Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 28 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.
A frequent response to the evidence against the origin of life by Darwinian evolution is, “All the difficulties with the evolution of life only apply to life as we know it. But what about other kinds of life?”
If Darwinism is true, then there is no purpose or meaning to life, there is no morality, there's no qualitative difference between humans and animals, there's no life after death, and there's no purpose to human history. Now, are you trying to tell me that it doesn't really matter if people believe we evolved or not?
Those who hold that science, by nature, cannot be integrated with theological views about the nature of the world, are out of step with a long history of science. This arbitrary, modern division between science and theology, making them enemies, was not made in the past. Most of the founders of modern scientific disciplines were Christians whose world-view was thoroughly integrated with their scientific practice. For example:
Has anyone else but me noticed an inherent contradiction in the underlying convictions that drive annual “Earth Day” celebrations? The vast majority of those who attend such fetes are Darwinists who believe humans have a moral obligation to protect the environment? My question is: Why?
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.