Article adapted from episode content.
Friends, colleagues, fellow thinkers, it is a distinct pleasure to address you today on a matter of paramount importance in the realm of intellectual discourse, particularly when engaging with those who hold differing perspectives. The ability to articulate one’s own viewpoint with clarity and precision is undoubtedly crucial. However, equally vital, if not more so, is the skill of ensuring that those who stand in opposition to your position are compelled to articulate their own arguments with the same rigor. Today, I want to impress upon you the necessity of making your critics state their case clearly.
In the marketplace of ideas, where various viewpoints compete for acceptance, it is essential to recognize the distinction between mere assertions and well-reasoned arguments. Far too often, in discussions and debates, particularly on contentious issues, we encounter individuals who present a series of unsubstantiated claims, hoping that the sheer volume or emotional weight of their pronouncements will suffice as a persuasive case. This approach, akin to throwing mud at a wall and hoping something sticks, serves only to obfuscate the central issues and hinder any possibility of meaningful dialogue or intellectual progress.
As we at the case for life program frequently emphasize, arguments matter; mere assertions do not. An assertion is simply a statement of belief or opinion, often delivered with conviction but lacking the necessary supporting evidence or logical structure. For example, in discussions surrounding the moral status of the unborn, one might hear the assertion, “A fetus is not a person.” While this statement expresses a viewpoint, it offers no justification for that viewpoint. It presents no reasons why a fetus should not be considered a person, nor does it engage with the counterarguments that may exist.
In stark contrast, a well-formed argument presents a series of premises that logically lead to a particular conclusion. A classic example, and one that we often employ in pro-life apologetics, is the 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.
This formal structure allows for a clear examination of the underlying assumptions and the logical connection between the premises and the conclusion. If an opponent disagrees with the conclusion, they must then engage with one or both of the premises. Do they believe it is not always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being? Or do they contest the claim that abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being? By stating the argument formally, we create a framework for focused and productive discussion.
Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to find that individuals who oppose a particular view are reluctant to articulate their position in such a clear and structured manner. Instead, they may resort to a variety of tactics designed to deflect scrutiny and avoid substantive engagement. These tactics can include:
- Talking over opponents: Interrupting and preventing a coherent presentation of the opposing viewpoint.
- Bringing up a multitude of unrelated issues: Shifting the focus away from the core argument and introducing a barrage of tangential points. This “whataboutism out the wazoo” makes it nearly impossible to address any single issue in depth.
- Making emotional appeals rather than logical arguments: Relying on sentiment or outrage to persuade, rather than presenting reasoned justifications.
- Simply asserting claims without providing any supporting evidence or reasoning: Stating beliefs as if they are self-evident truths that require no defense.
Consider the example of the individual at the event with Llaya Rose who asserted that “until you have self-awareness, you do not have a right to life”. While this is a clear statement, it is merely an assertion. No argument was provided to explain why self-awareness should be the criterion for the right to life, how much self-awareness is necessary, or why other potential criteria should be disregarded. In such situations, it is crucial to push back and ask, “Could you reformulate that as an argument? Could you make your case for why self-awareness matters?”.
Often, your critics may lack the skill or the inclination to formulate a formal argument on their own. In such cases, you may need to guide them by suggesting a possible structure. For instance, in response to the assertion about self-awareness, one could say, “So, if I understand you correctly, your argument is something like this: Premise one, to have a right to life, you must be self-aware. Premise two, embryos and early fetuses are not self-aware. Conclusion: Therefore, embryos and early fetuses do not have a right to life”. By helping them articulate their position in this way, you transform a vague assertion into a testable argument.
Once an argument is formally stated, you can then begin to analyze its components. You can examine the validity of the argument – does the conclusion logically follow from the premises? – and the soundness of the argument – are the premises themselves true?. In the example of self-awareness, the first question to ask is, “Why is self-awareness value-giving? In other words, why is it that that thing that gives me a right to life, and not something else?”. Make your critic defend that claim. They cannot simply assert it; they must provide a reasoned justification.
By pressing for a defense of the premises, you can often expose weaknesses in their reasoning. For instance, if self-awareness is the sole criterion for the right to life, what implications does this have for individuals who are temporarily unconscious due to sleep, anesthesia, or a reversible coma?. Are they also deprived of their right to life during these periods? Someone might attempt to differentiate by arguing that an embryo or fetus never possessed self-awareness, whereas someone in a coma once did. This introduces a new potential premise – that having been self-aware in the past confers a right to life. However, this premise can also be challenged through thought experiments, such as the scenario of twins where one has momentary self-awareness at birth and then enters a prolonged coma alongside the other twin who never experienced self-awareness. Does this arbitrary difference justify granting a right to life to one but not the other? Such explorations highlight the inconsistencies and problematic implications that can arise from seemingly simple assertions when they are subjected to the rigor of logical analysis.
Furthermore, it is crucial to insist that your critics clarify what they mean by the terms they use. In the self-awareness example, what precisely does “self-awareness” entail?. Does it mean actual, present self-awareness, which would exclude those who are sleeping? Does it refer to the immediately exercisable capacity for self-awareness, which might exclude those under anesthesia? Or does it denote a natural capacity for self-awareness, inherent to our being as human beings, which would include embryos and fetuses? By forcing a definition of terms, you can uncover ambiguities and expose the full implications of their claims.
The insistence on formal argumentation serves not only to clarify the critic’s position but also to keep the discussion focused. When individuals are allowed to jump from one assertion to another, introducing a litany of concerns and objections without any logical connection, the conversation becomes disjointed and unproductive. By saying, “Hey, can I take that first point you made… Could you state that for me as a formal argument so that we can discuss it and see where that leads us?”, you gently but firmly guide the discussion back to a single, definable issue. You can then address that argument thoroughly before moving on to another point, if necessary. This structured approach is far more likely to yield meaningful insights and potentially bridge the gap between differing viewpoints.
It is also important to understand why some individuals may resist articulating their case in a formal, logical manner and why they might become agitated when pressed to do so. As Carl Trueman discusses in his insightful work, “The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self,” contemporary secular culture is increasingly characterized by what he terms expressive individualism. In this worldview, individuals define their very identity by their choices and desires. What one feels or wants becomes inextricably linked to who one is.
Consequently, when their beliefs or desires are challenged, particularly on sensitive issues like abortion, sexuality, or gender, individuals operating within this framework often perceive such challenges not as an intellectual disagreement but as a personal attack on their very identity. If someone believes that the freedom to have an abortion is a fundamental aspect of their autonomy and self-determination, then questioning the morality of abortion can be experienced as a direct assault on their sense of self. This explains why discussions on these topics can quickly become emotional and why individuals may react with anger or accusations of judgment. As one woman famously retorted to Llaya Rose, “How dare you judge me? How dare you tell me what I get to do with my own child?”. Notice the personal nature of the objection, even containing an unintentional concession regarding the status of the unborn.
In contrast, those grounded in a more objective framework, such as a Christian worldview, are better equipped to separate their arguments from their personal identity. For a Christian, identity is rooted in Christ and in God’s pronouncements, not solely in individual desires or choices. Therefore, when their arguments are challenged, they can engage with the critique on its merits without feeling that their core being is under attack. They can evaluate the validity and soundness of the arguments presented, regardless of who is making them. As we understand, arguments stand or fall on their own merits, irrespective of the person advancing them. The validity of “Socrates is a man, all men are mortal, therefore Socrates is mortal” remains true whether uttered by a philosopher or a tyrant.
Therefore, as you navigate the often-turbulent waters of intellectual disagreement, remember the power of a simple yet profound strategy: make your critics state their case clearly. Do not allow them to hide behind a smokescreen of assertions, emotional appeals, or shifting topics. Insist that they articulate their arguments in a formal and structured manner, preferably as a syllogism. Prompt them to define their terms and to defend their underlying premises. By doing so, you foster an environment conducive to rational discourse, where ideas can be rigorously examined, and genuine understanding can be pursued. While you may not always achieve agreement, you will undoubtedly elevate the level of the conversation and gain a clearer understanding of the basis for your critics’ beliefs. And ultimately, in the pursuit of truth, clarity is our greatest ally.
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 program. We are delighted you are with us. We aim here to help you defend your pro-life views persuasively in the marketplace of ideas with friends, maybe fellow students or co-workers, who are not Christian, who don’t share a biblical view of human value, and we aim to give you the tools of thought to make that case for life persuasively. Well, one of the first things we always teach people when we help them think clearly on abortion is that arguments matter.
Mere assertions do not, and it’s vital that you know the difference. For example, it’s not uncommon, when you watch exchanges between pro-life individuals and pro-abortion individuals, to hear the pro-abortion individuals just talking over their opponents, bringing up a million different issues and not sticking to one thing and arguing it all the way through. This is one of the reasons why we teach you that the three most important words in pro-life apologetics are syllogism. Syllogism, by which we mean stating your pro-life argument formally, and that argument, of course, is 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 that allows you to always bring your opponent back to the actual case you’re making, rather than allowing them to twist what you’re saying or change the subject. But it is also important to stick to a syllogism when you reach out to them and say: could you state what you’re arguing clearly so I can understand it better?
Now, this is not meant to be a gotcha test, but when somebody starts bringing up a whole slew of issues and you really don’t even know where to start, usually what’s happening is they’re not making an argument at all, and that’s why you find yourself somewhat styed, because if they actually made an argument, you could evaluate it, discuss it and see if there is some way to resolve whatever differences there are between you. But when they are simply throwing up a whole bunch of mud on the wall and hoping something sticks, it’s vitally important that you have them clarify what they mean. It’s vitally important that they make their case in a clear fashion so you can discuss it with them.
And often that’s exactly what doesn’t happen. And I’ll give you some examples of this. Of a recent event I watched that I mentioned in our last program. I mentioned that Laya Rose, a very gifted and very prominent pro-life leader did something rather courageous. She invited 25 pro-abortion activists to come and sit in a circle around her. She was in the middle and one by one, they would come up and take her on and voice their objections to her position. And I think that was great.
I thought she did great. I’m not here to analyze her, but I do want to pick on some of the people that showed up, with no case whatsoever. I remember one gentleman showed up and basically said this, and I’m going to paraphrase it for the sake of brevity: the embryo, the early zygote which, by the way, he was using the term zygote as a way of trying to dehumanize The Unborn at that stage of development. And lla did a good job of saying: wait, zygote is just one stage in a series of steps we go through as individual human beings in our growth and maturity.
And she’s right about that. But this individual, a guy, was adamant that until you have selfawareness, you do not have a right to life. Now, when somebody says you have to have self-awareness to have a right to life, the first thing you should ask yourself is: is that an argument or is that just a raw assertion? And I think you already see what it is. It’s an assertion, because no argument was made, no evidence was given as to why self-awareness matters, why it’s value giving or how much of it you have to have in order to have a right to life.
So imagine if we’re in that situation, and somebody comes at you and says, well, that embryo isn’t even self-aware, how can you say it has a right to life? Imagine the power of saying to them: you know, that’s really interesting, that assertion you just made. Could you reformulate that as an argument? Could you make your case for why self-awareness matters? Now, sometimes we have to do this for them because they don’t even have the skill to formulate an argument. Here’s what the person talking to Lila should have done.
They should have said: here’s my argument. Premise one: to have a right to life, you must be self-aware. Premise two: embryos and early fetuses are not self-aware. Conclusion therefore: embryos and early fetuses do not have a right to life. Now, that would at least be a formal argument, but almost Nobody Does that. Instead, they’ll say: well, that embryo is not even self-aware. Who are you to judge a woman? And what would you do about a rape girl that that has been sexually assaulted, you’d force her to give birth to this kid, and they go on and on and just string a whole bunch of stuff together.
The best way to hone the discussion in if you don’t have a moderator there and very few of us do is to say, hey, can I take that that first point you made, that self-awareness is what gives us value? Could you state that for me as a formal argument so that we can discuss it and see where that leads us? So let’s look at that formal argument. Premise one: to have a right to life, you must be self-aware. The very first question you should ask is: why is selfawareness value giving?
In other words, why is it that thing that gives me a right to life and not something else, like having a belly button that points out rather than in? Make your critic defend that claim, make him explain why being self-aware is what gives you value and a right to life. They can’t just assert that now. I think right away we can see why this is problematic. Imagine, for example, someone is in a terrible accident and they’re in a coma. They’re, no, they’re not self-aware, they’re not dead, but they’re not self-aware, they’re in a reversible coma.
If self-awareness is what gives us value, then it follows that that person has lost their right to life. Now somebody might say: oh no, wait a minute. The embryo and fetus never was self-aware. The person in the accident once was. Therefore, the embryo of Fus does not have a right to life. Therefore the but the motorcycle accident victim does. Okay, notice another argument being Advanced here. But let’s go ahead and look at that. Imagine if we say that in order to be a person with a right to life, you must have been self-aware in the past.
So let’s assume we had a situation where two twins are born. We’ll call them Jerry and John, making up names here. Jerry is born and, for 3 seconds initially, has a dose of self-awareness. He’s self-aware briefly, even though we know infants are not self-aware until much later. But play along for the sake of AR argument. Jerry is briefly self-aware, but then he lapses into a coma from which he will not emerge for nine months. Jon, on the other hand, never achieves momentary self-awareness, but he too will emerge from the coma at exactly the point Jerry will, according to the pro-abortion assertion that’s being Advanced here it would be perfectly fine to kill John, but not Jerry.
I mean that that makes no sense at all. So that premise could be challenged. But here’s the thing: you can’t challenge a premise that isn’t stated, and the trick here is to get your opponent to explicitly State their premises so you can evaluate them now. The next premise, of course, is that the embryo or fetus is not self-aware, and the conclusion your critic wants to advance in is: therefore they can be killed. Well, here’s the problem with premise 2. It proves way more than what your opponent wants them wants to believe.
For example, we now know that early toddlers are not self-aware, and you might ask your critic at this point: tell me what you mean by selfawareness, make them define their terms. Do you mean actual self-awareness? Well, that rules all of us out if we’re sleeping at night. Do you mean having the immediately exercisable capacity for self-awareness? Well, that would protect us while we’re sleeping, but not while were under anesthesia during surgery. Or do you mean having a natural capacity for self-awareness, meaning it’s something that flows from our nature as human beings?
Well, that would protect you while you’re sleeping, that would protect you under surgery, but it would also protect your standard embryo or fetus who, though they cannot immediately exercise self-awareness, they have the natural capacity for it. So by making your opponent define his terms, you can clarify what’s actually being stated here and again. If you don’t force your opponent to actually State their case in a formal argument, they can get away with making just a string of assertions they never have to defend and they just talk over you and constantly change the topic by running on to the next issue.
What about this, what about this? I mean, what about ISM out the yazu right? So this forces them to define their terms and actually clearly State what they’re arguing. We can also point out that the latest research makes it very clear that, because embryos and fetuses are exactly like toddlers and newborns who do not have self-aware, if it’s okay to kill the early embryo or fetus for lacking self-awareness, it should be okay to kill the newborn or toddler. In fact, this is exactly the argument that juini and manura make in their argument for afterbirth abortion, and at least they present an argument.
They don’t just assert this. Here’s what they argue. All of the arguments used to dehumanize The Unborn work equally well to dehumanize newborns and early toddlers. Therefore, the arguments used to justify abortion work equally well to justify killing newborns and toddlers. Okay, we might find that barbaric, but at least they’re making an argument. Your average person on the street is not. So if I were sitting in that room surrounded by pro-abortion activists, for each one that comes up I would say: go ahead and formally State your position, make them State their case, and then we talk about their case, and it would be out of bounds to talk about anything else.
All you get to do is you get 20 seconds to State your case and then we’re going to talk about the case you’re advancing, and if you can’t State a case, we let the next guy come up and give you a few minutes to go ahead and formulate one. Then you can come back and we’ll go from there. That’s one way to keep the argument centered on the main thing rather than going all over the map. Another way this comes up is people today will come up and say: well, as one of the critics did in this tape I watched with Lyla Rose.
They essentially came up and said: well, if a woman wants an abortion, she has a right to have one. Now, notice, this is not stated as an argument, it’s an assertion. Because if it were an argument, you would notice. There’s some hidden premises here that need to be talked about, and the hidden premise is simply this: that my wanting something means I have a right to it. And, by the way, this is something we see in the so-called right to die movement.
It’s something we see in a lot of different places, where people come up and think that just because they desire something, they have a right to it. But that can be challenged, since when does it follow that, simply because I want something, I have a right to it? People say, well, I no longer desire to live. You know, maybe a person no longer desires to live because they feel like they’re suffering or their life is worthless. They should have the right to end their own lives through doctor assisted suicide.
But wait a minute. How does having a desire for something entail that I have a right for something? That needs to be argued for? It almost never is. Now there’s a reason why people make these kinds of claims, and after the break which we’re going to take here in just a moment, I’m going to come back and explain to you what’s going on culturally that leads people to think that because they desire something, they have a right to it, and I’m also going to explain to you why they get so angry when you challenge them, because one of the things I noticed watching these exchanges with Lyla rose.
Again, I thought she did a Ric job. She’s a great ambassador for the pro-life view. I’m not critiquing her. I’m critiquing the people who ought to know how to argue better when they confronted her. But what I want you to see is this: they got so angry when she would push back on anything. Why is it? Why can’t people just talk about an argument and not make it so personal and so angry? I’m going to explain why. That is when we come back from the break.
Welcome back everyone. We’ve been talking about the importance of distinguishing assertions from arguments and insisting that your critics State their case formally rather than just make unsubstantiated claims. So one of the ways we do that is to call our opponents to simply State what they’re arguing in a formal way. Like this, I might say to my opponent: listen, you’re making some interesting claims here, but I’m trying to figure out what your actual argument is. Could you state what you’re arguing in a formal way, in a syllogism?
Again, remember we stress here that the three most important words are syllogism. Could you state formally what it is you’re arguing so you and I can have a more fruitful conversation about it and figure out where we differ, where we don’t, what we agree on, what we differ on, so that we can have a fruitful discussion. Well, that’s a great way to go. The problem, of course, is people often get engaged in abortion discussions and they just throw mud at the wall.
They bring up all kinds of things, they string a whole bunch of assertions together, hoping something sticks, without ever having to formally defend anything they’re claiming. So by making my opponent formally State what he’s arguing, I stick to one issue at a time and I get clarity for what he’s really after, and that’s a good thing, because I don’t want to misrepresent what he’s arguing either, and the only way for me to be clear about what he’s actually arguing is for him to State it formally. So why is it, though, that people seem to get so up set when you challenge them on abortion, or their view of sexuality or their view of gender?
Why is it that, in today’s culture, people get livid and angry if you push back at all? Now, anybody who studies logic understands that arguments stand or fall on their merits. If I claim that Socrates is a man, all men are mortal. Therefore, Socrates is Mortal. That that argument stands or falls, that syllogism, in other words, stands or falls. Apart from me, the person making the argument. It doesn’t matter if I’m Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, the worst person in the world in terms of evaluating that argument.
It stands on its own merits. In other words, is the argument valid? Does the conclusion logically follow, and is the argument sound? Are the premises true? If they are, and if the argument is valid, then the argument stands, and it’s up to the critic to submit to the force of logic at that point. But what happens in today’s world is people personalize everything and they make it about them or about you, and you’ll get people saying: you just judge me. You have no right to judge me, you don’t know me.
How dare you challenge my identity? Now let me tell you why this is happening in the culture. Carl Truman has written a great book called The Rise and Triumph of the modern self, and he coined a term in there called expressive individualism. And here’s what he means by this. People in today’s secular cultures view who they are by the choices they make. Now this is something the existentialist philosophers like sart and others taught, that namely, you are defined by your choices.
Existence pre ceeds Essence. What gives you Essence, in other words, a human nature, is simply the sum total of your choices. So in today’s culture we have people who have wrapped what they believe into their identity. So when you challenge what they believe, they take it personally, because in their mind there’s no distinction between what I argue and who I am. So therefore, if I say that I’m a man trapped in a woman’s body or a woman trapped in a man’s body, whichever way you want to go with that, you can’t challenge my transgender argument without challenging me personally.
I desire to be a woman and therefore, for you to even suggest that I’m not is a direct assault on my identity, even if you’ve made a logical argument, even if you sat down and as patiently and as graciously as you could explained that, they need to argue why our body do not have intrinsic purposes. They would need to argue why biology is no indicator at all of who we really are. And they would need to argue for why desires are synonymous with identity.
They never argue for those things. They just get angry because you challenge their view, and it’s important for us, as prol lifers, to understand this. And this is what happens on abortion too. Somebody wants the freedom to have an abortion Freedom as they understand it, not as we would and they’re upset visibly that you would say that that’s not something they ought to do. You’ve challenge their idea that abortion is morally permissible. Why don’t they just calmly talk through the argument?
And the answer is: they have come to the conclusion. The assumption they have absorbed is that if they want an abortion, they have a right to it. And this comes out of that expressive individualism that Carl Truman talks about, the idea that if I want something, it’s not just that I want it. My identity is tied up in my desires, so I think this explains a lot of why you see people coming literally unglued when you push back on their ideas.
They’re incapable of separating what they’re arguing from the core of who they are now. This is something where I think conservatives have a huge advantage. We are able to bracket things. We’re able to say, okay, I can discuss this issue outside of the person I’m talking to. We can look at the objective arguments, we can look at the arguments being Advanced, we can evaluate them for validity and soundness and we can then come to the conclusion of which side had the more persuasive case.
The problem is many of the people we engage today in this culture we find ourselves in, everything is about the individual. There’s no objective truth out there that we’re supposed to line up with. It’s. It’s all about me, and if you challenge me, you’re judging me. How dare you judge me? In fact, this came out in one of the exchanges lla had with a woman. The woman looked at her and said: how dare you judge me? How dare you tell me what I get to do with my own child?
Now? I think right away You’re going wait a minute. She just conceited an awful lot of territory there, saying that what was in her womb was a child. Yeah, I don’t think she caught that, but that was rather ironic. But yeah, but notice her argument. The mere fact that lla challenged her view on the status of The Unborn was viewed as a direct attack on the person making the claim, when in reality, all yla was doing is advancer advancing a counterargument.
But the critic, took it personally, and again this comes out through what we call expressive individualism, this idea that how I express my desires is not only how I express my views on life. It is related to the core of my identity, and my identity rests on you affirming what I feel, what I desire, and if you don’t affirm it, we’re going to punish you with censorship, we’re going to punish you with jail if they can get away with it, we’re going to punish you to the furthest extent of the law. We cannot tolerate you challenging someone’s identity, and so, therefore, you’ve seen places in some cities left-wing cities, very liberal cities and blue states where you can be punished for misgendering someone, meaning you don’t use the correct pronoun they want you to use.
And so if you’re a city official, for example. I think New York had this. I there may have been other cities where, if you’re a city official and you misgender someone, you can be prosecuted with jail time simply because you didn’t use the pronoun they want you to use. And the reason again behind this is the idea that the individual is affirmed in his identity only by agreement with what they feel, and this is why, for example, the homosexual movement, the pro-abortion movement, the transgender movement insists on uniformity.
These are not tolerant people. They’re not people who are looking to see diversity. Diversity to them means their worldview gets imposed on everyone else who disagrees, and the reason it must be imposed and the reason there must not be free speech and the reason no one should be allowed to challenge what they feel or think, is because their views are tied to their identity. Now I’ll tell you: as a Christian, my identity is wrapped up in the truth of what I see taught in scripture.
As a Christian, your identity is found, for example, in Christ. You’re a new creature in him. You been born again. You have a new identity, a new status before God. Okay now. What’s interesting, though, is when I make arguments for the Christian worldview and somebody pushes back, I don’t feel threatened in my identity. I can look at what they’re arguing and say, hey, maybe they got a point here but not here, or maybe they’ve misunderstood the Christian world view. And I can do the same thing on the pro-life view.
I can say: okay, my critic is making an argument here. I don’t think they’re correct. Here’s why I don’t think they’re correct. And go ahead and analyze the argument without taking anything personally. I don’t get upset when people disagree with me, and here’s why arguments exist independent of the person making them. The soundness or validity of the arguments I Advance do not flow from me. They rather are evaluated based on: do they line up with the dictates of sound thinking and reason?
So I appeal to something outside of myself, where what’s happening in the secular culture today is: people take everything personally, and if you challenge them at all, you are not just challenging what they think, you’re challenging the very core of their identity, because in their minds, their identity is not determined by what God says about them, it’s not determined by their human nature and the value that Springs objectively from that human nature. Rather, they are defined by their choices and their desires. So when you push back on that, they get very upset.
That explains why so often debates on abortion end up blowing up and going all over the map without settling on a simple thing we’re going to argue. So just to review, it’s good to not only state your own case formally with a syllogism, but to help your opponent State his case as a syllogism so you can have a rational discussion about it. If the issue is self-awareness, help your opponent see that what he’s really arguing is that to have a right to life, you must be self-aware.
Embryos and fetuses don’t have self-awareness, therefore they don’t have a right to life. Then you can challenge the premises in that argument and see if they hold up and pass the test of reason. That’s how you have an intelligent discussion. And it’s never going to be intelligent as long as everything is personalized. Remember the key is syllogism. Stick to your syllogism, make them State theirs and you’ll have a much fruitful, much more fruitful discussion than you would if you just have a shouting match over a bunch of statements thrown on the wall, hoping that something sticks.
Thanks for joining us today. I look forward to seeing you on our next show.