Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 24 results found
Years ago, I debated a physician-assisted suicide initiative. I was against it for what they considered religious reasons. Therefore, they thought I was forcing my religious point of view on other people. I pointed out that their point of view was equally religious. Certainly suicide will end the physical misery here, but what happens afterwards?
Excerpt about abortion and adoption from the February 17th, 2015 podcast with Greg Koukl.
Once I participated in a debate on California’s Initiative 161 concerning physician-assisted suicide. My opponents charged that I was forcing my religious views on others. They didn’t realize they were making some religious assumptions of their own.
"The Report of the Dutch Governmental Committee on Euthanasia," shows the impact of 15 years of de facto legalized euthanasia. At the time of the report (1990). nearly 20% (19.4%) of all deaths were a result of euthanasia. More stunning, 11.3% of the total number of the 14,691 deaths in the country in the Netherlands are cases of involuntary euthanasia in which people were killed against their will. Source: "The Report of the Dutch Governmental Committee on Euthanasia," Richard Fenigsen, M.D., Ph.D., Issues of Law and Medicine, Vol. 7, No. 3, 1991, p 341.
Is life a gift with a transcendent purpose to be fulfilled, or do we own ourselves and have the right to do with our bodies whatever we please? This question can be answered in part with a little reflection. Why do we feel compelled to talk someone out of suicide? Why try to dissuade them? The reason is that we have an intuitive sense that life has transcendent purpose. We're so sure of this that we try to stop people from killing themselves and "wasting" their lives.
Two thoughts here: Why it's not necessary to have a "passion for the unborn" in order to do something meaningful to save them, and why "life chains" may do more harm than good. Our last caller raised an issue I actually intended on talking about today. His question was about pro-life "life chains."The last two nights I was at different crisis pregnancy events-- a maternity home on Friday night and a crisis pregnancy center on Saturday night-- working really hard to raise funds for them. I'll be speaking at another fund-raising banquet later this week.
“Life a ‘beautiful choice?’ It’s not so beautiful for an unwanted child.” Believe it or not, a pastor made this comment. I had to ask myself, “Why isn’t an unwanted child’s life beautiful?” The answer is, because he’s unwanted. But this alone doesn’t make anyone’s life miserable. There’s more to it than this. What makes an unwanted child’s life miserable? Other people do. Unwanted children are unhappy because of the way they’re treated.
If a woman even a teenager, even a minor, even without her parents' consent has an inalienable right to have an abortion, then how does one argue she can't do something less violent to her body than such a medical procedure, and less violent to the body of another human being--the unborn child--than smoking? How does one argue this is no longer an acceptable choice?
The last few years have witnessed a stunning development in the pro-life movement, one worth considering. The problem: More and more pro-lifers refuse to discuss abortion. A new wave of pro-life leaders insist that victory will not be gained if the debate centers principally on the morality of killing the unborn.
A new challenge to the pro-life view is the claim that restrictions on abortion actually force women to become parents against their will. This, of course, sounds like an unconscionable intrusion of government into our private lives.