Making Abortion Unthinkable
The Art of Pro-Life Persuasion (DVD series) by Gregory Koukl & Scott Klusendorf

Session 1 notes (Restoring Meaning to the Word "Abortion")

The problem: the word "abortion" has lost almost all its meaning for most Americans.

The word "abortion" has lost its meaning because we think and learn visually, with pictures and images.

1. We are visual learners.
2. Pictures influence us by stirring our emotions, and this profoundly affects how we resolve moral issues.
3. Graphic images have been a standard means of moral education.
   • a. When you think of the Nazi holocaust, what images come to mind?
   • b. Why was the Vietnam anti-war protest so successful? We saw video footage of the war on our televisions every night.
4. When the average person hears the word "abortion", what image do you think comes to mind?
   • a. Graphic images of pro-life protests
   • b. Graphic images of murdered abortion doctors or abortion-clinic violence
5. Clearly, the word "abortion" does not mean the same thing to us as it does to many of our listeners.
   • a. The word "abortion" makes pro-lifers think of killed babies.
   • b. The word "abortion" makes the general public think of radical pro-life advocates using destructive means to make their point.

Second, the word "abortion" has lost its meaning because people are moved by stories more than facts.

1. Pro-abortionists often use stories to support their cause.
   • a. President Clinton defended his veto of the partial-birth abortion ban with stories, not facts, using three women who told how the procedure benefited them.
     1. He did not give moral justification.
     2. He did not give scientific evidence to refute the fact that most partial-birth abortions are performed on perfectly healthy mothers carrying perfectly healthy babies.
     3. He only gave stories. Instead of offering stories to support his case, he offered stories in place of a case.
     4. In short, he changed the subject from the infants that were being killed to the mothers that he thought deserved our sympathy.
   • b. An American Medical News article (3/3/97) shows that pro-abortionists understand the importance of stories to rally their cause. Katherine Kohlbert, consultant for the National Abortion Federation, urged members not to let pro-lifers sidetrack them with discussions on the specifics (i.e., facts) of the partial-birth procedure, but instead to tell stories of individual women:

   I urge incredible restraint here, to focus your message and stick to it, because otherwise we'll get creamed. If the debate is whether the fetus feels pain, we lose. If the debate in the public arena is what's the effect of anesthesia, we'll lose. If the debate is whether or not women ought to be entitled to late abortion, we'll probably lose. But if the debate is on the circumstances of individual women... then I think we can win these fights

2. The current debate over abortion in our culture concerns stories, not facts and arguments.

Third, the word "abortion" has lost its meaning because we want difficult problems to just go away.

1. Forty-eight percent of Americans want the abortion issue to "just go away."
2. This same attitude applies to a host of other life-and-death moral issues:
   • a. A Report of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (1989) shows that the practice of withholding food and water from babies born with developmental handicaps is becoming more and more prevalent, even though many of these defects are medically correctable.
     1. The Commission's report cited a survey (conducted by the American Academy of Pediatrics) that said 63 percent of pediatric surgeons think it is ethically justifiable to starve to death a newborn baby with developmental handicaps. And the more prominently that mental retardation figures into the infant's diagnosis, the more willing they are to do it.
     2. Why do they have this attitude? Because it is easier to make the problems associated with raising a handicapped child "just go away" by killing the child rather than by taking the personal responsibility to love and care for a valuable human being. b. Doctor-assisted suicide is fueled by the desire to make the problem of old age "just go away," rather than provide quality care for the terminally ill. In Holland, nearly half of all euthanasia cases involve a doctor killing without the patient's consent or knowledge, according to an analysis of the government's own pro-euthanasia report by the Journal of the American Medical Association.
3. The root idea behind most abortion advocacy is narcissism.
   • a. Abortion is a symptom of a much deeper problem - our unwillingness to assume personal responsibility to resolve our own problems.
   • b. We think we have the right not to be inconvenienced.We think we have the right to demand that difficult problems disappear. This mentality drives abortion advocacy.

The solution: move the issue from the abstract to the concrete through use of visual tools.

• The word "abortion" has lost almost all it's meaning to most Americans. They imagine a benign procedure that does little more than remove a tissue mass from the mother's body.
• Graphic images restore meaning to the word "abortion" like nothing else can, if they're used appropriately. People may forget what you say, but they seldom forget what they see.

Objections from the opposition: "this is just emotional manipulation."

1. Graphic visuals are a standard means to good education with other moral issues (such as the Holocaust, the Civil Rights movement, and other issues).
2. Graphic visuals are not manipulative if the images clarify truth rather than distort it.
3. Graphic visuals are used to support our argument, not replace it.

Learn how to use graphic visual aids.

To use graphic visuals sensitively and effectively...

• a. Warn your listeners.
• b. Advise them to look away if they don't want to watch.
• c. Tell them that your purpose is not to condemn anyone.
• d. When talking to a Christian audience, mention that our Lord is eager to forgive.

Self-assessment with answers

1. What are the four essential tasks in making abortion unthinkable?
   
   ANSWER: We must restore meaning to the word abortion. We must simplify the abortion issue.We must offer a good argument. We must answer the objections of pro abortion rhetoric.
   
   
2. What are three reasons the word abortion has lost its meaning for most Americans?
   
   ANSWER: We think and learn visually. We respond more to stories than to facts. We want difficult problems to just go away.
   
   
3. How do we restore meaning to the word abortion?
   
   ANSWER: Move the debate from the abstract to the concrete. Use images and stories to show that abortion actually kills babies.
   
   
4. What three points could you use to answer the objection that graphic visuals are simply emotional manipulation?
   
   ANSWER: This technique is used all the time with other moral issues (e.g., the Holocaust, the Civil Rights movement, etc.). It's not manipulative if the images clarify truth rather than distort it. We also give an argument to support the visuals.
   
   
5. What two mistakes are often made with graphic visuals?
   
   ANSWER: They are used poorly, with no warning given. They are not used at all.
   
   
6. What four things must we remember to do when using graphic visual aids?
   
   ANSWER: Warn our listeners. Invite them to look away. Assure them your purpose is not to condemn. Mention the forgiveness available through Christ.
   
   

---

Session 2 notes (Simplifying the Issue)

Only one question

Instead of talking about abortion, the discussion often leads to irrelevant tangents, such as...

1. Choice and privacy
2. Back-alley abortions
3. Teen pregnancy
4. Rape and incest
5. Abuse of unwanted children

In order to respond to these side issues, however,we must answer a foundational question: what is the unborn?

1. This question simplifies the issue and prevents the discussion of tangential issues.
2. Yet the question is ignored.

The importance of this foundational question becomes more clear through the use of a key illustration.

1. If your child comes up behind you while you're working and asks, "Mommy/Daddy, can I kill this?" what one question must you ask before you can answer his question?
2. Before you answer the question "Can I kill this?" you must first ask the question "What is it?" If it's a spider or a cockroach, he can smash it. If it's the funny looking boy down the street, he'll need to sit down for a long talk with you.

The illustration teaches a very important lesson: we must know what we're killing before we can know whether or not it's moral to kill it.

Abortion kills something that's alive.Whether it's right or wrong depends entirely upon the answer to one question: What is being killed? or, What is the unborn?

QUESTION: Can I kill this?

RESPONSE: What is it?

The difference between addressing each argument for abortion and reducing it to one pivotal question-What is the unborn?-can be illustrated through the two different ways we can cut down a tree. _ We can lop off each branch, one at a time, by trying to deal with each argument as it comes.

If the unborn is a non-viable tissue mass, a part of a woman's body, or a "potential" human, then have the abortion, no questions asked.

But if the unborn is a real human being, then abortion kills an innocent child simply because she's in the way and can't defend herself.

If we're right, then the abortion question is not complex at all. First, use scientific evidence to answer a factual question:What is the unborn? Second, if the unborn is a human being, answer a moral question: How should we treat innocent human beings who are in the way and are defenseless?

If the unborn is a human being, then the popular defenses for abortion are not valid because they fail to justify taking an innocent human life.

1. Popular Defense #1: "Women have the right to privacy with their doctors."
   • a. We all have a right to privacy within limits, but do we allow parents to abuse their children if they do it in the privacy of their own homes?
   • b. Clearly, the real issue is not privacy, but rather "What is the unborn?"
   • c. If the unborn is a human being, she deserves the same protection other children have.
2. Popular Defense #2: "But women should have the freedom to choose."
   • a. No one has unrestricted freedom to choose.
   • b. Our freedom to choose depends on what kind of choice we have in mind. This sentence is incomplete: Women should have the freedom to choose... what?
   • c. Clearly, freedom to choose is not the real issue.
   • d. If the unborn is a human being, we do not have the freedom to choose to kill her.
3. Popular Defense #3: "Women shouldn't have to carry a child conceived through rape."
   • a. A pregnancy from rape can be emotionally devastating, but why should the child pay with his own life for his father's crime?
   • b. We would not allow the woman to shoot the rapist after he's been caught for her own emotional relief.
     1. If she cannot kill the guilty party to make her feel better, why should she be allowed to kill an innocent child for the same reason?
     2. People may protest by saying the rapist is a human being, but that only furthers our point-being human makes all the difference.
   • c. Clearly, rape is not the issue.
   • d. If the unborn is a human being, she should not be killed just so the mother isn't reminded of the traumatic event.
4. Popular Defense #4: "Making abortion illegal forces women into dangerous back-alley abortions."
   • a. This argument works if we make personal, elective surgeries illegal, but why should the law be faulted for making the killing of an innocent child risky?
     1. The fact that bank-robbing is dangerous to the felon doesn't seem to be a good reason for making bank robbery legal.
     2. As abortion advocate Mary Anne Warren points out, "The fact that restricting access to abortion has tragic side effects does not, in itself, show that the restrictions are unjustified, since murder is wrong regardless of the consequences of forbidding it."
   • b. Clearly, illegal abortions are not the real issue.
   • c. If the unborn is a human being and the law forbids an abortion, a woman's use of a back-alley abortion would be her own choice. No one is "forcing" her.
5. Popular Defense #5: "Many poor women cannot afford another child."
   • a. Though caring for children is costly, killing them is not the answer.What would we think of a mother who killed a toddler who was taxing the family budget?
   • b. Many would protest that killing a toddler is different because he is a human being, but this only proves the point that being human makes a difference.
   • c. Clearly, the issue isn't economic hardship.
   • d. If the unborn is a human being, killing him because of economic hardship is no more justifiable than killing a toddler for the same reason.
6. Popular Defense #6: "Your view forces women to become parents against their will."
   • a. No one should be forced to become a parent, but if the unborn is a human being, then the pregnant woman already is a parent.
   • b. No parent should escape her responsibilities by killing her unwanted children.
   • c. Clearly, the issue isn't unwanted parenthood.
   • d. If the unborn is a human being, the woman is already his mother and should not be permitted to kill the child just because she doesn't want him.
7. Popular Defense #7: "What about when the mother's life is in danger?"
   • a. Our argument concerns elective abortion, not abortion for medical purposes.
   • b. However, answering the question "What is the unborn?" helps us unravel what appears to be a difficult ethical dilemma.
     1. If the unborn is not a human being, then saving the mother through an abortion is the most logical choice.
     2. If the unborn is a human being, then whatever solution you come to must treat the unborn as fully human, and fully valuable, just like the mother is.

We can simplify the debate by remembering the following points.

1. Always start with the illustration "Can I kill this?"
2. Always emphasize the importance of the only relevant question: "What is the unborn?"

The moral logic of the pro-life position

Establish the moral logic of the pro-life position by making an argument against abortion.

1. Building an argument is like building a house.
   • a. First, you put up the walls.
   • b. Then you build the roof on the supporting walls.
2. An argument is a very specific kind of thing.
   • a. An argument is more than an opinion, just as a house is more than a roof.
   • b. It needs reasons to support it, just as a house needs walls.
     1. An argument needs justification.
     2. An argument needs evidence.
3. The argument has a specific structure.
   • a. It provides reasons that support a conclusion.
   • b. If the reasons are good, then the conclusion is correct, even if it is not the conclusion you want.
4. Our argument will not be a biblical argument.
   • a. Biblical support can be provided, if necessary.
   • b. Our approach is useful, regardless of how one feels about the Bible.
5. The argument will combine a sound moral principle with well-established scientific facts to reach to a moral conclusion about abortion.

Argue the pro-life view by defending the full person hood and full humanity of the unborn from the moment of conception.

1. We will argue that the unborn is...
   • a. Alive from the moment of conception.
   • b. A distinct human being from the moment of conception.
   • c. A valuable person from the moment of conception.
2. Our argument in its simplest form has three steps.
   • a. Moral claim: It's wrong to intentionally kill innocent9 human beings.
   • b. Factual claim: Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being.
   • c. Moral conclusion: Therefore, abortion is wrong.
3. Our argument can be explained in greater detail.
   • a. Step one: It's wrong to intentionally kill any human being for the reasons most people have abortions.
   • b. Step two: The unborn is a unique, individual, living human being for her entire life.
     1. The unborn is alive from the moment of conception.
     2. The unborn is an individual being; her body is different from her mother's body.
     3. The unborn is a human being for her entire life.
        • a) She's not partially human, potentially human, or possibly human, but she is a complete human being as long as she is alive.
        • b) Her body will take many forms during her life, but she will always be the same thing-a human being-until she dies.
   • c. Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is a terrible evil because it destroys a precious unborn human person without good reason.
4. To answer the question "What is the unborn?" we will argue that...
   • a. The unborn is a living being.
   • b. The unborn's body is not the mother's body.
   • c. The unborn is a human being.
   • d. There is no difference between a human being and a human person.
   • e. Human beings are valuable in themselves...
     • Not for their size or physical appearance.
     • Not for their level of development (first, second, or third trimester, infant, adolescent, or adult) or anything they can do.
     • Not because of their environment or where they are located (inside the womb or out).
5. Our approach is straightforward, uncomplicated, and fair.
   • a. We ask questions about what the unborn is.
   • b. We apply our conclusion to the moral question of abortion.
6. Remember the three steps of the argument.
   • a. It's wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
   • b. Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being.
   • c. Therefore, abortion is wrong.
7. The most important question for our case is, "What is the unborn?" Remember the illustration "Can I kill this?"

Self-assessment with answers

1. Explain the significance of reducing the issue to one question.
   
   Answering only one question-What is the unborn?-allows us to simplify the abortion issue.
   
   
2. What are the two key questions of the illustration?
   
   Can I kill this? What is it?
   
   
3. Complete these two sentences: If the unborn is not a human being, no justification for abortion is necessary. If the unborn is a human being, no justification for abortion is adequate.
4. What key tactic should be use when addressing specific defenses for abortion?
   
   "Trotting out the Toddler"
   
   
5. How do you use the tactic?
   
   Ask if the reason given for abortion is a good reason to kill a toddler (or any other human being).
   
   
6. What are the three basic steps of our argument?
   
   It's wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings. Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings. Therefore, abortion is wrong.
   
   

---

Session 3 notes (The Scientific Case)

First, the unborn is alive.

There are no grounds for this uncertainty. It simply isn't true that no one knows when life begins. Here's why.

The unborn is alive from the moment of conception.

1. No period of non-life exists in the sequence of events from mating to birth.
   • a. Life doesn't begin at some stage of development; the unborn is alive at every stage.
   • b. An unbroken continuum of life stretches from beginning to end: A living sperm unites with a living egg to form a living zygote.
2. The unborn is growing biologically.
   • a. Biological growth begins at the moment of conception, which proves the unborn is alive.
   • b. The unborn possesses each of the biological criteria for life:
     1. Metabolism
     2. Growth (reproduction)
     3. Reaction to stimuli
3. Abortion kills the unborn (doing so is the purpose of the abortion), and only something alive can be killed.

So, first, the unborn is alive.

Second, the unborn is a separate individual being.

the personal autonomy argument - "a woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her own body" - has two serious problems, which we can bring to light using the "one-two punch" approach.

1. Serious problem #1: The statement is not true.
   • a. A woman cannot do whatever she wants with her own body in this country -or any civilized country, for that matter-and neither can a man.
   • b. The law can restrict what we do with our bodies when our freedom harms another human being.
     1. The law routinely interferes with our personal liberties when there is proper justification (i.e., harm to another human being).
     2. E.g., parents can't abandon their children to take a vacation by claiming a right to do "whatever they want with their own bodies."
     3. Parents have certain obligations toward their children that they do not have toward strangers.
2. Serious problem #2: The unborn is not the mother's body.
   • a. How do we know the unborn is not the woman's body?
     1. The unborn can be a different gender from the mother.
     2. The unborn develops a separate brain and central nervous system.
     3. The unborn can have a different blood type.
     4. The unborn has her own unique genetic fingerprint.
        • a) An egg with 23 of the mother's chromosomes unites with a sperm with 23 of the father's chromosomes, creating an individual living thing.
        • b) The zygote is different from every other cell in the mother's body because it has its own unique chromosomal "fingerprint."
        • c) The DNA fingerprint is widely used in forensics, especially by the government and the military, to determine the identity of particular human beings. The DNA fingerprint allows investigators to connect certain biological remains (such as blood and hair) to specific individuals.
   • b. Clearly, the unborn's body is distinct from the mother's body. It's a separate body resting in the protective, nurturing environment of her mother's womb.

The unborn is a homo sapiens, a human being.

First, the DNA genetic signature proves the unborn is a human being.

1. If you had 10 zygotes in a row, how would you know which one was human if they all looked alike to the naked eye? You'd know by the DNA.
   • a. The unborn's DNA indicates what kind of bodily form the adult is going to take, but even at this beginning stage the zygote is still human.
   • b. External looks can deceive, but DNA gives unmistakable evidence telling us what kind of being any living thing is.
2. If we watch the development long enough, we will see the zygote form into a more recognizable human shape.
   • a. The cell begins to visually differentiate, eventually allowing us to see clearly what kind of being it is.
   • b. The zygote can't develop in any direction, but only in a way consistent with its internal structure, or nature.
3. The unborn doesn't change into a human, but rather merely looks more human to our eyes.
   • a. Living things don't become different creatures when changing their form.
   • b. Living things develop according to a certain physical pattern based on the kind of creature they already are. Human forms develop out of human beings.
   • c. By day 43, the unborn has a beating heart and brainwave activity we can measure on an electroencephalogram.

The principle of biogenesis proves the unborn is a human being.

1. In the 19th century, scientist Louis Pasteur among others disproved the theory of the spontaneous generation of life.
   • a. Maggots don't spontaneously spring from discarded meat.
   • b. Mice aren't spontaneously created from piles of rags.
2. Pasteur's discoveries led to the principle of biogenesis, which states two things.
   • a. First, all life comes from pre-existent life.
   • b. Second, each being reproduces after its own kind.
3. This second point gives us a very practical test.
   • a. If all living things reproduce after their own kind-that is, offspring come from parents just like them-how can we determine what kind of living being something is?
   • b. Ask what kind of parents a living thing has.
     1. Since every being reproduces after its own kind, human beings can only reproduce other human beings.
     2. Dogs make puppies, fish make guppies, and humans make yuppies.
   • c. If this principle is denied, it must be explained how two human beings can create a separate being that is not human-in clear violation of the principle of biogenesis-but later becomes one.

Answering the objections

Objection #1: an acorn is not an oak.

1. Some would attempt to refute our argument by saying, "An acorn is not an oak, but rather a potential oak. In the same way, the unborn isn't human, but only a potential human."
2. We can respond by saying, "An acorn actually is a complete oak."
   • a. An acorn is an oak at the infant stage.
   • b. An oak tree is an oak at the adult stage.
   • c. Both are oaks.
   • d. An acorn (the infant) can potentially become an oak tree (the adult), but it never becomes an oak. It already is a complete oak, even in its embryonic (seed) stage.
   • e. In the same way, human beings at any stage of development are still complete human beings. Saying an acorn isn't an oak tree only means that an infant isn't an adult, which we don't deny.

Objection #2: "but the fetus doesn't look like a human being."

1. Sure it does.We can respond that the fetus looks exactly like all human beings look at this stage of development.
2. Here we learn an important lesson: Living things never look the same at one stage of development as they do at another.
   • a. Change is inherent to biological development. Living things constantly change according to a predetermined growth pattern.
   • b. A monarch butterfly goes through many stages of development-from egg to larva to chrysalis to winged butterfly-but always remains a monarch.
3. The unborn is an immature human, like an infant. Living things do not become entirely different creatures in the process of changing their form. Rather, they develop according to a certain physical pattern precisely because of the kind of being they already are.
   • a. Nature knows nothing of creatures that start out as one kind of being and slowly become another kind of being.
   • b. Living creatures only change their form; what they are always stays the same.

Objection #3: "the unborn is only a blob of living tissue, not a living human being."

1. First, all human beings are blobs of tissue, in one sense.
2. Second, mere pieces of human tissue must come from some human being. If the unborn is just human tissue, then where is the human being that this human "tissue" came from?
   • a. It's not the mother's tissue, since it doesn't have her genetic fingerprint.
   • b. No, a developing zygote is a complete human being herself who will later shed cells that have her own unique genetic fingerprint.

When does the unborn become a member of the human race?

There is only one possibility: when she becomes a distinct living being at the moment of conception.

The unborn continues to be a human throughout her life until the day she dies.

Biology, laws of science, and common sense all show that an unborn child at every stage of her development is an individual, living human being.

1. She has a human genetic structure.
2. She is the offspring of human parents.
3. She will develop an unmistakable human form, given time and nurture.

Self-assessment with answers

1. Give three reasons we know the unborn is alive.
   • From intercourse to fertilization to development, there is no period of non-life.
   • The unborn is growing biologically.
   • The purpose of abortion is to kill something that is alive.
2. What is the "one-two punch" response to the claim "A woman can do whatever she wants with her own body"?
   • First, a woman cannot do whatever she wants with her own body in a civilized society. Second, the unborn's body is not the woman's body.
3. Give three reasons we know the unborn's body is not the mother's body.
   • The unborn can be a different gender.
   • She can have a different blood type.
   • She has a different brain and central nervous system.
   • She has her own unique genetic fingerprint.
4. How do we know the distinct life of the unborn starts at conception?
   • That's when we see the appearance of a unique genetic fingerprint.
5. Give two reasons why we know the unborn is a human being.
   • Her genetic code has a human signature and she is the offspring of human parents.
6. Respond to the claim "An acorn is not an oak, only a potential oak."
   • An acorn is a true oak in the infant or seed stage. It is potentially an adult tree, but it is always an oak by nature.
7. Respond to the claim "The fetus doesn't look like a human being."
   • She looks exactly like all human beings look at this stage of development.

---

Session 4 notes (The Philosophical Case)

Changing the challenge

Consider the three steps of our argument. the argument initially hinged on the second premise - that abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being - and the question "what is the unborn?"

1. We presumed everyone would agree with the first premise-that it is wrong to kill innocent human beings-and so we focused our efforts on proving the second premise.
2. If both premises are true in this valid argument, then the argument is sound and the conclusion is true also.

The only way to refute our argument is to deny the first premise and change it to something else, which pro-abortionists immediately do.

1. They change the premise "It's wrong to intentionally kill a human being" to "It's wrong to intentionally kill a human person."
2. The unborn is a human, but not a person.
3. Therefore, it is okay to kill the unborn.

We have a new task: defend the first premise.

Can you be a human and not a person?

1. Why should we accept the notion that some humans are not persons?
2. The distinction seems arbitrary.
3. Humans are personal kinds of beings.

The unborn differ from the newborn in four ways that have disqualified them as persons. the acronym sled is a helpful reminder of those differences.

1. First, size or physical appearance-the unborn doesn't look like a person.
2. Second, level of development-the unborn doesn't have the same abilities as real persons.
3. Third, wrong environment-the unborn isn't located in the right place as real persons. This is implicit in abortion laws.
4. Fourth, degree of dependency-the unborn is too physically dependent on others to be a person; he is not viable and can't survive outside the womb.

Human non-persons

"They may be human, but they're not persons."

Our opponents must have an answer to the question "what's the difference between a human being and a human person?" why?

1. If they permit the killing of a human being who's not a person, but not the killing of a human who is, then they must be clear on the difference between the two.
2. What are the specific reasons for disqualifying some humans from protection?
3. Generally, you won't get an answer. Their response is not based on principle. It's just an attempt to dismiss our view.

All lists of qualities that determine personhood have three problems.

1. They exclude obvious examples of persons (such as newborn infants, people who are asleep or in a coma, or people who are handicapped).
2. They include obvious examples of non-persons (such as animals-especially "higher" primates-and even machines, in some cases).
3. They appear arbitrary and self-serving, used as tools of the powerful to oppress the weak who are in the way and can't defend themselves.

Applying the sled test

Size or physical appearance - do humans lose value when they don't look right?

1. Does size equal value?
   • a. Men are generally larger than women.
     1. Are husbands more valuable than their wives?
     2. Can men oppress women just because women are generally smaller than them?
   • b. In the movie Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, some human beings were miniaturized. Would it be okay to kill them then because they were so small?
   • c. Do we forfeit our rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" because our bodies are not shaped like others'?
   • d. Do we cease being valuable because our bodies are missing certain parts?
2. There's a term that describes the destruction of large groups of human beings simply because of their physical appearance: ethnic cleansing.
   • a. In ethnic cleansing, valuable human beings are eradicated merely because their features-skin, hair or eye color, shape of face, blood ancestry- are different from the accepted norm.
   • b. This same reason is given to justify killing unborn human beings.
3. The movie Elephant Man further demonstrates our point.
   • a. John Merrick, the "Elephant Man," was a human being grotesquely misshapen from birth. He was caged, whipped, and treated like an animal until a compassionate doctor took him under his care.
   • b. In one scene, the Elephant Man is almost killed by a mob. In a moment of desperation, he faces his tormentors and cries out, "I am not an animal. I... am... a human... being."
   • c. The Elephant Man did not "look right," but that didn't mean he wasn't a valuable human being.
4. Human value transcends physical appearance-skin color, size, dis-figurations, handicaps. Therefore, "not looking right" cannot disqualify a human being from being valuable. Sometimes human bodies look familiar, healthy, and normal; other times they look odd and unusual. In rare cases, the body looks all wrong, but the valuable human being is still there.
5. In fact, humans are valuable even if their physical bodies are so small or so distorted that they are unrecognizable.
6. Conclusion: Size and physical appearance are irrelevant to significance.

Level of development - is a person's value defined by his abilities, bywhat he can or can't do?

1. Is a person's value simply determined by what he can do?
   • a. Do we forfeit our rights as human persons-our claim to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness-because we don't have the capabilities others have?
   • b. What if we could no longer play chess, run bases, read, or remember?
2. Many disabled adults are less "developed" than many newborns, but that hardly justifies killing them.
3. Do stronger,more capable,more intelligent people have more rights than others?
4. Do human beings become disposable simply because at their level of development they are helpless, defenseless, and dependent?
5. Human value transcends abilities or lack of abilities. Therefore, missing abilities cannot disqualify human value.
6. Conclusion: Level of development has nothing to do with value.

If a human being's value is determined by his abilities-by what he can or can't do-then all those who are handicapped or considered unfit are in danger. Only the physically perfect are safe.

Environment - do humans forfeit their worth when they change locations?

1. Baby Rachel (Rachel Caruso) was born prematurely at 24 weeks, in the middle of her mother's second trimester.
   • a. On the day of her birth, Rachel weighed 1 pound, 9 ounces, but dropped to just under 1 pound soon after.
   • b. She was so small she could rest in the palm of her daddy's hand. She was a tiny, living, human person.
   • c. Heroic measures were taken to save her life because she was a vulnerable and valuable human being.
   • d. If a doctor had killed Rachel while she quietly slept at her mother's breast, we would have recoiled in horror at this homicide.
   • e. However, if this same little girl-the very same Rachel-was inches away from the outside world, resting inside her mother's womb, she could be legally killed by abortion.
2. Here's the question: If we are valuable human persons, do we cease being valuable because we move locations by crossing the street, moving from the kitchen to the den, or simply rolling over in bed?
   • a. If it's wrong to kill an innocent human child at one location, then it's wrong to kill that same innocent human child located six inches away.
   • b. If it is considered homicide to take the life of any child like little Rachel outside her mother's womb, then why is it legally protected to take the same life for the same reasons at exactly the same stage of development while inside her mother's womb? Nothing changes except the child's location.
   • c. If this is true, then minimally all mid-to-late-term abortions (Rachel's birth age) are immoral because the liberty to kill the child is based merely on the child's location.
3. Clearly, one's environment can't be the deciding factor. Changing locations is morally trivial.
4. Conclusion: Environment has no bearing on who we are.

Degree of dependency - is human value determined by our degree of dependency on others?

1. The unborn's dependency on his mother for biological sustenance is irrelevant to the baby's value.
   • a. No baby is "viable" if degree of dependency matters.
     1. Babies of all ages depend on their mothers for feeding, whether via blood (an umbilical cord), breast, or bottle.
     2. In this sense, no child is "viable" even years after she's born.
   • b. Human beings may be dependent on others for their survival, but they aren't dependent on others for their value.
   • c. All physically dependent people are at risk if degree of dependency determines their value.
     1. If dependence on an external source makes one non-human, then all those dependent on kidney machines, pacemakers, and insulin would have to be declared non-persons.
     2. Dr. Bernard Nathanson-formerly one of the largest abortion providers in New York City and an original founder of NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League)-now points out as a prolifer that there is no ethical difference between an unborn child who is plugged into and dependent upon her mother and a kidney patient who is plugged into and dependent upon a kidney machine.
   • d. If dependency determines worth, then no moral principle protects the weak and vulnerable from the strong and powerful.
2. Conclusion: Dependency does not determine worth.

Dependence (viability) doesn't change what the unborn is: a separate, unique, living being.

We can see, then, that the unborn child differs from a newborn child in only four ways-size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency-and that none of these differences is a good reason to disqualify the baby as a valuable human person.

Intrinsic value

Human beings have intrinsic value.6 they are valuable in themselves...

1. Not for their size or physical appearance.
2. Not for their level of development (first, second, or third trimester, infant, adolescent, or adult) or anything they can do.
3. Not because of their environment or where they are located (inside the womb or out).
4. Not because they can live on their own and are not physically dependent on another.

One radio talk-show host raised an insightful question: "wouldn't i still be me?"

1. A blind man called in and said he sometimes was treated as less than a person because he was blind. The surprised host asked if a blind man was any less a person than somebody who could see. "Even if I become blind," the host said, "wouldn't I still be me?"
2. If we are no less ourselves because we lose our sight, what if we lost our ability to speak or communicate at all? Wouldn't we still be ourselves?
3. What if we were smaller in stature or weighed only one pound, like little Rachel, or even a few ounces? What if we had no legs or our bodies were terribly misshapen, like the Elephant Man's? Would we be any less ourselves? Would we be any less a person?
   • a. Here is the key question: How many body parts can we lose or alter and still be considered ourselves?
   • b. Answer: No matter how many pieces we're missing, as long as we're still alive, we would still be ourselves.
   • c. Christopher Reeve's memoir of life after his devastating riding accident in 1995 that left him a quadriplegic is entitled Still Me.

Self-assessment with answers

1. In denying the personhood of the unborn, how has the pro-abortionist shifted the argument?
   • Instead of denying the truth of the second premise of our argument, they deny the truth of the first premise. They shift the argument from defending the lives of human beings to defending the lives of human persons, which they say excludes the unborn.
2. What is the first question to ask when someone says the unborn is a human being, but not a person?
   • What's the difference?
3. What three problems do we find with lists that try to establish the qualifications for human personhood?
   • They exclude obvious examples of persons (people who are asleep or in a coma, people who are handicapped, etc.).
   • They include obvious examples of non-persons (animals-especially "higher" primates-and even machines).
   • They appear arbitrary and self-serving, used as tools of the powerful to oppress the weak who are in the way and can't defend themselves.
4. Write out the four elements of the SLED test.
   • Size
   • Level of development
   • Environment
   • Degree of dependency
5. What term describes the destruction of large groups of human beings simply because of their physical appearance?
   • Ethnic cleansing
6. What does it mean when we say human beings have intrinsic value?
   • Human beings are valuable in themselves, not for anything else they can be or do.

---

Session 5 notes (Answering the Objections)

What is rhetoric?

1. The word "rhetoric" originally referred to the art of using words skillfully.
2. The word has since taken a negative meaning, referring to the use of language in a clever but misleading way as a propaganda tool. This is what we mean when we refer to pro-abortion "rhetoric."
3. Because the pro-abortion cause is deeply flawed, the only way pro-abortionists can avoid exposure is to use rhetoric that distracts attention from the argument and the facts.

Flaw #1: pro-abortion rhetoric often attacks the pro-lifer instead of the arguments.

The ad hominem fallacy

1. Abortion advocates know that if they are forced to defend the act of dismembering a defenseless child, they will lose.
2. Instead, they attack the character of pro-lifers.
3. In logic, this attack is commonly referred to as the ad hominem fallacy, which literally means "to the man."
4. By attacking the man rather than the argument, abortion advocates divert attention off the main issue. Here are three common examples...

"It is hypocritical for pro-lifers to oppose abortion unless they are willing to care for the woman and her child."

1. It simply does not follow that because one objects to the killing of innocent human being, he must be willing to care for those that survive.
   • a. Imagine, for example, how bizarre it would sound if someone argued, "You have no right telling me not to beat my wife unless you're willing to marry her," or, "Unless you are willing to hire ex-slaves for your business, you have no right to oppose slavery." (Indeed, slave owners used this very argument a century ago.)
   • b. Of course, abortion advocates will respond to our objection against their logic by saying, "That's different! You're treating the unborn as if they are human beings, like slaves are."
     1. This response destroys their whole "hypocrisy" argument.
     2. It proves that the real issue is not the hypocrisy of pro-life behavior, but "What is the unborn?"
2. It also doesn't follow that abortion is justified when pro-lifers fail to care for those involved in a crisis pregnancy (both mother and baby).
3. Even so, pro-lifers are willing to care for those involved in crisis pregnancies.
   • a. Roughly 4,000 national and international pro-life service providers are dedicated to the well-being of mothers in crisis who choose life for their children.
   • b. They provide medical aid, pregnancy support, housing, baby clothing, cribs, food, adoption services-even post-abortion counseling services-all at no cost.

"Men shouldn't have anything to say about abortion. it's a woman's issue."

1. This challenge ignores the issue of abortion and attacks the gender of the pro-lifer. It is, therefore, an ad hominem attack.
2. As Francis Beckwith has pointed out, this attack is hardly relevant, since arguments don't have sexual organs.
   • a. Gender has nothing to do with the validity of an argument.
   • b. This reply is sexist, pure and simple.
3. If this attack were valid, should women be silent when men molest children?
4. Interestingly, the Roe v.Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion on demand in 1973 was decided by male judges.

"You don't care that unwanted children will be abused. The pro-choice motto is 'every child a wanted child."

1. When an objection begins with "You don't care...", you know it is a personal attack that strays from the argument.
2. The "Every child a wanted child" defense disguises an insidious moral equation.
   • a. Killing a child is less offensive than abusing him.
   • b. Molestation is more evil than murder.
   • c. In fact, they offer killing the child through abortion as an antidote for abuse.
3. The slogan should be changed from "Every child a wanted child" to "Every child a valued child." This makes us responsible for valuing the human beings in our care instead of discarding them when they become burdensome. Each of the above examples does nothing to refute the pro-life position that it's wrong to kill unborn human beings. Instead, they attack the individual pro-lifer.

Flaw #2: pro-abortion rhetoric often assumes the unborn are not valuable human beings.

The "begging the question" fallacy

1. Abortion advocates must show that the unborn are not valuable human beings in order to justify abortion on demand.
2. Rather than proving this with facts and arguments, many abortion advocates simply assume it.
3. When you assume the very thing you ought to be proving, you're guilty of a logical fallacy known as "begging the question."

"Women have a right to control their own bodies."

1. The statement assumes there is only one body involved in the abortion act - the mother's.
   • a. Whether or not abortion involves one body or two is precisely the point at issue.
   • b. Hence, this statement begs the question.
2. The question of whether or not abortion destroys an innocent human being must be answered before the appeal to bodily rights can be made.We must answer whether we have a right to use our bodies to harm innocent human beings.

"Without legal abortion,women will die from illegal back-alley abortions."

1. This argument is the same as saying, "Because some people may die attempting to kill their unborn child, the state should make it safe and legal for them to do so."
2. This argument still begs the question by assuming the unborn are not human.
3. Even pro-abortion philosopher Mary Anne Warren knows this is sloppy thinking: "The fact that restricting access to abortion has tragic side effects does not, in itself, show that restrictions are unjustified-since murder is wrong regardless of the consequences of forbidding it."

Flaw #3: pro-abortion rhetoric often confuses objective claims with subjective claims.

The "moral relativism" fallacy

1. Abortion advocates assume that right and wrong is different for different people.
   • a. This assumption manifests itself in statements like, "You have your truth; I have my truth. Therefore, we should be tolerant of all views. Maybe abortion is wrong for you, but it might be right for others."
   • b. This flaw turns the pro-life moral claim about abortion ("Abortion is wrong") into a preference claim ("I don't like abortion"). Of course, this misses our point entirely.
2. Twisting objective claims into subjective claims is known as "moral relativism"- the view that there are no objective standards of right and wrong, only personal preferences, like tastes in ice cream.

"If you don't like abortion, don't have one."

1. This is one of the most common ways that abortion advocates relativize the pro-life position. They treat our view as a mere preference that we're forcing on others.
2. However, it's not that we don't like abortion and would prefer that people not have one.We think abortion is wrong, whether we like it or not.
3. This argument confuses our moral claim with a preference claim. Don't let this kind of dismissal stand.

"That's just your view."

1. This argument again attempts to marginalize the pro-life view by making it relative, a mere "personal" belief.
2. Once on the television show Politically Incorrect, supermodel Kathy Ireland gave a carefully reasoned scientific and philosophic defense for the pro-life position, to which the show's host, Bill Maher, shot back, "Kathy, that's just your view."
   • a. What's wrong with this response? Maher was confusing a moral claim with a preference claim.
   • b. Ireland wasn't claiming it was "just her view." She was making a moral judgment.
   • c. Instead of dealing with the argument itself, Maher glibly and simply dismissed her.
   • d. Curiously, Bill Maher didn't respond this way about his own view or the views of his liberal guests.

"I'm personally opposed to abortion, but i don'twant to impose my view on others."

1. This relativistic response is known as the "modified pro-choice" position.
2. Though this view may seem difficult to oppose, it's actually very easy to upend if you ask the right question.
   • a. Ask the person, "Why do you personally oppose abortion?" Invariably they will reply, "I oppose it because I think abortion kills a human baby, but that's my own personal view."
   • b. At that point, repeat their words back to them, but take the spin off it: "Let me see if I understand you. You actually believe abortion kills a human child, but you think women should be allowed to kill their children if they want to."
   • c. If they object to your wording, ask them what part of their view you misunderstood. The fact is, that is the view they hold. You just carried it out to its logical conclusion.
3. Would these same people argue that if they personally opposed slavery, they would not protest if a neighbor wanted to own one? This was precisely what Stephen Douglas argued in his debates with Abraham Lincoln.3 a. This argument did not work with slavery, and it will not work with abortion. b. Either elective abortion kills a defenseless child or it does not. If it does, we should not tolerate it.

Flaw #4: pro-abortion rhetoric often confuses functioning as a person with being a person.

1. In the last session, we talked about abortion advocates' attempts to disqualify the unborn as valuable persons by using an arbitrary list of qualifications (the SLED test). Flaw #4 is an example of that effort.
2. According to abortion advocates, a person is defined by what he can and cannot do. In order to be considered a person, one must function a certain way.
3. This mentality is called "functionalism."
4. Abortion advocates like Mary Anne Warren claim that a "person" is a living entity with feelings, self-awareness, and the ability to interact with his or her environment. Because the fetus can do none of these things, she says, it cannot be a true person.
5. All lists of qualities that determine personhood have three problems:
   • a. They exclude obvious examples of persons (such as newborn infants, people who are asleep or in a coma, or people who are handicapped).
   • b. They include obvious examples of non-persons (such as animals- especially "higher" primates-and even machines, in some cases).
   • c. They appear arbitrary and self-serving, used as tools of the powerful to oppress the weak who are in the way and can't defend themselves.
6. Functionalism is seriously flawed.
   • a. First, one can fail to function as a person while still being a person.
     1. People under anesthesia or in a deep sleep cannot feel pain, are not self-aware, and cannot reason. Neither can those in reversible comas.
     2. We still value these individuals as persons, even though they are not currently functioning as persons.
     3. Remember the question we asked ourselves-"Even if I lost all of my functions, wouldn't I still be me?" Here's the reason why one can fail to function as a person and yet still be a person...
   • b. Second, the rights of individuals in our society are not based on current (actual) capacities, but on inherent capacities.
     1. This sounds complex, but we make this distinction all the time.
        • a) Newborn humans have fewer actual capacities than day-old calves. Baby humans are rather unimpressive in terms of environmental awareness, mobility, and the like, yet we don't put the calf in the nursery and the infant in the barn.We understand that although the infant currently lacks many functional abilities, it nonetheless has the inherent capacity to function as a person.
        • b) People who are unconscious or in a coma cannot presently function as persons, but they still have the inherent capacity to perform personal acts. That is why we do not kill them.
     2. If individual rights are grounded in current capacities, calves should enjoy greater moral status than newborns, and unconscious and comatose humans can justifiably be killed.
     3. From the moment of conception, the unborn human has the natural, inherent capacity to function as a person. The only thing he lacks is the current capacity to do so.
     4. That newborns cannot yet speak, reason, or perform personal acts means only that he cannot yet function as a person, not that he lacks the essential being of a person. That's why...
   • c. Third, one must be a person first in order to function as a person.
     1. Frogs do not become persons simply because they feel pain or interact with their environment.
     2. We develop the ability to act as persons only because we already are personal beings to begin with.

Self-assessment with answers

1. What is an ad hominem fallacy?
   • When you attack the person instead of the argument.
2. What is a better slogan than "Every child a wanted child"?
   • "Every child a valued child."
3. What is "begging the question"?
   • When you assume what you're trying to prove.
4. What is moral relativism?
   • There are no objective standards of right and wrong, only personal preferences.
5. Give two responses to the statement "If you don't like abortion, don't have one."
   • If you don't like slavery, don't own a slave.
   • I'm not saying I don't like abortion. I'm saying I think it's wrong.
6. What key question should you always ask when someone says, "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I don't want to impose my view on others"?
   • "Why do you personally oppose abortion?"
7. What are some of the problems with disqualifying some humans as persons because they don't function as persons?
   • You can fail to function as a person and yet still be a person.
   • Individual rights are not based on current (actual) capacities, but on inherent capacities.
   • One must be a person first in order to function as a person.