Feelings are not arguments

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.

I’m sure this has happened to you. You’re in a discussion with someone about the topic of abortion and instead of them presenting a formal, consistent, summarized argument for their position, they just throw out a bunch of statements and think they’ve made a case for what they’re believing. They think that somehow if they throw enough mud up on the wall that they have refuted what you believe. I’m going to give you an example of that today and give you some pointers on how you can respond to someone like that in a way that might still give them a chance to rethink their position.

Hello, welcome to the Case for Life Show. We are delighted to have you. Before we go any further, one more reminder. I want to point out that we have a course available called Prolife 101 where in just seven days you can learn to defend the logic of the pro-life view and be persuasive as you’re reaching out to family and friends on the issue. So I hope you’ll take a look at that on our sites. All right, interesting clip today. Charlie Kirk was in a discussion with a young woman who identified as a Christian on a secular college campus and the topic was abortion.

And Charlie did a good job interacting with her. I don’t have any critique of the way he handled it. He handled it well. I just thought I’d add a little more to what could be said about this conversation, give a little more background info, and give you some tactical tips for engaging the kind of person who really doesn’t engage an argument. They just want to throw statements out. So, we’ll take a look at this clip and see what we can learn from it.

Let’s go ahead and we’ll take a look.

Hi, Charlie. I see you on TikTok all the time. I

You were getting fired up there. Yes, I was because Okay, first I just want to start this out. I am unaffiliated, but I am a Christian who believes in the right to an abortion and a lot of the things that you were talking about with her.

Okay, I want to stop right there. Notice she identifies herself as a Christian. And here’s a mistake some proifers make. They say anybody who is pro-choice on abortion cannot be a Christian. Now, here’s why I don’t agree with that. People are not saved because of what they believe or don’t believe on abortion. Rather, what they believe or don’t believe on abortion is an indicator of whether they’ve been truly justified. And it’s quite possible that someone who’s a new believer who hasn’t been grounded in a Christian worldview, maybe goes to a church where they never even talk about abortion, which is the vast majority of them in my view.

It shouldn’t surprise us that someone can think they can identify as a Christian and hold a view contrary to scripture. That shouldn’t shock us. But I think we need to be careful if we’re pro-life Christians of simply saying someone who says they’re a Christian and supports abortion isn’t a Christian. No. If they believe Jesus died for their sins, if they believe he’s the only way to salvation, and if God the Father has in fact declared them righteous in virtue of what Jesus did for them on the cross, they are a Christian.

What they are is a morally untuited Christian. Now, we have every right to believe that over time that view would be reformed. Meaning that person who claims to support abortion but also be a Christian would come to realize through a process we call sanctification which means getting our behavior more and more in line with Christlike behavior that over time through a sanctifying process they would come to realize that that worldview they held on abortion did not align with a biblical worldview.

That’s true. We can say that the person who says, “I’m Christian and I support abortion,” is holding a view on abortion that does not align with a biblical worldview. That much we can say, but we shouldn’t say we know for a fact this is not a Christian. It could be a baby Christian. It could be a Christian that’s simply morally untoured. It could be someone who is way further back in their sanctifying process than maybe some of us. But let’s withhold judgment on that.

Let’s see what else she has to say.

I really had a lot of answers for that. So, the reason I actually wrote this down on a notebook, of course, I was prepared. So, the reason why I believe the right to an abortion, why just anyone if you feel that’s what you need to do, then you should do it because Matthew 7:1 says, “Do not judge or you too will be judged.”

Okay, we’re going to stop right there again. And she said something there that I hope you will eliminate from your vocabulary. In fact, if I could push a magic button and get rid of get rid of one trit phrase I hear over and over again that drives me up the wall, it’s this. I feel. This is a postmodern way of looking at the world, using language to reduce morals to mere subjective feelings. I really don’t care what you feel on a moral position.

I want to know what you think. And you should not say I feel abortion is wrong or I feel that you know we should you know not be friendly with people who think different than us or any other moral proposition you want to throw out there or I feel that gay marriage is wrong. Don’t say that. I want you to start replacing I feel with I think because when you say I think you’re giving reasons for what you think and you’re presenting a formal case that is objective in nature.

When you say I feel that’s about your own preferences like choosing vanilla ice cream over chocolate. You’re not really telling us what’s true and reasonable to believe based on the reasons you’re going to give us. You’re just emoting. And of course, I get it. Our culture believes that all morality is simply an emotive feeling. That’s all it is. But that’s not the Christian worldview. The Christian worldview is that facts and arguments matter. Truth is objective. Knowledge is real. We can know truth and we can know truth by seeing how our beliefs align with scripture.

Now the next thing she did is she went right from there which was basically a relativistic claim that I feel and she made another relativistic claim. She said we shouldn’t judge that Matthew 7 Jesus tells us judge not lest you be judged. Now, this is the classic way that the left tries to shut down moral reasoning with anybody who disagrees with their views on things like abortion, gay marriage, transgenderism. You pick the issue. The standard way of replying is not to say, “Let me give you reasons why I think you’re biblically wrong and morally mistaken.” They don’t even go there.

They just do an end run around that and say you’re judging and think that somehow they have managed to throw up a Hail Mary that wins the game for them without them ever having to argue for what they believe. Now, this is, as I said a moment ago, a classic case of relativism. And I want you to have a very quick way of responding to this. When somebody says to you shouldn’t judge, what did they just do? Well, they judged you, right?

So, this is what we call a self-refuting argument. It would be like me saying, “I can’t speak a word in English or my brother is an only child or don’t take anybody’s advice on anything.” You get the idea. By merely saying those statements, I’ve refuted them because they defeat themselves. And this is a key problem with relativistic thinking that says, “Don’t you judge or don’t you impose your morality on me.” Well, in saying that, you just imposed a moral rule on the person you’re talking to.

When you said you shouldn’t judge, you just judge the person you were talking about. Now there’s another aspect to this, and that is Jesus never said we shouldn’t judge. He was speaking about judging wrongly, judging self-righteously, judging people for doing the very things you yourselves are doing. He wasn’t saying we can’t make moral judgments about right and wrong. Because in that same chapter that Jesus says, “Do not judge.” Look what he does. He calls the Pharisees sons of their father, the devil.

He calls people names. He judges them as being deceivers and being dogs and other things. I mean, Jesus doesn’t fool around with people who judge wrongly. But he never said we shouldn’t judge because if he had meant that, his statement would be refuting itself because he was speaking to those that he think he thought were wrong for living self-righteously when they’re doing the very things that they’re accusing others of doing. So the scripture does not teach we should never judge. This so far is a classic example of someone who probably has attended a mega church somewhere that is kind of soft on biblical theology and they’re trying to draw a crowd.

They may have hip music. They may have a crank and worship band, the smoke machines, the whole thing, but they’re not teaching biblical theology. And they sure as heck are not teaching biblical ethics. And you can see it in her view that her moral positions are mere feelings as she put it. And that we shouldn’t judge. The people who say that have not read theology. So the sad thing here is she may think, “Hey, I’m a Christian. I know the Bible.” And maybe she is a Christian.

Maybe she’s a baby Christian or a unschooled Christian. But it’s clear she does not have a biblical worldview. Not in any strain, not in any stretch of the word. Okay, let’s keep going.

Although Jesus does tell us to tell people do not sin, it’s not our place to judge them, you know. And then another thing that I wanted to bring up, this is this is crazy, but also the time I just really want to know why you feel that abortion should be illegal.

Here we go. Another feeling statement. Why do you feel abortion should be illegal? As if the only reason Charlie Kirk would have for wanting abortion to be illegal is that he feels that would make him happier or that would be better. She doesn’t even allow in her question that he might have morally sound reasons for wanting abortion to be illegal. But there’s another point here that a lot of Christians get messed up on. I have heard so many Christians tell me things like the following.

I don’t want to make abortion illegal. I want to make it unthinkable. That is a foolish statement. Please stop saying that. Imagine if I said, I don’t want to make spousal abuse or slavery illegal. I just want to make them unthinkable. I mean, really, would it be a good society that made racism unthinkable for the vast majority of people, but still allowed you to lynch your black neighbor if you felt that was the right way to go? Clearly not. These are very bad statements and when I hear Christians use them, it’s very troubling.

Here’s why we want abortion illegal. If abortion is in fact the intentional killing of an innocent human being, it ought to be illegal. Can we think of any other case where we would say, “Yeah, it ought to be legal to intentionally kill another innocent human being.” Now, later she’s going to bring up the death penalty. We’ll see that in a minute. But that doesn’t even fit here. There’s no parallel between the death penalty and intentionally killing an innocent human being through abortion.

By definition, the death penalty is being applied to people who are not innocent. We are not intentionally killing an innocent human being. With abortion, we are. So, the two cases are not parallel. Now, is it possible that the death penalty is wrong for other reasons? Yes. But linking it to abortion simply will not work. Let’s see what else she’s got to say here.

Do you think murder should be illegal?

Murder is illegal.

So, you think it should be Do you think it should be illegal?

I just feel like there’s a big difference between like a living breathing human and then a fetus that is inside of another human’s body.

Fair enough. What is the difference?

Okay, excellent question here from Charlie Kirk. This girl says, “Yeah, murder should be wrong and it should be illegal.” She agrees with him on that. But then she says, “You know, I just feel there’s a difference between a living, breathing woman and a fetus.” Okay. And Charlie asks precisely the right question. What’s the difference? Now, this is a great question for two reasons. It forces the person to clarify what they mean, but it also sets you up to point out that the differences between the fetus and the person outside the womb are morally insignificant in the sense that you can’t point to those differences as a good justification for killing the one but not the other.

Let’s see where else she goes with this.

The difference is a fetus is inside of the body. You know what I’m saying? Like a it can’t live on its own.

Got it. So, Let’s go through a couple questions there. Why does somebody’s location determine their moral worth?

Again, excellent question from Charlie. How does one’s location determine either what they are or their moral worth? And of course, the student hasn’t thought about any of this. She just is throwing it out there. Again, she’s throwing statements out hoping something will stick. She’s not really formally arguing. And I will give you a heads up with most of the people you talk to on the street or dare I say even at church or maybe the water cooler at work or maybe in the classroom at school, they’re not going to formally put forward their case.

They’re not going to make an argument that you can judge for its validity and soundness. They’re going to throw out assertions that are not argued for, that haven’t been proven. And they just throw them out hoping something will stick. And that’s exactly what’s going on here. How does your location matter? Well, clearly it doesn’t. Think about this for a moment. We can now do surgery on children who are still in the womb. And here’s how we do it. We partially remove the child or in some cases fully remove the child from the mother’s womb.

And in the case of a herniated diaphragm for example, we will repair that herniated diaphragm with the child out of the womb and then place the child back in the womb. Well, it we where it will be born normally at 40 weeks. So imagine this. If location really matters to one’s status as a valuable human being, it would mean that when that child is at the start of the surgery while he’s still in the womb at the m at the 24-week mark, that child is not a person with a right to life.

It’s not a human being. But then when we move him out of the womb a few moments later to begin this surgery, he suddenly becomes a human being with a right to life. But once the surgery’s over and the herniated diaphragm is repaired and we place him back in the womb to be born normally several weeks later, he goes back to being a nonhuman. That’s just plain absurd. Yet, that’s the logic that follows from saying our value is tied to where we’re located.

And let’s see if the student has any kind of response to this. It doesn’t. But it’s simply about the fact that if you feel like that’s what you need to do with your body, then that’s what you do.

Okay. She gives a total non-answer here. She says it’s really about if you feel that’s what you can do with your own body, you ought to be able to do it. She didn’t answer the question of how a change in location means the child goes from being nonvaluable, something we can kill, to suddenly being valuable with a right to life. She doesn’t even engage that. She changes the subject and now decides she’s going to talk about bodily rights. This is a key thing to observe.

People love to change the topic when you’re talking about abortion. You start to corner them with good logic and instead of admitting that you’re making a good point, they bring up something else totally irrelevant to the point at hand. And Charlie does a good job of bringing her back. Here’s what I would do in this case. I would call timeout and I would say hold on before we go any further. Can I make an observation? Let me call timeout for just a minute.

You argued a moment ago that the child’s location determined its right to life, that we could distinguish between a nonhuman and a human based on where they’re located. I then presented an example that challenges that. And I noticed you didn’t engage my argument at all. You brought up another objection that is unrelated to this. Could we go back and talk about how location matters? And I think it’s important to make them stick to the point. Now, Charlie being a gracious host here allows her to make the next point she’s going to make.

Let’s see where she goes.

Cuz I could also

Well, hold on. Hold on a second. If it’s not your DNA, how is it your body?

It is your DNA. It’s a part of you. It’s growing in you. It’s connected to you by an umbilical cord. It is a part of you.

One second. It’s attached

A part.

It’s attached. Hold on a second. It’s attached, not a part

Because No, it’s actually not. Apart by definition means it remains permanent.

Oh, okay.

Right.

Okay.

So, an attachment is something that is temporary.

Okay. Excellent response here from Charlie Kirk pointing out that being attached to someone does not mean you’re intrinsically part of them. Now, we know this is true. So, it’s really easy to point this out. I can do so humorously and I can do so in a more serious manner. If the unborn are part of the mother’s body, that would mean, as Peter Craft has pointed out, that a pregnant woman has four arms, four legs, four eyes, and if she’s carrying a male child, she also has something else rather unique.

We clearly know it’s not part of the mother’s body. Here’s another example. We can take a white embryo conceived in a test tube, plant implant that embryo inside a black mother, a surrogate, the color of the child upon birth will be what? White. Why? Because if it were part of the mother’s body, wouldn’t that child be born black given being part of the mother’s body would make it a black baby? Obviously not. So, this is a bad argument the student is making.

Let’s see where else she goes.

And so it’s not you are not your mom’s DNA. You’re not your dad’s DNA. You are new deoxy ribboucleic acid. So shouldn’t we say that if it’s not your DNA, it’s not your choice.

Okay. I actually like that that that slogan. If it’s not your DNA, it’s not your choice. I don’t know how well educated the public is to grasp the very pointed and persuasive wording there, but that’s a good way of putting it. Not your DNA, not your choice. The child does have its own DNA. It does have its own gender and in separate from the mother. At least half the time the child is of a different sex than the mother. So again, we know conclusively it’s not part of her body.

I mean, you could say that, but I mean really this is I just don’t understand how you can use religion to back up your point of

I haven’t used it once. She brought up religion. I’m happy to use a non-religious line of questioning. Okay, this is something we have talked about on the show many times. Notice what she does as she is being hopelessly cornered. She punts to religion. How can you bring your religious views to bear on this? Now, what she means by religion, let’s define what she means versus what we mean. When we speak of faith, we do not mean a blind leap in the dark.

We do not believe belief in spite of evidence. We believe trust. Based on evidence. She means faith to mean, hey, your private, subjective, personal, emotive, religious belief that doesn’t count as real knowledge. That’s what she’s trying to do. So instead of refuting Charlie’s claim, she tries to say, “Oh, that’s just your religious view. That’s a dismissal, not a refutation.” to refute Charlie, she’s got to show where his argument is invalid, meaning a conclusion doesn’t follow logically from the premises. Or number two, that one or more of his premises is false.

She does neither. She calls his argument a name religious. Now, he does a good job of saying, “Hold on. I have not brought religion into this.” You can go a step further though and point out that even if she did say your argument was religious, that is not a reputation. You got to do the hard work of refuting the argument. She does not do that. She’s quite lazy here to be quite honest. I don’t mean to be cruel, but it’s typical of many people we meet.

When we come back, we’ll look at a couple more clips from this interesting interview, and we’ll take them up and give you some pointers on responding.

Welcome back everyone. We’re watching a student interview with Charlie Kirk on abortion and here’s what we have observed so far. Number one, the student wants to reduce morality to mere feeling. And you can see that in her constantly saying, “Well, I feel I feel rather than I think.” Secondly, she wants to reduce Charlie’s argument to religion. This is not a reputation of what Charlie’s pointing out. It is simply a way for her to dodge the implications of the argument that she’s advancing.

Number three, she tried to make it clear that Christians shouldn’t judge. As if somehow calling something right or wrong means we have failed to live out our New Testament Christianity. And nothing could be further from the truth. Let’s see what else she’s going to pull out of her hat of tricks here.

We all agree murder is wrong.

Okay.

We all agree that it’s a human homo sapien in

Do you agree that the death penalty is wrong?

Well, no. I’m actually in support of the death penalty.

Okay. Here’s the next thing she’s going to do. Bring up another unrelated issue in kind of a disguised ad hominemum attack. She tries to refute his case by saying, “Well, you think abortion is killing. You think it’s unjust killing, but do you think the death penalty is wrong?” Now, ask yourself this. Could Charlie’s argument for the humanity of the unborn still be a good one, even if he were somehow inconsistent on the death penalty? And the obvious answer is yes. Because the argument for the lives of the unborn stands or falls apart from the person making it.

Suppose Charlie is the most inconsistent person in the world. He opposes abortion, but he thinks death penalty ought to be good. He thinks we ought to shoot people at the border. I mean, just add whatever you want to this mix. It would certainly mean he’s inconsistent. But would it follow that his argument against abortion was a bad one? And the answer is no because bad people can still make good arguments. So this is a classic case of attacking the person rather than refuting the argument.

And as I mentioned a moment ago, there’s no parallel between the death penalty which involves the execution of guilty people and abortion that involves the intentional killing of innocent ones. So the student’s parallel here falls apart. Let’s see what other tricks she’s got. That’s a separate issue because the baby in utero did not.

So what about the people who could possibly be proved innocent who have been awaiting their like their death sentence?

Fair enough. That’s a good that’s a good argument, but it’s separate, right? So there’s been about 31 exonerations of postumulous people that have been exonerated the death penalty. We’re talking about a baby that did nothing wrong except exist,

Okay,

In uterero. And there’s about 1.5 million of them that just get discarded every year. So we agree murder is wrong. We agree it’s a homo sapien, meaning it’s a human being. Therefore, murder is the forcible termination of a homo sapien. Therefore, shouldn’t abortion be wrong and illegal? I still feel like it really like okay for examp

Okay this is instructive Charlie lays out his case in a formal proposition he calls abortion murder he says if it is murder it ought to be illegal right I mean that’s a pretty clear way to formally state your case he said we already agree it’s a human being we already agree that murder is wrong therefore shouldn’t abortion be wrong and illegal and the student responds In classic fashion, will I still feel? Again, notice what’s going on here. No formal engaging of the argument.

Rather, just emoting a feeling. This is the sad state of where we are, men and women. And let me give you a challenge. If you’re a pastor watching this, a lot of your congregants think just like this young woman. They have reduced religion to feeling. They’ve reduced morality to feelings. And in their mind, it’s all subjective. If you are not preaching biblical truth from the pulpit, letting the scripture speak objectively to moral issues, you get students just like this. It is very possible for our churches to become so seeker friendly, they become believer worthless.

Let’s do better as Christians and convey the truth of our position objectively and persuasively. Something crazy.