|
Los Angeles talk
radio station KKLA recently broadcasted a speech by
Christian bioethicist Scott Klusendorf in which he outlined a
compelling, yet simple way to articulate the case for life. Using
the acronym "SLED", Klusendorf explained how to argue against
abortion without using the Bible - which is critical when arguing
with nonreligious people. Christians are required by God to
argue effectively for what they believe, Klusendorf explained,
citing 1 Peter 3:15. Yet the pro-life movement often attempts to
argue simply from a Biblical basis, which is ineffective when
discussing life issues with people who dismiss the Bible
altogether. To make the case for abortion, pro-abortionists must
demonstrate that the unborn do not possess personhood, otherwise
abortion would most certainly be murder. To build this case, they
attempt to prove that the unborn are different in fundamental ways
that "prove" that they are not "persons". Klusendorf refutes their
arguments simply and effectively by pointing out that there are
only four fundamental differences between a fully grown human
being and an unborn one, and none of the differences provide
justification for abortion:
Size: The unborn are
typically smaller than those already born, but since when did size
have anything to do with personhood? People come in all different
sizes and no reasonable person would attempt to make the case that
people of one particular size are more human than anybody else.
Level of development:
The unborn are the least developed of us, but this is absolutely
irrelevant to personhood. The unborn are less developed than
newborns, but newborns are less developed than children, and
children are less developed than adults. Children do not possess
fully developed reproductive systems, yet we would not attempt to
make the case that they are not fully human because of it. We
certainly would not make the case that we should be able to kill
children because they are less developed, nor should we make such
a case regarding the unborn.
Environment: A
person's location has nothing to do with their personhood. Does
one become more or less of a person by walking from the parking
lot into their workplace? Or out of their house to their car?
Traveling down the birth canal is as irrelevant to personhood as
traveling down the street.
Degree of dependency:
This cuts to heart of one of the favorite arguments of the
abortion crowd - the issue of viability. In other words, is a
fetus really human if it cannot survive outside the womb? The
abortionist would argue "no", but the point is irrelevant to the
personhood of the unborn child. There are fully grown adults that
depend on caregivers, life support equipment, and medications to
survive. It would be unthinkable to advocate killing such people
simply because they are dependent upon another person or a machine
to survive, and it ought to be the same for the unborn.
|
