Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 33 results found
Is there a legitimate dividing line between human persons and human non-persons? Greg explains why we need to be sure about the answer to this question.
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.
Greg responds to the claim that without abortion, people would be "forced to be parents."
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 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?
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.