Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 75 results found
Greg answers a caller's question on why it's morally permissible to protect a born child using lethal force, but it's not morally permissible to protect an unborn child using lethal force. Transcript: 0:00 I just have a question on how to respond to a 0:03 challenge in the pro-life 0:05 discussion.
Here's an example of using questions to show the immorality of abortion.
A transcript from the Stand to Reason broadcast April 6, 2016 Listen to the podcast...
Greg responds to the claim that without abortion, people would be "forced to be parents."
A number of years ago, I had one of my first debates at a local college about California prop 161 which was a physician assisted suicide initiative. They were for it, and I was against it for what they considered religious reasons. Therefore, they thought I was forcing my religious point of view on other people, and that their view was religiously neutral.
Many pro-choice arguments would be unthinkable if applied to a toddler. It's a good tactic to "trot out the toddler." Show the absurdity of the argument by showing what it would mean if applied to a toddler. It refocuses the argument on the one question that matters: What is the unborn?
Greg's response to a letter which asserted there is no qualitative difference between animals and humans.
The public reaction to John Paul's recent encyclical on critical moral issues reveals the new rules of political discourse.