God's Existence, Science and Faith, Suffering and Evil, Jesus' Resurrection, and Book Reviews

Monday, March 4, 2019

Why Must Christians Appeal to Science In Arguing Against Abortion?

Science, Abortion, Politics, Pro-life, Pro-choice

Abortion has recently become a hot topic again in American politics. With President Trump's appointments of conservative judges to the Supreme Court and the States' legislators proposing and passing more restrictions on abortions, it is very possible that we will see the decision that legalized abortion (Roe v. Wade) challenged, if not overturned.

I was in a discussion with a fellow pro-life advocate this week, and he took issue with my use of science to make the case for the humanity of the unborn. His position was that we did not need to use science but only use the Bible to make the case. So, I was in a position of needing to defend my defense.

Sources of Truth

I want to start out by affirming my pro-life brother in his belief that the Bible is indeed sufficient to make the case, but it is sufficient to make the case to Christians- those who recognize the Bible as an authoritative (and inerrant) source of truth. But not everyone accepts the Bible as an authoritative source of truth. Not everyone in America (and especially not in American government) is a Christian, and even if people are Christians, there is no guarantee they hold the Bible to be inerrant and the final authority in their lives. For people in these two categories, making appeals to the Bible to argue for anything is not going to get very far. If we want to see a non-Christian or a more "liberal" Christian agree with us against abortion (or any other matter of truth), we need to argue to our conclusion using a source of truth that they also recognize.

Man's Fallible Ideas vs. God's Infallible Word?

This is where science comes in. Many Christians get uneasy when they hear fellow Christians say that they will "appeal to science" to argue for what is true. This is because when the hesitant Christians hear the word "science," they immediately associate it with a fallible source of truth (man). However, it is important to understand that science is the study of God's creation, His actions.

Since God's actions and God's Word comes from the same source (God), they do not conflict with one another. So, when we say that we will appeal to "science," we mean that we will appeal to God's actions, His creation, in making our argument against abortion. We are not appealing to a fallible source of truth, we are appealing to an infallible source of truth (the infallible God's actions) that both sides recognize as an authoritative source of truth. I go into much more detail on the reliability of God's actions as a source of truth and how it guides various debates in these posts:

Both sides may disagree on what makes the creation a valid source of truth (more on this later), but for the sake of needing to discover together what is true, the mere fact that we agree that the creation is a valid source of truth is enough to get the conversation going in the right direction.

Updating The US Instruction Manual

As the conversation moves in the direction of mutual recognition that the unborn are indeed human, we can then start making the case that because that is true (demonstrated scientifically), governments should officially recognize such truth in their governing documents (the Constitution in the US). While some abortion advocates may still argue that such an amendment would be "unconstitutional" based on the Roe v. Wade decision, pro-life advocates can demonstrate that scientific knowledge renders the Roe v. Wade decision invalid because it does not reflect what is true about the world we live in (reality).

It is usually a good idea for an instruction manual, that tells you how to act within a world, to have an accurate representation of that world; otherwise, if you follow its wrong instructions and advice, you will fail in that world and you (and those around you) will endure much unnecessary pain and suffering. It would stand to reason that the document, that instructs American citizens on how to act in this world (reality), should reflect a correct representation of this world (reality), which is precisely what an amendment, recognizing the scientifically demonstrably true conclusion that the unborn are human, to the Constitution would accomplish.

If an advocate for abortion (or, really, anything that doesn't reflect reality) is still against having the US citizen's instruction manual for interacting in this world (the Constitution) accurately represent this world, then we need to recognize that they are in denial of reality and want others to join them in their delusion. Such a delusion requires that the abortion advocate be immoral, anti-science, anti-human, and/or illogical (see my recent post, "What is the Intellectual Cost of The Pro-Choice Position?"). At that point, it would be wise to question whether or not we want these delusional people to govern/dictate how we interact with the real world.

Abortion, Objective Evil, and God

In the process of arguing for the Constitutional amendment, it is also recognized that killing innocent humans is objectively evil. Now, as I mentioned above, even though Christians and non-Christians can agree that God's creation is a valid source of truth, they do not necessarily agree that it is reliable because it came from the infallible Creator of the universe. Those, who deny that the creation is reliable because it came from a reliable Creator, have nowhere else to go except to simply assert that the creation is reliable with no real reason to believe so (see the book "Origin Science").

Not only does the non-Christian not have a foundation for the reliability of the creation, neither do they have a foundation for believing that murdering humans is objectively evil. In fact, they have no foundation for believing that anything is objectively evil. Using their recognition of the reality that the unborn are human (demonstrated by the source of truth that they recognize- God's creation), we can show them that our worldview provides a foundation for the reliability of their recognized source of truth AND for the objective evil of murdering the unborn human (abortion). This short video from Reasonable Faith shows how believing in objective evil logically requires that God exists:

Conclusion- Pro-Life Now and In Eternity

Christians have no reason to fear or even avoid using science in their defense of the pro-life position. As more and more legislation is proposed and passed in the US' States, Roe v. Wade will come closer and closer to being challenged, and pro-life advocates need to be prepared to use all of the resources God has given us to make the case before judges, who may not share our Christian worldview but do recognize the reliability of God's creation as a source of truth.

If Christians are willing to use the additional resources God has given us to make the case, we can take the reasoning back to its foundation and demonstrate the existence of the Creator. This will bring the (former) abortion advocate closer to eternal life through forgiveness in Christ. Using God's actions to argue against abortion not only has implications for the pro-life position in this world but for the pro-eternal life position of the next world.

Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media
For more great resources on God's existence, science and faith issues, the Resurrection of Jesus, morality and politics, theology and apologetics, follow Faithful Thinkers on Facebook. For more great resources on God's existence, science and faith issues, the Resurrection of Jesus, morality and politics, theology and apologetics, follow Faithful Thinkers on Twitter For more great quotes on God's existence, science and faith issues, the Resurrection of Jesus, morality and politics, theology and apologetics, follow Faithful Thinkers on Instagram

For more on the abortion issue see these posts:

*Image obtained from Pixabay.com by creator Thomas Brehen*

No comments:

Post a Comment

****Please read my UPDATED post Comments Now Open before posting a comment.****