. Instead of engaging with the merits of your position, you find yourselves on the defensive, grilled about your motives, your character, and even your compassion. You’re labeled intolerant, hateful, uncaring – the list goes on. Today, I aim to equip you with the understanding and the confidence to recognize these attacks for what they are: paper tigers. They may roar loudly, but they lack any real substance when it comes to dismantling the truth.
How often, indeed, have those of us who stand for life been attacked rather than refuted? The answer, sadly, is almost daily. I recall a speech from not long ago where an individual attempted to corner pro-life advocates. He addressed a group of college students, targeting pro-life Christians specifically. His opening salvo was direct: “How many of you think abortion is murder? Raise your hand”. Naturally, many pro-life students responded affirmatively. His follow-up was designed to create discomfort and doubt: “Oh, really? Are you willing to prosecute women for murder if they have an abortion in a state where it’s been made illegal?”. The speaker recounts the students’ visible discomfort, their lack of immediate response. The speaker then presented his supposed trump card: “See, there goes your whole case. You say abortion is murder, but you won’t prosecute for it. Therefore, your case is invalid. We can just ignore it”.
But let us pause, as I urged then, and think critically. We on this show consistently emphasize a foundational truth: the pro-life case is formally presented as a logical syllogism. It goes like this:
- 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.
This syllogism, my friends, is the bedrock of our argument. It is crucial that you remember this, that you cling to it like glue, because the personal attacks directed at you invariably fail to address this central logic.
Consider the challenge about prosecuting women. Even if a pro-lifer were to argue against any legal consequences for the woman who undergoes an abortion, even if one were to concede an inconsistency in that position, does it in any way negate the premises of our syllogism? Absolutely not. It does not prove that the unborn are not human, nor does it establish the morality or permissibility of abortion. The core argument – that intentionally killing an innocent human being is wrong and that abortion constitutes such an act – remains untouched. Remember our three key words: syllogism, syllogism, syllogism. These attacks do not refute it.
Let us take this further. Imagine I am the most inconsistent person imaginable, the absolute worst human being on the planet, evil to my core. Would my personal failings invalidate a sound and valid argument against abortion? The answer, emphatically, is no. An argument stands or falls on its own merits, not on the character of the person presenting it.
The same speaker then proceeded with another common personal attack: “Oh, you think that these children are human beings in the womb. You oppose abortion. How many unwanted kids have you adopted? None. There goes your whole case”. Again, we must stop and apply critical thought. How does my alleged unwillingness to adopt a child justify an abortionist ending that child’s life? The absurdity becomes clear when we apply the same logic to another scenario. If I were to demand, “Unless you agree to adopt my three sons by noon tomorrow, I shall execute them,” your response would rightly be one of revulsion. Your refusal to comply with my ultimatum would in no way justify my heinous act. Similarly, my personal adoption choices have no bearing whatsoever on the moral status of the unborn or the act of abortion. This is a textbook example of an ad hominem attack, an assault on the person rather than the argument.
The fundamental flaw in these attacks lies in the inability, or perhaps the unwillingness, of many of our pro-abortion counterparts to separate the argument from the individual presenting it. They engage in what has been termed on the left as the “politics of personal destruction”. Their aim is often to discredit you, to make you look bad personally, rather than to undertake the difficult work of actually refuting your arguments. We see this play out when a governor signs a pro-life bill. The immediate response is often a barrage of personal accusations: he hates women, disrespects their dignity, wants them to die in back alleys. But even if we were to grant, for the sake of argument, that the governor held such reprehensible views (which I certainly do not believe to be the case for those who champion life), would that in any way invalidate the pro-life argument that the unborn are human and that intentionally killing them is wrong? Of course not. At best, such attacks might succeed in portraying that particular governor as a bad person, but bad people can still make sound arguments.
Here is another common personal attack: “Oh, you think abortion is murder? Are you willing to pick up a gun to stop it? If not, there goes your whole case”. The individual recounting his speech elaborated on this point, suggesting that if we would use lethal force to stop a neighbor from beating a toddler to death, our unwillingness to do the same to stop abortion reveals a lack of genuine belief in the personhood of the unborn. Again, we must dissect this faulty logic. Our personal actions, while they should ideally align with our beliefs, do not determine the validity of the argument itself. This principle extends beyond abortion; it applies to Christian theology as well. Critics often ask, “You really believe Christianity is true? Why don’t you live it out consistently? Why aren’t you exactly like Jesus?”. And again, the conclusion is drawn: “There goes your whole case”.
Now, let me be clear: as Christians, we are called to live sanctified lives, to show the fruit of our faith. We should strive to respond charitably to all we encounter. However, the truth of Christianity does not hinge on the perfect behavior of its adherents. As the Apostle Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 15, the foundation of our hope rests on the historical, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. If that event did not occur, then our faith is in vain. Critics often attempt to disprove Christianity by cataloging historical evils committed in the name of religion, such as the Crusades or the Salem witch hunts. While these events are indeed lamentable, they do not refute the historical evidence for the resurrection. The same principle applies to the pro-life issue. Attacks on pro-lifers for alleged inconsistencies do not negate the argument for the inherent value of unborn human life. Arguments, I repeat, stand or fall on their own merits, not the person making them.
Let us return to the question of using lethal force to stop abortion. What is the primary responsibility of a pro-life advocate in their public response to abortion? It is to work to dismantle the machinery of death, to ensure that all human beings, born and unborn, are protected in law. Does shooting an abortionist accomplish this goal? Of course not. Therefore, pro-lifers are under no obligation to engage in such acts. Consider the example of World War II. Leading up to D-Day, Allied troops were deployed behind enemy lines. These soldiers, disguised as Germans, fully believed in the evil of the Nazi regime and the genocide they were perpetrating. Yet, upon landing, they did not immediately begin shooting individual German soldiers. Why? Because they were focused on a larger strategic objective: gathering intelligence, mapping landing sites, and laying the groundwork for the major invasion. Were these soldiers somehow compromising their beliefs or committing crimes against humanity by not engaging in individual acts of violence? No. They understood that their task was a more strategic one, aimed at achieving a more comprehensive victory.
Similarly, it can be reasonably argued, even setting aside any moral considerations about violence, that the primary goal of the pro-life movement is to secure legal protection for all unborn human beings. Our political activism, our advocacy, our educational efforts are all directed toward this end. We often work incrementally, seeking to achieve legal protections step by step. The fact that we do not engage in individual acts of violence against abortion providers does not signify a betrayal of our ultimate goal or an inconsistency in our beliefs. Inconsistency would only arise if we declared the unborn human and abortion wrong but took no political action to protect them. Demanding that we take up arms is a nonsensical distraction. Consider the situation in Ukraine. Many of us believe that Russia has committed horrific crimes against humanity. Yet, how many of us have taken up arms to intervene? Our lack of personal involvement does not negate the reality of those crimes or justify them. The argument against abortion, like the condemnation of war crimes, stands on its own moral foundation.
Another personal attack frequently leveled against pro-lifers is the accusation that they are “pro-birth” rather than truly “pro-life”. The argument goes: if you genuinely cared about life, you would dedicate equal time and resources to helping refugees, fighting poverty and inequality, supporting open immigration policies, and addressing all forms of injustice. The failure to do so, according to this line of attack, invalidates the pro-life stance. Tragically, many Christians, who should know better, have fallen prey to this false dichotomy, believing that true pro-life advocacy requires embracing a “whole life” agenda, tackling every issue of human injustice with equal fervor. They are made to feel that unless they do so, their Christian witness is compromised, and they fail as champions of life. This, I say unequivocally, is pure nonsense. Any pro-life leader who tells you that being pro-life necessitates engaging in a million different issues is a leader you should dismiss. They are, perhaps unintentionally, aiding the opposition by diluting pro-life resources and confusing the core mission.
The task of the pro-life movement is singular: to achieve legal protection for all unborn human beings. Consider the absurdity of applying the same “whole life” standard to other organizations. No one would tell the American Heart and Lung Association that they lack credibility because they focus on pulmonary and cardiac issues rather than treating cancer, diabetes, and Crohn’s disease. Similarly, no one would criticize an ER physician for saving a drug addict’s life but not simultaneously addressing the patient’s housing situation, job prospects, or family dynamics. The doctor’s heroic act of saving a life in immediate danger stands on its own merit. Pro-lifers are on the front lines, acting as emergency responders for the unborn. It does not logically follow that we must solve every societal ill in the wake of saving an innocent life.
The reality is that pro-life organizations operate with significantly fewer resources than many other humanitarian aid organizations that address issues like poverty and refugee crises. These organizations often benefit from substantial and consistent donations. To demand that pro-lifers spread their already scarce resources even thinner across a multitude of issues is fundamentally unfair. As individual Christians, we certainly can and should care about a wide range of injustices, from sex trafficking to the plight of refugees. Our faith calls us to a broad ethic of compassion. And it is perfectly acceptable to donate and support these other worthy causes. However, to insist that pro-life organizations must equally engage in all these battles is a strategic misdirection that weakens our ability to focus on our primary mission: ending abortion.
Often, well-meaning Christians lack the courage to push back against this “pro-birth” accusation. They worry about appearing uncaring or narrow-minded to secular critics who claim we only care about the unborn. Instead of challenging this false premise – instead of asking, “How does opposing the intentional killing of an innocent human being necessitate fixing every other societal problem?” – many evangelical leaders, concerned about appearing “seeker-sensitive,” have unfortunately adopted the critics’ framework. They mistakenly believe that credibility requires addressing a laundry list of social issues. But even if pro-lifers were to be considered narrow-minded for focusing on abortion, how does that in any way refute the argument that abortion is wrong? It does not. It remains a personal attack, a change of subject.
The truth, which many pro-life leaders seem hesitant to articulate forcefully, is this: the demand for a “whole life” agenda as a prerequisite for pro-life credibility is a bogus tactic. To demonstrate this, simply ask the critic who accuses you of being too narrow, “Okay, if pro-lifers do everything you demand – if we dedicate equal time and resources to refugees, immigration issues, poverty, daycare centers, drug addiction, and every other cause you deem worthy, in equal measure to saving unborn babies – will you then join us in opposing abortion?”. The answer, I can assure you with absolute certainty, is no. One hundred percent of the time, they will revert to their fundamental belief in a woman’s right to choose. It is a smoke screen, a deliberate distraction from the pro-life argument that they are afraid to confront directly.
Our argument, the pro-life syllogism, is sound and valid. “It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings. Abortion does that. Therefore, it is wrong”. If our critics possess the intellectual capacity to refute this argument, let them try. We are ready to engage with genuine counterarguments. But to resort to personal attacks, to change the subject entirely, is a cowardly tactic, the refuge of those who are intellectually weak and unwilling to engage in honest debate.
So, if you are a pro-lifer, remember the three key words: syllogism, syllogism, syllogism. If they have not refuted your pro-life argument, your syllogism, they have not refuted you. They have merely changed the subject and attacked you personally. This is the level of argumentation we often see from pre-teens. When faced with consequences for their actions, they deflect with personal insults. Your mother’s wig or your father’s wardrobe have no bearing on whether chores were completed. Similarly, the behavior or perceived shortcomings of individual pro-lifers do not invalidate the moral argument against abortion.
For resources to effectively counter these types of arguments, I encourage you to explore our pro-life 101 course. My book, The Case for Life, also provides a comprehensive analysis of common objections to the pro-life view and equips you to articulate your position with courage and confidence.
My friends, we live in an age where courage is often lacking. Many Christians hesitate to speak out on issues like abortion, fearing the disapproval of others more than the judgment of God. As a colleague aptly put it, they worship peace instead of the Prince of Peace. But being a follower of Christ sometimes requires us to courageously counter the flawed and destructive ideas of our culture. Our culture, make no mistake, embraces the killing of children in the womb. And for speaking out against this injustice, you will face hatred, just as Jesus himself warned. Why? Because Christians challenge the very ideas that undermine human flourishing.
So, what is our response? We must put on our spiritual armor. We must be confident in the truth we uphold. We must stand for Christ and for the innocent, even if it costs us everything. Because ultimately, it is our eternal destiny that matters, not the fleeting approval of this world. Courage in the face of these personal attacks stems from a deep and unwavering confidence in the truth of the pro-life case. Hold fast to the syllogism, recognize the ad hominem fallacies for what they are, and speak with the boldness that comes from knowing you stand for what is right.
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, welcome to The Case for Life show. Great to have you with us. I want to talk today about a problem many of you have encountered and that is this. Where people don’t respond to your argument, they just attack you personally. Perhaps you felt like you’re on the hot seat. You’re being grilled for why you’re intolerant, why you hate women, why you allegedly don’t care if they die in the back alleys of America because of illegal abortions or whatever they throw at you.
Today, I’m going to equip you to respond persuasively and in a compelling manner to those types of personal attacks. They’re actually paper tigers. They roar loudly, but there’s literally nothing behind them. And I’ll show you why. How often have we heard proiffers attacked rather than refuted? Well, the answer is almost every single day. I heard a speech not long ago, it was actually almost a year ago now, where this guy thought he had proifers over a barrel. And I’m going to summarize some of what he said.
He was talking to some college students and he was calling out pro-life Christians. He said, first of all, how many of you think abortion is murder? Raise your hand. And of course, a whole bunch of pro-life students raised their hand. He said, ‘Oh, really? Are you willing to prosecute women for murder if they have an abortion in a state where it’s been made illegal? And the students, you could just see they were crestfallen. They didn’t know how to respond to that.
And his response was basically this. See, there goes your whole case. You say abortion is murder, but you won’t prosecute for it. Therefore, your case is invalid. We can just ignore it. Oh, really? Let’s stop and think about this for a moment. Now, something we always tell you on this show because it’s vital you never forget it. The pro-life case is formally presented as follow as follows. 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. It’s wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings. Abortion does that. Therefore, it’s wrong. Now, let’s suppose pro-lifers are unwilling to prosecute women for having had an abortion. Let’s say they argue there should be no consequences at all, no penalties at all for the mother that does this. Even if you prove that they’re inconsistent for arguing that way, have you refuted their argument that the unborn are human, that abortion wrongly takes their lives and therefore ought not be allowed?
The answer is no. You haven’t proven the unborn aren’t human, and you haven’t proven that abortion is therefore moral and okay to do. You haven’t refuted the pro-life syllogism. Remember our three key words. Syllogism. Syllogism. Syllogism. That pro-life syllogism we just gave you that it’s wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings. Abortion does that. Therefore, it’s wrong is something you want to stick to like glue. Because all of these attacks being thrown at you. Do not refute that syllogism. Okay. I’m the most inconsistent person in the world.
In fact, I’m not only inconsistent, I’m the worst person in the world. I’m evil to the core. Could my argument that abortion is wrong still be sound, still be valid, even if I’m that bad? And the answer is yes, because the argument stands on its merits. Now, this same speaker went for forward with more claims. And here was the next one he threw out. Oh, you think that these children are human beings in the womb? You oppose abortion. How many unwanted kids have you adopted?
None. There goes your whole case. All right, let’s stop and think about this for a moment. How does my alleged, and I do say alleged, unwillingness to adopt a child justify an abortionist killing him? I mean to see how silly this is, imagine if I said to you, “Unless you agree to adopt my three sons by noon tomorrow, I shall execute them.” Well, you would look at me and say, “Dude, you’re sick. Even if I turn down your ultimatum, how does that justify you killing your kids?” And obviously, it does not.
So, this argument does nothing to refute the pro-life syllogism. It’s again what we call an ad hominemum attack. It’s an attack on the person, not on the argument that’s been advanced. And the problem here for many of our pro-abortion friends or colleagues, whatever we want to call them, they don’t know how to separate the argument from the person and they make everything about the person. And in fact, there’s a phrase on the left known as the politics of personal destruction. In many cases, what they’re out to do is destroy you.
Make you look bad personally rather than do the hard work of refuting your argument. So, for example, if a governor in a state signs a pro-life bill banning abortion, he’ll be accused of hating women, not respecting their dignity, wanting them to die in back alleys, and you know, the list will just go on and on. And the problem, of course, is this. Suppose the governor were that bad. Would it refute the pro-life argument that the unborn are human and that intentionally killing them is wrong?
And of course it would not. All you would succeed in doing is proving that particular governor was a bad dude. But bad people can still make good arguments. Now, of course, I don’t think the governor would be bad for signing a pro-life bill. I’m just granting the premise that even if he were evil, it would not refute the pro-life argument. You got to do better than attack the person. So, here’s another thing that you’ll get. You’ll get people that will come along and say things like, “Oh, you think abortion is murder?
Are you willing to pick up a gun to stop it? I mean, if not, there goes your whole case.” Well, imagine this. And here’s what this guy went on to say. He said, “If you saw your neighbor beating his toddler to death in the front yard, you would use lethal force to stop it. But you won’t use lethal force to stop abortion. Therefore, you really don’t believe that abortion is the same as killing a toddler. You claim it’s murder, but you don’t really believe that.
All right. Again, what I believe and how I act has nothing to do with whether the argument I’ve presented is good or bad. And by the way, this applies not just to abortion. This applies to Christian theology in general. People will say things like, “Oh, you really believe that your Christianity is true? How come you don’t live it out consistently? How come you don’t live exactly the way Jesus did?” There goes your whole case. Now, again, I want to be clear.
I think we as Christians should live sanctified lives. We’ve been declared righteous in virtue of Christ dying in our place, and we ought to show the fruit of sanctification in our life. One of which is that we will respond charitably to people we encounter. But notice this, the truth of Christianity itself does not stand on how I believe. It stands on one thing. And I’ll tell you what that one thing is. We’re going to come back from a break in just a minute and I’ll tell you exactly what that one thing is.
We’re also going to look at a couple other examples of people attacking pro-lifers personally but not refuting their arguments.
Welcome back everybody. Great to have you with us. Before the break, I gave you a little teaser about how you can refute Christianity. And it’s not by pointing out that Christians don’t live up to what they espouse. It’s not by pointing out that they’re sinners who fail to live perfect lives. If you want to disprove Christianity, here’s how you do it. You might find this odd on a Christian TV show that I would cover this, but I’m actually going to tell you how to disprove Christianity.
Here’s how you do it. You prove that Jesus of Nazareth did not rise from the dead. If he did not rise from the dead, we are dead in our sins. We have no hope. And were the world’s biggest joke. And before you send me hate mail, I’m not the one saying this. The Apostle Paul said this in 1 Corinthians 15. He said, “If Jesus wasn’t raised from the dead bodily and historically, we have no hope. We are indeed dead in our sins.” So what often happens is instead of critics refuting Christianity, they’ll punt to listing a whole catalog of evils done in the name of religion.
The Crusades, the Salem witch hunts, and all kinds of other things where they use these examples which are agree I agree they’re lamentable. But they think that somehow proves that God doesn’t exist or that Christianity is false. And the truth is Jesus rising from the dead is either a historical event or it was not. If it was, the fact that Christians act badly does not refute the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. You got to do the work of refuting the evidence for the resurrection.
And the same thing again happens on the pro-life issue. People want to attack pro-lifers for allegedly not living up to their own standards, but they don’t want to do the hard work of refuting the argument that’s in place. Again, we’ve said this on the show many times, and we’ll say it many times more. Arguments stand or fall on their merits, not the person making them. You got to do better than just attack the person that says this. Now, let’s go back to this idea that proifers are inconsistent if they won’t pick up a gun to go shoot an abortionist.
And, you know, the typical argument is, well, you know, if you saw a neighbor, you know, beating up his toddler in the front yard and the only way you could stop him was with le lethal force, you would do it. But you won’t do that with abortion. So, let me ask this question. What is the primary responsibility of a pro-life advocate when it comes to his public response to abortion? Here it is. It is to work to take out the machinery of death so that all humans, born and unborn, are protected in law.
All right, that’s your responsibility. And it’s very fair to ask, does shooting an abortionist accomplish that? Of course not. So pro-lifers are not under any obligation to shoot individual abortionists. Let me give you another example from history that might help here. In World War II leading up to D-Day, you remember June 6th, 1944. Leading up to that June 6th invasion, the US, the Canadians, and the Brits dropped incognito behind enemy lines Allied troops that looked German, that spoke German, that had German cigarettes, they had German documentation on them.
And they looked just like individual German soldiers. You wouldn’t have been able to tell them apart really. These soldiers all believed that what Hitler was doing was genocide. They all believed the Nazis were evil to the core. But when they landed behind enemy lines, did they immediately start shooting individual Nazi soldiers? And of course, the answer is no, they did not. Why? Because they were after bigger game. They were there to map out the landing sites, to make sure there were bridges that were needed, to make sure they knew where enemy bunkers were, to make sure they knew if they had the roads they needed to get their tanks and other heavy equipment on shore.
They were spying out the land for a larger invasion that would come at a later date. Were they somehow compromising their views and somehow committing crimes against humanity because they didn’t immediately start shooting individual German soldiers, which by the way would have put the entire operation of D-Day at risk of not succeeding? No. The answer is they were smart enough to know that what they were out to do was a much more modest task of laying the groundwork for the in the eventual invasion.
And pro-lifers. It can be reasonably argued even on credential grounds, set aside any moral arguments for the moment about shooting individual abortionists. Just set that aside for the moment. Even on credential grounds, it is very reasonable to argue that what pro-lifers are out to do is to protect unborn humans in law. That’s our goal. That’s why we act politically. And sometimes we have to work incrementally to get that done. But that’s our goal. Legal protection for all unborn humans. So the fact that we don’t shoot individual abortionists does not mean we have defied or somehow betrayed our ultimate goals and thus we’re inconsistent.
No, it would only be inconsistent if proifers said, “Hey, we believe the unborn are human and we believe that abortion is wrong, but we’re not going to lift a finger politically to protect them.” That would be inconsistent. But saying you have to pick up a gun, that doesn’t make any sense at all. In fact, most of us, I would think involved in this show today believe there’s been a lot of wrongdoing in the Ukraine. There’s been Russian troops that have brutally murdered Ukrainian citizens and there’s been a lot of crimes against humanity committed.
We all believe that. But how many of us have picked up a gun to go stop it? And of course the answer is none of us. But does that mean those crimes against humanity are not happening? And does that justify those claims or justify those crimes? Of course not. So this idea that unless you pick up a gun, the pro-life argument is no longer valid or sound is completely silly. And it really is something anybody with a seventh grade logic course should be able to see through and respond to.
It doesn’t apply at all because the argument against abortion stands or falls on its merits. Full stop. Period. Now, another personal attack proifers will get goes like this. You call yourself pro-life, but you really aren’t pro-life. What you are is you are probirth. If you were really pro-life, while you would spend an equal amount of time helping refugees, you’d spend at least an equal amount of your resources fighting poverty, inequality, and injustice in the culture. You would also have a pro-immigration policy.
You’d want anybody that wants to come to the United States to be able to do that. But you don’t want that. You actually support building a wall to keep people out. There goes your whole pro-life case. Because if you were really pro-life, you’d be pro-life on all issues, not just a few. Now, this is a particularly troubling argument for me for this reason. Unfortunately, a lot of Christians who ought to know better have bought into this nonsense that to be truly pro-life, we have to be whole life.
We have to take on all issues of human injustice, not just one abortion. And if we don’t take them all on equally, we are not only failing in our Christian witness, we are failing to be truly champions of life. This is pure nonsense. And I will say this directly, and I don’t care if people don’t like it. Any pro-life leader that tells you that if you’re pro-life, you have to take on a million issues, not just one, is a pro-life leader you should walk away from and dismiss.
Don’t listen to them. I actually think they’re helping the other side. They may not be intentionally doing it, but they are helping the other side by diluting pro-life resources and confusing pro-lifers about what the true nature of our task is. If you are pro-life, your task is singular. You are out to get legal protection for all unborn humans. That’s what you’re out to do. That’s your task. You’re there to stop abortion. Now, nobody ever says, for example, to the American Heart and Lung Association, you’re not really a medical organization because if you were, you wouldn’t just treat pulmonary issues.
You would treat cancer, you would treat diabetes, you’d treat Crohn’s disease, you would treat all illnesses, not just one. Therefore, you have no credibility. Your whole organization is not valid. Nobody would say that to the American Heart and Lung Association, but they’ll say it to you as a pro-lifer. To use another example, no one would ever come along and say to an physician, “Hey, you just saved that drug addict’s life, but guess what? What you did didn’t matter because you haven’t done anything to pay for his housing.
You haven’t paid for his rehab. You haven’t paid to get him a good job so he doesn’t fall back into drug use. You haven’t helped make his family structure better so he stays out of drugs in the first place. Nobody would say that to the physician. They would say instead, “Hey, that doctor did a heroic thing saving that addict’s life when his life was in balance.” That’s exactly what pro-lifers are doing. We are doctors. We’re the frontline saving lives. It doesn’t follow we have to fix everything wrong with society in the wake of saving an innocent person’s life.
But yet our critics want to say that’s exactly what we’ve got to do. And it’s nonsense. If pro-lifers take on every issue under the sun, it will deplete our resources and we’ll have nothing left for saving children in the womb. Every pro-life group that’s out there is flat broke. None of them have the resources that other human aid organizations have. And these other organizations that deal with refugees, deal with hunger, deal with poverty, often have donation pots that are just stacked full of giving.
People who have donated to these worthy causes, and they have the money to address these issues. How is it fair to demand that pro-lifers take their scarce resources and spread them even thinner fighting all these other issues? Now, I will say as a Christian, it’s okay to care about a lot of issues. You should care about sex trafficking. You should care about injustice in other countries. You should care about the fact that refugees need to be need to be treated humanely.
I’m all for that. You as a Christian will have a broader ethic than just abortion. You’ll care about many issues and it’s okay to give and donate to these other causes. But when you demand that pro-lifers use their already scarce resources and organizationally take on all these other issues, you are making a very unfair demand. And what a lot of Christians do is they lack courage. The secular critics say, “Oh, you don’t care about human flourishing. You just care about one group, the unborn.” And instead of pushing back and saying to their critics, “Listen, Buster, how does it follow that because I oppose the intentional killing of an innocent human being, I have to fix everything wrong with society.” Tell me how that follows.
And that’s the question you should put to them. Instead, what a lot of our leaders do, especially evangelical pastors who are very afraid and they’re worried about what seekers might think of us. The problem is many of them have become so seeker sensitive their believer worthless on issues like abortion. What needs to happen is these pastors instead of adopting the premise of the argument need to counter punch and challenge their critics. But often they won’t. They won’t look at their critic and say, “How does it follow that because I oppose intentionally killing unborn humans in the womb that I have to fix everything wrong with life that may follow in the years after they exit the womb?” I mean, again, it’s silly, but instead of challenging that, what a lot of evangelical leaders have done of late is they say, “You know what?
It’s true. We’re not going to have any credibility unless we take on all these other issues.” Now again, notice even if pro-lifers are narrowminded because they only take on one issue, not all of them. How does that refute their argument that abortion is wrong? Of course, it doesn’t refute it. It’s just an attack on the person. But I actually don’t think proiffers are being unfair here for the reasons we’ve just talked about. And by the way, this whole idea that pro-lifers have to take on other issues to look credible to the world, this idea that a lot of Christians are putting out there.
Here’s how you can show 100% that it’s bogus. Simply ask the critic who’s saying, “Oh, you’re too narrow. You care just about the unborn.” When they attack you personally that way, ask this question. Okay? If pro-lifers do everything that you’re demanding, we devote an equal amount of time to refugees as we do saving the unborn. We devote equal resources to helping immigration issues re involving people that want to come to the US. We care for the poor. We open daycare centers.
We help drug addicts. And we do everything you demand that we do in equal measure to saving babies. If we do all that, will you join us in opposing abortion? I think you already know the answer. 100% of the time, and I do mean that, 100% of the time, the answer will be no. Women have a fundamental right to an abortion, and I’m not going to join you stopping it. There you go. It’s all a big smoke screen. It’s all a bunch of nonsense designed to distract people from the pro-life argument that they’re afraid to refute.
Our argument is sound and it’s valid. It’s wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings. Abortion does that. Therefore, it’s wrong. Okay, listen up. If you’ve got the intellectual chops to refute that argument, go for it. We’ll listen. But to simply change the subject by attacking pro-lifers personally, that’s cowardly. That’s something that people who are weak intellectually do, not something that people who actually want to engage arguments do. So if you’re a pro-lifer, let me be very clear here. Remember the three key words: syllogism.
If they have not refuted your pro-life argument, meaning your syllogism, they have not refuted you. They’ve just changed the subject and attacked you personally. I mean, this is stuff we see, you know, pre-teens doing. Mom and dad say, “I’m sorry, you can’t go to the dance next Tuesday because you didn’t do your chores this week.” And the kid looks at the parent says, “Mom, that that wig you’re wearing is the ugliest thing I’ve ever seen.” Or, “Dad, your wardrobe is looks like it’s something that came out of the early 1960s.
You got to upgrade your clothes. How can you be so dumb in how you dress?” Okay, maybe dad looks like a total dork. Maybe mom has an ugly wig. Maybe mom also doesn’t know how to cook very well. Maybe mom also watches dumb things on TV. All of that could be true, but none of that erases the fact that you failed to do your chores and the consequences which follow are just given you failed to live up to what you were obligated to do.
The argument for the pro-life view stands on its own. It’s independent of how pro-lifers happen to behave. Now, you might wonder where can you get resources to answer these kind types of arguments. I’ve already mentioned our pro-life 101 course. I hope you’ll go to the website and look into that. You can also take a look at my book, The Case for Life, the second edition. This is a thick offering that will walk you through all of the common arguments against the pro-life view and show you why they’re not persuasive and will equip you to make your pro-life case courageously and confidently.
Men and women, listen to me. We live in a cowardly age. A lot of Christians do not want to engage and be a witness for Christ on issues like abortion because they fear man rather than God. Or as a colleague of mine put it really well, they worship peace instead of the prince of peace. And I wish it weren’t so, but sometimes being a Christian means we have to courageously counter punch against the faulty and lousy ideas of our culture. Our culture hates Christians.
It’ll hate you because Jesus said it would hate you. If you follow Jesus, you will be hated. Why? Because Christians push back against the ideas that are destructive toward human flourishing. And make no mistake, our culture loves killing children in the womb. And because of that, they’re not going to like you if you speak out against it. Well, you know what? So what? Let’s put on our spiritual armor. Let’s be confident in what we believe and let’s stand for Christ even if it costs us everything.
Because after all, at the end of the day, it’s our eternal destiny that matters, not being liked in this life.