Introduction and Context: Engaging Media Commentary on Abortion
Today, I want to address the recent foray into political and moral commentary by late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel, specifically concerning abortion. Some might dismiss the significance of what Hollywood figures say on such serious topics, but the reality is that a large number of our fellow citizens turn to media, not the Bible, philosophy, or science, for their information. Thus, we must engage with what the media is communicating.
A recent example involves Jimmy Kimmel sporting a shirt that reads, “Girls just want to have fundamental rights”. This is a clear riff on Cindy Lauper’s song “Girls Just Want to Have Fun”. Lauper has reportedly launched a campaign promoting abortion rights under the label of “women’s healthcare,” and Kimmel, Helen Hunt, and other celebrities have enthusiastically joined this effort, sparking considerable buzz online about Kimmel’s supposed courage. But let’s pause and consider: Is it truly courageous when the stance aligns perfectly with every secular academic institution, the media, news outlets, and the entire entertainment industry? In what conceivable sense is this courageous? It isn’t. Yet, Hollywood has a penchant for self-congratulation, applauding itself for adopting positions that are widely accepted within its circles, often without engaging in any serious moral reflection.
The Hypothetical Conversation and the First Question: Do Unborn Girls Count?
Considering this shirt, “Girls just want to have fundamental rights,” I entertained the idea of a hypothetical conversation with Mr. Kimmel about its implications and assumptions. I would prefer this discussion occur on my platform or privately, perhaps over coffee, rather than on his late-night show, where arguments are typically supplanted by cliches and imagery. In such a serious conversation about the moral logic conveyed by his shirt, I would begin by posing two fundamental questions. The first question would be: Mr. Kimmel, when you state that girls deserve fundamental rights, do you intend to include unborn girls, or are you referring solely to born girls? His shirt, as presented and in context, obviously assumes only born girls.
Second Question: What precisely do you mean by “fundamental rights”?
The second question I would ask is: What precisely do you mean by “fundamental rights”? Our culture frequently invokes the idea of “rights,” often seeming to pluck them “out of thin air”. This typically boils down to a simple assertion: “I want it, therefore I have a right to it”. We see this logic at play in various contemporary debates. For instance, in the so-called “right to die” movement, the argument is “I desire to die, therefore I have a right to die”. In the context of abortion, it becomes “I want an abortion, therefore I have a fundamental right to have one”. This same pattern appears in the transgender debate: “I want to be a woman, even though I am a man, therefore you must recognize my fundamental right to be a woman, even though I am really a man”. This is the state of rights discourse in our culture today – desires are equated with rights.
Identifying a Logical Fallacy: Begging the Question
Returning to the first question, I would press Mr. Kimmel: Do unborn women count as girls? His likely answer, based on his public stance, would be no. But here is where his logic reveals a significant flaw: He is engaging in the fallacy known as question begging. It’s important to use the term “begging the question” correctly. Many people misuse it to mean “raising the question”. For example, saying “We need to fix the car” might raise the question “What’s wrong with the car?”, but it doesn’t beg the question. You beg the question when you assume the very thing you are trying to prove, arguing in a circle. It’s like asserting, “The Los Angeles Lakers are the best team in basketball because no team is as good”. You haven’t provided any independent evidence or reasoning; you’ve simply restated your conclusion within your premise.
Begging the Question in Abortion Arguments
This is precisely what happens in the abortion debate. Those who claim a right to abortion frequently simply assume that the unborn are not human, when whether the unborn are human is the central, contested issue of the debate. The entire debate turns on this point. In the specific case of Jimmy Kimmel’s shirt and the campaign promoting abortion as “healthcare,” the argument is that “Women deserve a fundamental right to healthcare”. When you examine this claim in the context of abortion, ask yourself: What does this statement assume about the unborn? The answer is obvious: They are assumed not to be human. Why? Because would anyone seriously argue for a right to “healthcare” if it entailed intentionally killing a two-year-old or a four-year-old? Would anyone argue that a man has a right to “healthcare” if it meant having the ability to beat his wife because it improved his mental or psychological state? Of course not. We would never make such arguments because we recognize there are other human victims involved, and an alleged right cannot trample on the fundamental rights of another person, such as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Therefore, Kimmel’s t-shirt, right out of the gate, assumes the unborn are not human. He, and almost 100% of abortion advocates outside of academia, don’t have the apparent courage or willingness to argue for the proposition that the unborn are not human. They simply assume it. This is no different from when Joe Biden, while president, stated that everyone should be glad for “reproductive healthcare” because it is “good for everyone”. We must stop and ask: Mr. President, does “everyone” include the unborn? Are they considered part of society? Is “reproductive healthcare,” when it refers to abortion, good for them? The obvious reality is that this argument only has force if you assume the unborn are not human. Otherwise, you are arguing that “reproductive healthcare” is good even though it intentionally kills another human being, an argument no one wants to explicitly make. The strategy, then, is simply to assume the unborn are not human.
We see this assumption embedded in other common arguments for abortion. People say, “Well, we should trust women to make their own personal decisions”. Would this argument hold if we were discussing killing toddlers? Others claim “abortion is good for society because it reduces crime,” suggesting fewer “unwanted kids” lowers the crime rate. But this argument fails if you don’t first address the question: Are the unborn part of society in the first place? Instead of answering this, the assumption is simply made that they are not human. Another argument is that “abortion is good because we shouldn’t be forcing our moral views on others”. Do people argue this way when discussing sex trafficking, child abuse, or spousal abuse? No, they only employ this reasoning with abortion because they assume the unborn are not human.
Exposing the Assumption: The “Trot Out the Toddler” Tactic
Whenever you encounter t-shirts like Kimmel’s or hear cliche statements about abortion, the first thing to do is ask: What does their claim assume about the unborn? A helpful way to test this is to ask: Would their particular claim justify killing a toddler? If the answer is no, you know they are assuming the unborn are not human. One effective tactic to expose this assumption, which we call “trot out the toddler,” involves very graciously, not snarkily, holding your hand out about knee-high and asking the critic: “Would your argument be a good one for killing this two-year-old?” Imagine the toddler is right there, and their parents claim a right to “healthcare” or “privacy” to harm the child in their bedroom. Your critic would say no. You then simply ask, “Why not?” The likely answer: “Because he’s a human being”. Your response? “Ah.” Then you follow up: “If the unborn are human like that toddler, should they be killed in the name of healthcare, trusting women, privacy, or any other reason you bring up, any more than we would kill a two-year-old for that reason?” They will likely respond, “Well, that’s different. The unborn aren’t human. The toddler is”.
At this point, you can agree for the sake of argument: “Ah, okay. Maybe you’re right. Maybe I need to argue that the unborn are human. And maybe you’ll find my argument wanting. And maybe you have an argument to show the unborn aren’t human. Fair enough”. But then you deliver the crucial point: “But you need to make that argument, not merely assume the unborn aren’t human. I need you to argue that they’re not human”. This is precisely the argument most people are unwilling or unable to make.
Challenging the “Healthcare” Claim
Let’s also briefly address the claim that abortion is “healthcare”. Factually, the assertion that women are dying because they lack abortion access in states with restrictions is, according to the speaker, “absolute propaganda lie”. These states generally have legislative language permitting emergency procedures for ectopic pregnancies or care for miscarriages. Women are not prosecuted for miscarriages. These claims are described as scare tactics by pro-abortion propagandists, not based in reality.
Philosophically, the term “healthcare” itself is being intentionally confused. Since when does healthcare involve intentionally killing an innocent human being? Healthcare’s purpose is typically understood as preserving and bettering life, not intentionally taking or harming another human being. The language is twisted to mislead people about the true nature of abortion.
Back to the Second Question: Defining Fundamental Rights
Now, back to that second question I’d ask Mr. Kimmel: What do you mean by fundamental rights? As noted, our culture often thinks wanting something creates a right to it. Kimmel’s post supporting his shirt reportedly stated, “Women have always had a fundamental right”. I agree with the statement that women have fundamental rights. But the critical question is: On what are those rights grounded? This is where secular culture struggles to provide a coherent answer.
Fundamental rights are not granted or invented by the government. They are those rights you possess simply by virtue of your humanity. The government’s role is to recognize and protect these inherent rights. This understanding is reflected in the language of the Declaration of Independence, which speaks of “unalienable rights” endowed by a Creator, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are pre-political; they exist before the formation of government. Government should align with them, not create or abolish them.
Consider an analogy: When I visit the UK, I don’t have the right to vote in their elections or enter without proper documentation like a passport. The UK government has the authority to regulate entry and participation in its political processes. This is fair. However, while in the UK, I do have a right not to be shot dead in a public place like Trafalgar Square. This right is fundamentally different from the right to enter or vote. The right not to be gunned down in a major city is not granted by the British government; they don’t invent it or decide its scope. This right is universal to all human beings, regardless of citizenship, because it is based on our human nature. It flows inherently from being human.
The Source of Fundamental Rights: Beyond Government Decree
So, when people assert that women have a fundamental right to an abortion, I ask: Where did that right come from? The answer invariably offered is, “Well, the Supreme Court granted that right in Roe v. Wade”. This answer reveals the problem: Any right granted by a court or government can be taken away by that same authority. If the only basis you can provide for an alleged right to abortion is a court ruling, then you have no logical grounds to complain when a subsequent court decision, like Dobbs, revokes that alleged right. If courts are the final arbiter, one should simply accept their decrees.
However, those advocating for abortion rights do complain about the Dobbs decision, insisting women have a fundamental right. This insistence implies a source higher than the courts. The only answer that provides a coherent grounding for fundamental, unalienable rights is a transcendent source, which is precisely why the founders linked these rights to a creator.
When Do Natural Rights Begin? Applying Embryology
Thinking about natural rights, we must ask: When do your natural rights begin? The only logical answer is: the moment you begin. To determine when a human being begins, we don’t turn to religion, philosophy, or catechism. This is an empirical question answered by the science of embryology. Embryology textbooks worldwide affirm that a human being begins at the moment of fertilization.
Therefore, applying this understanding: When did Mr. Kimmel begin? At the moment of fertilization. When did his natural rights begin? At that point. If all girls have fundamental rights, and I agree that they do, when do girls begin to possess those rights? The answer is in the womb, because their natural, fundamental rights begin when they begin. And according to the science of embryology, they begin at fertilization.
Conclusion: The Centrality of the Question “What is the Unborn?”
This is where Mr. Kimmel, and many others, seem to go off the rails. While the online reaction praises his supposed courage, I see a lack of clarity in his thinking. The core issue is the failure to grapple with the fundamental assumptions being made. Arguments for abortion rights consistently bypass the necessary step of demonstrating that the unborn are not human, simply assuming it to justify other claims about healthcare, privacy, or personal decision-making. Furthermore, proponents struggle to provide a consistent, non-arbitrary grounding for the alleged “fundamental right” itself, often appealing only to changeable legal decrees rather than inherent human dignity flowing from human nature or a transcendent source.
To be persuasive in defending pro-life convictions, we must learn to recognize and expose these underlying assumptions and logical fallacies. We need to understand that arguments like Kimmel’s, while seemingly straightforward (“Girls just want to have fundamental rights”), conceal crucial, unproven premises about who counts as a “girl” deserving of rights and what the basis for those rights truly is. The challenge is to guide the conversation back to the core question: What is the unborn? Once we establish, based on science, that the unborn is a human being, the burden shifts dramatically, and the arguments for intentional killing under the guise of “healthcare” or other asserted “rights” collapse. You cannot pluck rights out of thin air; they must be grounded in reality.
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 everyone. Welcome to The Case for Life show where we aim to help you persuasively convey your pro-life convictions. Today I want to talk about abortion and Hollywood. Now you might think for a moment that’s dumb. Why should we take seriously what Hollywood says about anything political, moral, or otherwise? Here’s the problem. Large numbers of our fellow citizens don’t go to the Bible. They don’t go to philosophy. They don’t go to science to get their information. They go to media. So, we need to be in touch with what media is saying.
And the latest example of this involves late night talk show comedian Jimmy Kimmel. Now, here he is sporting a shirt that says, “Girls just want to have fundamental rights.” Now, those of you that are children of the 80s right away recognize that this is a take off Cindy Looper’s song, Girls Just Want to Have Fun. And apparently Cindy Loer, whatever, however you say her name, has started this new campaign to push for abortion rights under the name of women’s healthc care.
We’re going to say more about what that assumes in just a minute, but Jimmy Kimmel, Helen Hunt, and a bunch of other celebrities have jumped on this, and the internet is a buzz with how courageous Jimmy Kimmel is to put this shirt forward and to join this cause. Well, I wonder is it really courageous when every academic institution in the country that’s secular would support that shirt? The media supports it. The news outlets would support it. The entertainment industry would support it.
In what sense is it courageous? It’s not. But Hollywood loves to pat itself on the back and say, “Wow, aren’t we courageous for doing what we’ve all agreed is the right thing to do without any regard to serious moral reflection.” So, I was thinking about this shirt again. Here it is. Girls just want to have fundamental rights. And I was thinking to myself, if there were a fantasy world where Jimmy Kimmel came on this podcast and I had a conversation with him about that shirt, and the reason I say I’d bring him on this show rather than go on his is a late night comedy show.
And look, it you don’t win arguments with comedians on their show because no argument will be had. Cliches and imagery will carry the day. But let’s say that he and I sat down over a cup of coffee and we actually discussed the shirt that he’s wearing and what it implies, its assumptions, and what it’s pointing to. I would begin by asking a couple of questions. And by the way, another person who’s done some great work on this particular episode I’m talking about here with Jimmy Kimmel is my good buddy Tim Barnett at Redpin Logic.
Go ahead and look up how he responded to Jimmy Kimmel on this very question because I thought he did a really good job as well. But if I were sitting across from Jimmy Kimmel with a cup of coffee and we were having a serious conversation about the moral logic of what he’s conveying here, I would begin with these two questions. Number one, Mr. Kimmel, when you say girls deserve fundamental rights, do you mean unborn girls as well or just born ones?
Because his shirt obviously assumes only born ones. The second question I would ask is, what do you mean by fundamental rights? People love to throw around this idea of rights that they then want to pluck out of thin air and usually it comes down to this. I want it, therefore I have a right to it. So you see this for example in the so-called right to die movement. I desire to die, therefore I have a right to die. Or in the abortion issue, I want an abortion, therefore I have a fundamental right to have one.
Or I want to be a woman even though I’m a man. Therefore, you must recognize my fundamental right to be a woman even though I’m really a man. That’s where our culture is. Desires now equal rights. We’ll say more about that in just a minute, but I would start with that first question and I would say to Jimmy Kimmel, do unborn women count as girls? And of course, he would say no. But here’s the flaw in his logic. He is engaging in the fallacy known as question begging.
Now, let me explain what that is. People toss around this phrase all the time. Well, that begs the question. What they really mean is that raises the question. And for example, I might say to my wife, hey, we need to get the car fixed. Well, that assumes, or I should say that raises the question, what’s wrong with the car? And someone might say, well, that begs the question, what’s wrong with the car in the first place? That would be improper use of the term begs the question.
You beg the question when you assume what you’re trying to prove. When you kind of argue in a circle, it would be like me saying the Los Angeles Lakers are the best team in basketball because no team is as good. Well, I haven’t given you anything to advance that argument other than to restate in the premises of my argument the conclusion that I’m arguing for. And that’s what people do when they beg the question. They simply assume when it comes to the issue of abortion, the unborn are not human when that’s the very thing they’re arguing for.
That’s what the whole debate turns on. So you see this all the time when people bring up claims about abortion. In this particular case with Jimmy Kimmel, the issue is health care. Women deserve a fundamental right to quote health care. Let me ask you a question. What does that assume in this case about the unborn? And the answer of course is pretty obvious. They’re not human. Because would anybody argue for a right to health care if what they really meant was the right to intentionally kill a 2-year-old or a four-year-old?
Would anybody argue for men having a right to health care if it helped their mental psychological states to be able to beat their wives? No. They would never argue that way on either point. Why? Because they recognize that there are other human victims involved and your alleged right to health care cannot trample on the rights of another person who has a fundamental right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. So, what’s going on here with Kimmel’s t-shirt is right out of the gate, he is assuming the unborn are not human.
He doesn’t have the courage or the time apparently to argue that they’re not human. He doesn’t apparently want to even go there. He wants to do what almost 100% of all abortion advocates do that are not in academia. And that is simply assume the unborn are not human. So it’s no different when Joe Biden when he was president of the United States said this. He said, “Everyone should be glad that we have reproductive health care because reproductive health care is good for everyone.” Well, time out, Mr.
President. Does everyone include the unborn? Are they included in society? Is reproductive health care, meaning abortion, good for them? The obvious answer is only if you assume the unborn aren’t human. Does that argument carry any force at all? Because otherwise you’re saying that reproductive health care is good even though it intentionally kills another human being. Well, no one wants to make that argument, right? So, the way around it is to simply assume the unborn aren’t human. And we’ve talked about this before, but here are just some more examples of ways people assume the unborn aren’t human.
They’ll say things like, “Well, we should trust women to make their own personal decisions.” Again, would anybody argue that way if we were talking about killing toddlers? You’ll hear people say, “Well, abortion’s good for society because it reduces crime. We end up with fewer unwanted kids. That lowers the crime rate, and that’s good for society.” Question: Are the unborn part of society? It doesn’t work to argue that abortion is good for society when you don’t answer the question of who is part of that society in the first place.
And instead, what they do is they simply assume the unborn aren’t human. Or they’ll say this, abortion is good because we shouldn’t be forcing our moral views on others. Does anybody argue that way if we’re talking about sex trafficking or about child abuse or spousal abuse? No. They only argue that way with abortion because they assume the unborn aren’t human. And the first thing you need to do whenever you come across t-shirts like this or you come across people that are making, you know, clichéed statements about abortion is ask yourself, what does their claim assume about the unborn?
And you might even ask it this way. It’s a helpful way to think of it. Would their particular claim justify killing a toddler? If the answer is no, you know, they’re assuming the unborn are not human. And one way you can deal with this is to use a tactic we call trot out the toddler. And that is very graciously, don’t be snarky, but very directly hold your hand out about knee high and simply ask the critic who has made this claim, would your argument be a good one for killing this 2-year-old?
Pretend I have a 2-year-old here and his parents want us to trust them to exercise their right to health care in the privacy of their bedroom by roughing him up. Would we go along with that? Well, your critic’s going to say no. And you should respond with two words. Why not? Well, because he’s a human being. You then respond with one word. If the unborn are human like that toddler, should they be killed in the name of health care or trusting women or privacy or any other thing you bring up any more than we’d kill a 2-year-old for that reason?
And they will say, “Well, that’s different. The unborn aren’t human. The toddler is.” okay. Maybe you’re right. Maybe I need to argue that the unborn are human. And maybe you’ll find my argument wanting. And maybe you have an argument to show the unborn aren’t human. Fair enough. But you need to make that argument, not merely assume the unborn aren’t human. I need you to argue that they’re not human. And that’s precisely what most people do not want to do. Now, about this phrase abortion being healthcare, let’s talk about it factually for a moment, then we’ll talk about it philosophically.
First of all, factually, women are not being denied health care. It is an absolute propaganda lie that women are dying because they can’t get abortion access in red states that have restricted abortion. The reality is every one of those states has language and legislation that says if a woman needs an emergency ectopic pregnancy surgery because it’s a threat to her life, she can get it. If she needs if she has a miscarriage, she’s not going to be prosecuted and investigated for did she have an abortion.
This is scare tactics put forward by pro-abortion propagandists. This is not based in reality. But let’s look at the term health care for a moment. Although women can get the health care they need, is abortion health care? Since when does health care entail intentionally killing an innocent human being? Health care is supposed to be about preserving life, bettering life, not intentionally taking life or harming another human being. So, the language here is really being confused intentionally to lead people astray on what’s really going on.
Now, another thing I would ask Jimmy Kimmel is this. What do you mean by fundamental rights? And as I mentioned a moment ago, our culture thinks that just because you want something, you have a right to it. But let’s look at this for a moment. When Jimmy Kimmel says, as he does later in the same post, underneath it, he’s got some text that says, “Women have always had a fundamental right.” Okay. Well, wait a minute. I do agree with that statement.
He’s right about that. Women do have fundamental rights. But what are those rights grounded in? And this is where secular culture falls apart. Unable to give an answer that’s coherent. Fundamental rights are those rights you have in virtue of your humanity. Government does not grant them. Government does not invent them. Government’s job is to recognize and protect them. It’s the language we see in the Declaration of Independence. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights which include the life, right to life, right to happiness, right to the pursuit of happiness, I should say, liberty and you get the idea.
There are certain fundamental rights that are pre-political and here’s what we mean by that. They exist before government. So government’s job is to line up with them, not modify them, not write them in or out of existence. You have those rights in virtue of being human. I’ve used this example before, but I think it’s a good one and illustrates what I’m after. When I visit the UK, as I do often and will again shortly here in a couple of weeks, I do not have a right to vote in that country’s elections.
I also don’t have a right to enter their country without a passport and now an ETA add-on that you have to have for your passport to get into the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has a right to govern who can come into their country and how long they can stay and what their business will be while they’re there. I can’t just show up with no documentation and decide I’m going to get a job in the United Kingdom and relocate there without going through official government channels.
That’s fair. However, I do have a right when I’m in the UK not to be gunned down in the middle of Trfalgar Square in London. Now, that right not to be gunned down is different from the right to enter the country. The United Kingdom government, meaning Parliament and the courts there have a right to determine who may enter their nation. They have that right just like the United States has that right and Canada has that right and every other nation that at least pretends to line up with the idea of a constitutional republic or a or a democracy of some sort or a monarchy that is at least tied into the people’s needs and desires that are legitimate.
Now, that right not to be gunned down in the middle of Trfalgar Square does not come from the British government. They don’t invent that right. They don’t decide how much of it is applied, when, and to whom. That is a right all human beings have, whether you’re a citizen of the United Kingdom or not. It doesn’t matter what nation you come to. Your right not to be gunned down in the middle of a major population center in a world city is based on your humanity.
What we might properly call your human nature. It flows from your human nature. It’s not a government granted right. So when people speak of women having a fundamental right to an abortion, the first question I love to ask is where did that right come from? Now here’s what they say 100% of the time. Well, the Supreme Court granted that right to an abortion in Ro v. Wade. All right. The same government or court that grants a right to an abortion can do what?
Take it away. And so why are you complaining that the DOS decision took away an alleged right to an abortion when the only authority you can ground that right to an abortion in is that of the courts. If you really think the courts are the highest authority and there’s nothing beyond that, you need to shut up because you got what you wanted. The courts decreed a right to an abortion, then they decreed there wasn’t one. Who are you to complain? If courts are the final say, shut up and go along with it.
But they don’t. They say, “No, women have a fundamental right to an abortion.” Okay, where does that come from? And the only answer that makes any sense at all is a transcendent source, which is exactly why our founders grounded these fundamental rights in the concept of a transcendent creator. That’s exactly the language of the Declaration of Independence. Well, when you look further at this and you think about natural rights, when did your natural rights begin? And the answer is the moment you began.
Now to answer the question, when did you begin Mr. Kimmel? We don’t go to religion, we don’t go to catechism, we don’t go to philosophy, we go to the science of embryology because the question is empirical. When did you begin, Mr. Kimmel? You began at the moment of fertilization. And embryology textbooks worldwide affirm this. That’s when you begin. So when did your natural rights begin? Well, they began at that point. And so now the question is this. If all women have a right or girls, as it says here in this particular t-shirt, if all girls have fundamental rights, I agree with that by the way.
When did girls begin to get those fundamental rights? And the answer is in the womb. Because their natural or fundamental rights begin when they begin. And to answer the question when they begin, we look at the science of embryology which clearly states that from the earliest stages of development, from the one cell stage, Jimmy Kimmel and women elsewhere, not him being woman, but women as well as men, their fundamental rights begin when they begin, and that is the moment of fertilization.
So this is where I think that Mr. Kimmel goes off the rails. This has become quite a story on the internet. It’s gone viral and I don’t think he’s courageous and I don’t think he’s being very clear in his thinking either. So you can take a look at that online. Again, you may want to see my buddy Tim Barnett, his Red Pin logic site has dealt with this as well and he raises some of the points I raise and a couple of others.
Take a look at what Tim has to say. We’re going to take a break and when we come back I want to talk about something that happened on church at church Sunday that was a celebration but it also raised some concerns for me. I’ll tell you what those were when we come back from the break.
Hello friends, welcome back. Hey, I want to remind you that if you want to know how to answer people like Jimmy Kimmel and others, I would encourage you to again take a look at our case for life course. We really are calling it pro-life 101 for this reason. It’s aimed at helping you, the lay person, defend what you believe and recognize the common fallacies. Imagine that you could immediately see through the assumptions that someone like a Jimmy Kimmel was making. Or you could see right through a celebrity who was arguing for abortion while they’re assuming the whole time the unborn aren’t human.
And you could sit there and go, “Aha, I know what they’re doing.” And you would be able to explain to somebody what they’re doing. That’s what we want to equip you to do. So, I hope you’ll take advantage of our pro-life 101 course. I mentioned before the break that there was something that happened at church on Sunday that was both a celebration but it caused some concern for me. I don’t know how it is in your church but at our church which by the way I attend a great church.
Our pastor does a great job. I think our church preaches the word of God. It’s committed to biblical truth. It’s doctrinally sound. We do something every year right around this time in early May that is called Senior Sunday. And it’s not for old people like me. Rather, what it is is it’s honoring the seniors who graduate high school. And they all parade up in their gowns and caps and the church embraces them, gives them a gift. And by the way, I’m all for that.
I think that’s good. But it was interesting this last Sunday, which is typical of every Sunday I’ve seen this happen for the last 21 years that we’ve been at the church. There were roughly I’m going to say 12 to 14 graduates and all but two of them were going to college. Here’s what was interesting to me. Every single one of those going off to college was going to a secular state university. Now, I’m not trying to suggest that’s inherently sinful, but I think it is something that parents need to think about more carefully, and that is this.
What is going to happen to my kid in terms of their world view when they go off to college? So, I’m going to let you in on something I’m going to do. I’m going to be sending an email to both my senior pastor and the youth pastor at our church, both of whom do a terrific job. And these are men that are committed to making sure our kids understand the gospel, that they are converted, that they walk with Jesus. All good stuff.
But I’m going to send them an email that says this. I rejoiced at seeing our seniors get honored on Sunday and wonder if there’s something we can do to prepare them for the challenges of the next four years while they’re away at school. Because here’s something I have seen at church. There have been cases at our church which is which again is a very good church where students have left our church after graduating. They’ve gone off to universities far and wide from the University of Georgia to the University of California, Berkeley.
They’ve gone all over the place. And I have seen examples where parents that I know and that our family is close to have had a son or a daughter come back at Thanksgiving break. So, the kids been gone less than four months from the home and they come back to Thanksgiving and the holidays totally woke, totally embracing a leftist view of reality and questioning everything from not only their political beliefs, but the resurrection of Jesus, the concept of truth, is the Bible reliable.
And they begin rejecting the faith of their parents and the faith of the church that they grew up in. This troubles me and causes me to lay awake at night. So, I was thinking two thoughts. Number one, is it a good idea for parents to send your kids off to a secular university? And I’m going to say something here that might get me in hot water with a few of you. I hope you interpret this as being said in love, not condemnation.
But I would say to you parents, it is more important for your kid to go to heaven than it is for your kid to go to Harvard. And I think a lot of parents get all giddy that, hey, my kid just got a scholarship to this great school. Why wouldn’t we take advantage of that? I’ll tell you why. Because no amount of money is worth the price of your child’s soul. And I have seen it happen so many times that kids go off to these secular universities and they don’t impact those campuses for Christ.
The campus culture overwhelms them because many of them are not equipped to defend what they believe, what they grew up with. So I’m going to propose to my to my church leadership, and by the way, I’m going to do this gently, not a demand, and I’m not going to make work for them. Here’s a mistake I think we make as pro-lifers. We go to our church leadership and say, “You got to do more on abortion. You got to do more on, you know, Christian worldview topics.
You got to do more on missions.” Whatever our issue is, and we just make more work for the staff. What I’m going to do is say, “I have an idea how we might be able to come alongside you and help you with a plan for equipping our kids to stand for their faith even when they’re under fire, even when they’re faced with withering criticism from peers and from professors.” And what I’m going to do is propose that we create a 10w week or 10 session. You could call it a course, you could call it a series, it doesn’t matter to me, but where we will look at fundamental questions like what is the case for life?
What is the case for truth? What is the case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ? What is the case for the universe being designed as opposed to just happening randomly? What is the case for morality being real and knowable rather than something we event? And just go through the major topics that our kids are going to be confronted with when they hit that university campus. So, I’m going to be proposing that and you might be thinking about things you can do in your church.
There’s a great book out there called Welcome to College written by my colleague and friend Jonathan Marorrow and it is a wonderful book that helps prepare parents and kids for what’s coming their way. And we may use that as a textbook. We may look at some other resources, but I intend to come alongside my church and help them in this area. And I hope you’ll do the same. I want to remind you again, if you haven’t already looked at our course, Prolife 101, please do so.
I think it’s a great starting point for beginning a formation of a Christian worldview on the sanctity of human life and how to communicate that in a culture that increasingly is moving away from biblical morality and a biblical foundation. I hope you’ll take a look at that. Thank you for joining us today. I hope you will use what God has given you in this show to reach others to the glory of God on issues of human life. God bless you. We’ll see you next time.