Showing posts with label Apologetics-Abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Apologetics-Abortion. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
The Devil's Mousetrap (Abortion)
http://www.theapologeticsgroup.com/sh...
An excerpt from the new production from The Apologetics Group "The Abortion Matrix: Defeating Child Sacrifice and the Culture of Death" -- specifically from Chapter 3, "The Devil's Mousetrap."
s there a connection between pagan religion and the abortion industry?
This powerful presentation traces the biblical roots of child sacrifice and then explores the social, political and cultural fall-out this sin against God and crime against humanity has produced in our amoral, increasingly pagan society.
Conceived as a sequel and update to the 1988 classic, The Massacre of Innocence, the new title, The Abortion Matrix, is entirely fitting. It not only references abortion's specific target ─ the sacred matrix where human beings are formed in the womb in the very image of God ─ but it also implies the existence of a conspiracy, a matrix of seemingly disparate forces that are driving this holocaust.
The occult activity surrounding the abortion industry is exposed with numerous examples. But are these just aberrations, bizarre yet anomalous examples of abortionists who just happen to have ties to modern day witchcraft? Or is this representative of something deeper, more sinister and even endemic to the entire abortion movement?
As the allusion to the film of over a decade ago suggests, the viewer may learn that things are not always as they appear to be. "The Abortion Matrix" reveals the reality of child-killing and strikes the proper moral chord to move hearts to fulfill the biblical responsibility to rescue those unjustly sentenced to death and to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves (Proverbs 24:11,12; 31:8,9).
SPECIAL NOTE: This video is still in production and we are in the red trying to get it completed. As you might expect, the spiritual warfare surrounding this production ─ as well as with our other major new production "Is Gay OK?" Ten Things Every Christian Needs to Know ─ has been intense; our main audio recording system crashed, there has been sickness, financial attacks, we could go on. We would deeply appreciate your prayers: for wisdom, protection, provision and encouragement. And we would also ask you to consider partnering with us in the project financially. Any gift, large or small would be greatly appreciated. With any gift of $25.00 and above you will receive a pre-release copy of the DVD when it is complete; $100.00 and above and you will be listed in the credits as a partner who helped make the video possible; a gift of $1,000.00 or more and Eric Holmberg will come to your church, school or pro-life group (in the US) to speak, preach, and/or help lead a prayer vigil at your local abortuary using the new "Liturgy for Life" that he and his team has developed. You can give a gift online by clicking HERE -- or you can send your tax-deductible contribution to:
The Apologetics Group
5543 Edmonson Pike #88
Nashville, TN 37211
Product Details
• Written by: Jay Rogers and Eric Holmberg
• Produced and Directed by: Jay Rogers with James Gelet
• Hosted by: Eric Holmberg
• Interviewees Include: George Grant, Peter Hammond, RC Sproul Jr., Paul Jehle, Lou Engle, Rusty Thomas, Flip Benham, Janet Folger and many more.
• Format: Color, DVD, NTSC, Full Screen
• Language: English
• Region: All Regions
• Number of discs: 1
• Rating: Not Rated
• Studio: The Apologetics Group, Forerunner TV, R3VOLUTION MEDIA
• DVD Release Date: 2011
• Run Time: Approximately 165 minutes
Friday, October 26, 2007
Philosophy Certified my Humanity as a Fetus
From http://votelifecanada.blogspot.com
[excerpts from Life Training Institute “The Case for Life”]
[excerpts from Life Training Institute “The Case for Life”]
As Stephen Schwarz points out using the acronym SLED, differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are not relevant in the way that abortion advocates need them to be.
Sadly, opponents of the pro-life view believe that human beings that are in the wrong location or have the wrong level of development do not deserve the protection of law. They assert, without justification, the belief that strong and independent people deserve the protection of law while small and dependent people do not. This view is elitist and exclusive. It violates the principle that once made political liberalism great: a basic commitment to protect the most vulnerable members of the human community.
We can do better than that. In the past, we used to discriminate on the basis of skin color and gender, but now, with elective abortion, we discriminate on the basis of size, level of development, location, and degree of dependency. We've simply exchanged one form of bigotry for another.
In sharp contrast, the position I have defended is that no human being, regardless of size, level of development, race, gender, or place of residence, should be excluded from the moral community of human persons. In other words, the pro-life view of humanity is inclusive, indeed wide open, to all, especially those that are small, vulnerable and defenseless.
Monday, July 30, 2007
One-Minute Pro-Life Apologist
From http://www.str.org
Can you make the pro-life case in one minute?
Recently, I had a conversation with a pro-choice activist at Colorado State University. After she repeatedly talked over my questions, assuming she knew what I thought, I said, “You haven’t even given me a chance to make my case. Can I have even one minute to tell you why I am pro-life?” I got what I asked for. In fact, a crowd had formed and her friend set her watch and instructed me to begin. I was being timed.
Would you know what to say if you were in my shoes? Every day you have similar opportunities even if they are not as contentious as my campus debate. You can make a great impact if you think about what you might say beforehand. In my case, I had about three seconds to decide which tools I would include as I began my response. Then I said essentially this:
If the unborn is growing, it must be alive. And if it has human parents, it must be human.And living humans, or human beings like you and I, are valuable aren’t they? From conception, all that’s added to the unborn is a proper environment and adequate nutrition. But those are the same things all of us need. And not only that. There’s one quality all of us have equally that demands equal treatment: we all have a human nature. Racism and sexism are wrong because they pick out external differences and ignore the underlying similarity between men and women, blacks and whites. And my concern is for your rights as a woman,that you can vindicate them against the will of the majority, but you can only vindicate your rights if you base them on your human nature. But the unborn also has that same human nature, so shouldn’t we protect him from discrimination just like we protect minorities and women? (1 minute)
Outline of the One-Minute Pro-Life Apologist
1. The unborn is a human being.
2. Born or unborn, all of us need only a proper environment and adequate nutrition.
3. There is one equal quality among all valuable human beings: human nature.
4. To vindicate women’s rights we must base our case on human nature.
5. If Human nature is the valuable thing about women, and the unborn has it, we should
protect the unborn just like we protect women.
Can you make the pro-life case in one minute?
Recently, I had a conversation with a pro-choice activist at Colorado State University. After she repeatedly talked over my questions, assuming she knew what I thought, I said, “You haven’t even given me a chance to make my case. Can I have even one minute to tell you why I am pro-life?” I got what I asked for. In fact, a crowd had formed and her friend set her watch and instructed me to begin. I was being timed.
Would you know what to say if you were in my shoes? Every day you have similar opportunities even if they are not as contentious as my campus debate. You can make a great impact if you think about what you might say beforehand. In my case, I had about three seconds to decide which tools I would include as I began my response. Then I said essentially this:
If the unborn is growing, it must be alive. And if it has human parents, it must be human.And living humans, or human beings like you and I, are valuable aren’t they? From conception, all that’s added to the unborn is a proper environment and adequate nutrition. But those are the same things all of us need. And not only that. There’s one quality all of us have equally that demands equal treatment: we all have a human nature. Racism and sexism are wrong because they pick out external differences and ignore the underlying similarity between men and women, blacks and whites. And my concern is for your rights as a woman,that you can vindicate them against the will of the majority, but you can only vindicate your rights if you base them on your human nature. But the unborn also has that same human nature, so shouldn’t we protect him from discrimination just like we protect minorities and women? (1 minute)
Outline of the One-Minute Pro-Life Apologist
1. The unborn is a human being.
2. Born or unborn, all of us need only a proper environment and adequate nutrition.
3. There is one equal quality among all valuable human beings: human nature.
4. To vindicate women’s rights we must base our case on human nature.
5. If Human nature is the valuable thing about women, and the unborn has it, we should
protect the unborn just like we protect women.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Is The Fetus Merely A Potential Life?
From http://apologiachristi.blogspot.com
During this Pro-life week, I taught a class that emphasized the pro-life position. I present the position in favor of the embryo being seen as a living human being in this way. First, I note that the factual question "What is it?" is the first that must be answered. Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason and Scott Klusendorf of Prolife Training give the same illustration as a way of presenting the importance of this question:
Suppose that you are standing at your sink washing dishes when your five year old son, daughter, grandson or granddaughter comes behind you and asks "Can I kill this?" What is the first question you should ask? Of course, the first and most important question is "what is it?" If it's a cockroach, kill it! In fact, if you find anymore cockroaches, kill them, too. If it's a puppy he found in the street, then I doubt anyone would be in favor of allowing the child to kill it. What if "it" is the little boy who lives down the street? No one (except the criminally insane) would say that it's okay to kill the little boy. You see, if you don't first know what "it" is, then you cannot make a rational decision as to whether killing it is okay. As Greg Koukl, paraphrasing Francis Beckwith, says: "If the zygote or embryo or fetus is not a human being, then no justification for either abortion [or Embryonic Stem Cell Research] is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human being, no justification for taking her life is adequate."
So, how do we know that the fetus (beginning with the embryo) is a human being. Well, we know that life begins at conception. The unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. The parents are human beings and the law of biogenesis says that everything recreates after its own kind. The law of identify says that whatever a thing is it remains such as long as it exists. Moreover, it's alive! If allowed to proceed to normal development, it will grow into a full human being. It's features may change but it is fully a human being. Since it is a human being, then certain rights follow from that.
During the talk, I was confronted by a scientist who took the position with me that the fetus/embryo is merely a potential life only. Sure, everything I said was true, but the fetus had to undergrow a great deal of growth which depended upon many factors (such as being left in the womb) before it could qualify as a human being. I decided to respond in two ways.
First, I told him that the term "potential" was difficult to understand. After all, a one year old is a potential five year old. A seven year old is a potential eight year old. I am a potential ninety year old (many years in the future). I am not now a ninety year old, and I will only reach the stage of being a ninety year old depending upon many factors such as being left in an environment in which I can survive in order to become a realized ninety year old. You see, the fetus is fitted to its environment. If you take it out of its intended environment for its stage of development, it will certainly die. But is that a reason to think of it as being non-human? Consider, we all live in an environment that we are suited for in our level of development. Because we can’t live outside that environment (space, deep in the ocean, in the Antarctic) does that make it okay to kill us?
But then I took a second tact. I asked him if he was certain he knew when a "fetus" went from being a non-human being (or a potential human being) to a fully realized human being. If not, then how can he know when it has crossed the line making it okay to kill or not to kill. Isn't the better approach if we don't know when the "fetus" passes from the "potential human being" category into the "realized human being" category to refrain from killing?
In other words, I presented to him the abortion quadrilemma discussed by Boston College philosopher Dr. Peter Kreeft. Here's how it works. You begin with the question such as the following: "So, if we don't know when life begins that makes it okay to kill something? Doesn't that argue for not killing something until we're sure?" Then you throw out an illustration to make the point cleearer. Picture a hunter who hears a rustling in the bush. The rustling could be an animal that he is licensed to hunt, and killing that animal would be perfectly legal and (setting aside the difficult moral issues that involve hunting of animals not for food) ethical. But what if the rustling in the bush is another hunter? It could be, but the hunter doesn't know. Should he shoot before he's sure it isn't a human being? Obviously not. The law puts an obligation on us to not kill negligently.
The quadrilemma makes capital of the fact that there are only four options available concerning the humanity of the fetus. It is either a human being or not, and we either know what it is for certain or not. Combining these options, we come up with four categories:
If the fetus is a human being and we know it, it seems apparent that we shouldn't kill it since that would be a form of murder. If the fetus is a human being and we don't know it for certain, or if the fetus is not a human being but we don't know that for certain, then it is very much like the rustling in the bush. Wisdom tells us that it's wrong to kill the thing in the bush when we aren't certain what it is because it may be a human being. By the same token, we shouldn't kill the fetus in the womb if we aren't certain whether its a human being or not because it may be a human being and to kill a human being by accident due to mistake about his or her nature is also wrong (at minimum, negligent homicide in most states). It is only if the fetus is not a human being and we are certain that it's not a human being that it would be okay to kill it.
Of course, unless they are pro-choice zealots, they are going to have to admit that they don't know for certain that the fetus is not a human being. In fact, the argument that the fetus is necessarily a human being is much stronger than the argument that it isn't a human being. So, if they can't say with certainty when the fetus crosses the line between humanity and non-humanity, then the only wise and appropriate course is to not kill the fetus through abortion.
During this Pro-life week, I taught a class that emphasized the pro-life position. I present the position in favor of the embryo being seen as a living human being in this way. First, I note that the factual question "What is it?" is the first that must be answered. Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason and Scott Klusendorf of Prolife Training give the same illustration as a way of presenting the importance of this question:
Suppose that you are standing at your sink washing dishes when your five year old son, daughter, grandson or granddaughter comes behind you and asks "Can I kill this?" What is the first question you should ask? Of course, the first and most important question is "what is it?" If it's a cockroach, kill it! In fact, if you find anymore cockroaches, kill them, too. If it's a puppy he found in the street, then I doubt anyone would be in favor of allowing the child to kill it. What if "it" is the little boy who lives down the street? No one (except the criminally insane) would say that it's okay to kill the little boy. You see, if you don't first know what "it" is, then you cannot make a rational decision as to whether killing it is okay. As Greg Koukl, paraphrasing Francis Beckwith, says: "If the zygote or embryo or fetus is not a human being, then no justification for either abortion [or Embryonic Stem Cell Research] is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human being, no justification for taking her life is adequate."
So, how do we know that the fetus (beginning with the embryo) is a human being. Well, we know that life begins at conception. The unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. The parents are human beings and the law of biogenesis says that everything recreates after its own kind. The law of identify says that whatever a thing is it remains such as long as it exists. Moreover, it's alive! If allowed to proceed to normal development, it will grow into a full human being. It's features may change but it is fully a human being. Since it is a human being, then certain rights follow from that.
During the talk, I was confronted by a scientist who took the position with me that the fetus/embryo is merely a potential life only. Sure, everything I said was true, but the fetus had to undergrow a great deal of growth which depended upon many factors (such as being left in the womb) before it could qualify as a human being. I decided to respond in two ways.
First, I told him that the term "potential" was difficult to understand. After all, a one year old is a potential five year old. A seven year old is a potential eight year old. I am a potential ninety year old (many years in the future). I am not now a ninety year old, and I will only reach the stage of being a ninety year old depending upon many factors such as being left in an environment in which I can survive in order to become a realized ninety year old. You see, the fetus is fitted to its environment. If you take it out of its intended environment for its stage of development, it will certainly die. But is that a reason to think of it as being non-human? Consider, we all live in an environment that we are suited for in our level of development. Because we can’t live outside that environment (space, deep in the ocean, in the Antarctic) does that make it okay to kill us?
But then I took a second tact. I asked him if he was certain he knew when a "fetus" went from being a non-human being (or a potential human being) to a fully realized human being. If not, then how can he know when it has crossed the line making it okay to kill or not to kill. Isn't the better approach if we don't know when the "fetus" passes from the "potential human being" category into the "realized human being" category to refrain from killing?
In other words, I presented to him the abortion quadrilemma discussed by Boston College philosopher Dr. Peter Kreeft. Here's how it works. You begin with the question such as the following: "So, if we don't know when life begins that makes it okay to kill something? Doesn't that argue for not killing something until we're sure?" Then you throw out an illustration to make the point cleearer. Picture a hunter who hears a rustling in the bush. The rustling could be an animal that he is licensed to hunt, and killing that animal would be perfectly legal and (setting aside the difficult moral issues that involve hunting of animals not for food) ethical. But what if the rustling in the bush is another hunter? It could be, but the hunter doesn't know. Should he shoot before he's sure it isn't a human being? Obviously not. The law puts an obligation on us to not kill negligently.
The quadrilemma makes capital of the fact that there are only four options available concerning the humanity of the fetus. It is either a human being or not, and we either know what it is for certain or not. Combining these options, we come up with four categories:
Category 1. X is a human being and we know it for certain.
Category 2. X is a human being and we don't know it for certain.
Category 3. X is not a human being and we know it for certain.
Category 4. X is not a human being and we don't know it for certain.
If the fetus is a human being and we know it, it seems apparent that we shouldn't kill it since that would be a form of murder. If the fetus is a human being and we don't know it for certain, or if the fetus is not a human being but we don't know that for certain, then it is very much like the rustling in the bush. Wisdom tells us that it's wrong to kill the thing in the bush when we aren't certain what it is because it may be a human being. By the same token, we shouldn't kill the fetus in the womb if we aren't certain whether its a human being or not because it may be a human being and to kill a human being by accident due to mistake about his or her nature is also wrong (at minimum, negligent homicide in most states). It is only if the fetus is not a human being and we are certain that it's not a human being that it would be okay to kill it.
Of course, unless they are pro-choice zealots, they are going to have to admit that they don't know for certain that the fetus is not a human being. In fact, the argument that the fetus is necessarily a human being is much stronger than the argument that it isn't a human being. So, if they can't say with certainty when the fetus crosses the line between humanity and non-humanity, then the only wise and appropriate course is to not kill the fetus through abortion.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Sources to Help You Speak Against Abortion
Suggestions from Justin Taylor @ http://theologica.blogspot.com
John Piper lists some Sources to Help You Speak Against Abortion. Though I once would have vehemently disagreed with his conclusion, I now concur wholeheartedly: "May the Lord give you courage to address the carnage. I find it appalling that there are pastors and churches that NEVER address this issue."Update: Also check out Scott Klusendorf's address to 3,000 students last Wednesday at Cedarville University. It's a mix of pro-life apologetics, gospel, and tactical suggestions. In my opinion, Klusendorf is one of the most articulate, winsome defenders of life in America today.
___________________________________________________________________
From Ian Clarey @http://ruminationsbythelake.blogspot.com/
I had often heard about such videos. I wondered what it would be like if I actually saw one. How would I handle it? Where would I be? At a meeting, with a group of other watchers? I didn't expect to be sitting at my kitchen table in my Toronto apartment. I didn't know how I would feel inside. It's really psychologically affective. I can't believe that this is real and that people actually go through with this.
God help us.
John Piper has a list of resources to use in the battle against abortion ("carnage" as Piper calls it). The following link will take you to a pro-life website that has footage of an abortion running on its homepage. Do not click it unless you are prepared. I knew what I was doing when I clicked the link. What a sad, horribly sad, video. It made me want to cry and to vomit. I could never desensitise myself to this.
We decry abuse towards animals - yet this is free choice. Damn your freedom. This is murder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)