Thank you for you presentation, Sarah. Dr. Francis Schaeffer warned us of the dangerous direction culture was taking over 40 years ago. The pro-life argument, as Dr. Peter Kreeft presents it, is a syllogism. Premise 1: The unnecessary taking of innocent human life is always morally wrong; Premise 2: Elective abortion takes an innocent hu…
Thank you for you presentation, Sarah. Dr. Francis Schaeffer warned us of the dangerous direction culture was taking over 40 years ago. The pro-life argument, as Dr. Peter Kreeft presents it, is a syllogism. Premise 1: The unnecessary taking of innocent human life is always morally wrong; Premise 2: Elective abortion takes an innocent human life unnecessarily; Consequently, elective abortion is morally wrong. To refute this, one must argue that the fetus is not human. This was popular a number of years ago, but not today. We know better. So abortion advocates now seek to justify taking human life on the basis of certain qualifications--the fetus lacks person hood, the fetus will have a poor quality of life, the fetus is not innocent but impinges on the mother's life physically or economically, etc. In other words, the abortion movement seeks to undermine--directly or indirectly--the innocence of the fetus by suggesting that has a characteristic or relationship that in some way makes it "guilty" in some sense. They have actually turned to justifying the unnecessary sacrifice of innocent human life--even to the point of infanticide--on the basis of certain qualifications or relationships that may be imposed upon the fetus. It this is allowed, then such qualifications, as Dr. Schaeffer predicted, will eventually be imposed upon adults and even children. The infirm elderly are particularly at risk. So I urge you to hold the line. In the not distant past, we have seen how brutal assumptions easily lead to brutal society.
Thank you for you presentation, Sarah. Dr. Francis Schaeffer warned us of the dangerous direction culture was taking over 40 years ago. The pro-life argument, as Dr. Peter Kreeft presents it, is a syllogism. Premise 1: The unnecessary taking of innocent human life is always morally wrong; Premise 2: Elective abortion takes an innocent human life unnecessarily; Consequently, elective abortion is morally wrong. To refute this, one must argue that the fetus is not human. This was popular a number of years ago, but not today. We know better. So abortion advocates now seek to justify taking human life on the basis of certain qualifications--the fetus lacks person hood, the fetus will have a poor quality of life, the fetus is not innocent but impinges on the mother's life physically or economically, etc. In other words, the abortion movement seeks to undermine--directly or indirectly--the innocence of the fetus by suggesting that has a characteristic or relationship that in some way makes it "guilty" in some sense. They have actually turned to justifying the unnecessary sacrifice of innocent human life--even to the point of infanticide--on the basis of certain qualifications or relationships that may be imposed upon the fetus. It this is allowed, then such qualifications, as Dr. Schaeffer predicted, will eventually be imposed upon adults and even children. The infirm elderly are particularly at risk. So I urge you to hold the line. In the not distant past, we have seen how brutal assumptions easily lead to brutal society.