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.
0:00 I just have a question on how to respond to a
0:03 challenge in the pro-life
0:06 Yeah. It goes something like this: If
0:09 you believe that it would be morally
0:11 justified to use lethal force in
0:13 defending a born child in order to
0:16 protect them,
0:17 why do you not believe in using lethal force
0:19 to defend an unborn child in order to protect them?
0:22 Right, okay, this is a
0:26 fairly common challenge that is offered
0:28 to the pro-life view, and all I'll give a
0:31 response to it. I'm not going to
0:33 guarantee that the response is going to be
0:34 satisfying to people, but I want you
0:38 to see that no matter what response that
0:41 I give, and whether the response is
0:44 satisfying or not, it has no bearing on
0:50 the fundamental question of whether
0:52 abortion takes the life of an innocent
0:55 human being without proper justification.
0:58 All this question does is it shows, if
1:04 anything, if a person is not satisfied
1:06 with the answer, all it's going to do is
1:09 demonstrate that the pro-lifer is
1:11 inconsistent. That's all it can possibly do.
1:16 "You're being inconsistent." Okay, so what?
1:18 Let's just say that's the truth of the
1:20 matter. I'm being inconsistent. How does
1:23 my inconsistency somehow inveigh against
1:26 the case that we make regarding abortion?
1:30 Because our argument is very simple, so
1:33 I'm just going to go over it again
1:34 before I go to this. I think this is a
1:36 red herring.
1:37 I think this is something to drag
1:39 people off the track, so let me just make
1:41 clear what the track is first before I
1:43 go there. Our argument is very
1:47 straightforward. It is wrong to take the
1:50 life of an innocent human being without
1:52 proper justification. Second, abortion
1:57 takes the life of an innocent human
1:59 being without proper justification. That
2:02 is, the reasons people give for abortions
2:04 are not the reasons that we justify
2:06 taking any other human life for.
2:08 Therefore, abortion is wrong.
2:10 Okay, now that is a valid argument,
2:13 and what I mean by that is the
2:14 conclusion follows from the premises if
2:16 the premises are true.
2:18 Okay? That's where the action is.
2:20 Premise 1, which is a moral claim, and
2:23 premise 2 which is a factual claim. The
2:26 factual claim is secured by science that
2:28 abortion kills something that's alive,
2:30 and the thing that it kills is an
2:32 innocent human being. And so then
2:36 the question is whether the first
2:37 premise is true, which it seems to me to
2:39 be self-evidently so, though
2:42 people try to get around that with
2:43 personhood language, etc. If a person
2:46 wants to upend our point of view, rebut,
2:50 or deal with our point of view, they have
2:53 to deal with the argument proper. They
2:55 can't go to kind of psychologically
2:58 satisfying objections that point to the
3:00 inconsistencies that pro-lifers might be
3:04 guilty of,
3:05 Okay? So now that I've made that point,
3:08 let's go to the the challenge itself.
3:11 I do not think that it would be
3:14 it would be moral, to use lethal force to
3:17 protect an unborn child,
3:19 okay? And we are careful in our STR
3:23 abortion violence statement that can be
3:26 found on the website to
3:28 explain our reason for this. We
3:33 think it's always wrong to take human
3:35 life without proper justification. This
3:36 is tied to our argument against abortion,
3:38 and that's why abortion is wrong,
3:41 okay. Therefore, we should be
3:45 campaigning against abortion because of
3:47 what it does, but in opposing that evil, a
3:51 person is only justified in using the
3:53 degree of force necessary to stop the
3:57 harm that is within that person's
4:01 power to prevent. And therefore,
4:05 one is never justified in using lethal
4:07 force when other measures are available,
4:09 okay? Now what we have to take into
4:14 consideration in this particular
4:15 circumstance is the big picture. And the
4:20 big picture is abortion. Whenever
4:26 somebody's life is taken who's involved
4:28 in the abortion business, this
4:33 results in more babies dying. It doesn't
4:38 stop anybody from killing the baby that's
4:42 scheduled for abortion.
4:43 It just takes another life. And
4:49 arguably, at least, it sets sets back the
4:51 cause because of
4:55 the capital that is made from the
4:59 event by the so-called pro-choice
5:03 side. And so this is why we argue
5:07 there's no circumstances in which lethal
5:10 force is the only means available to end
5:12 the harm of abortion, which is what we're
5:15 after. And therefore, lethal means are
5:17 never really justified.
5:19 Okay. So you can find the detail there
5:22 an STR abortion violence statement.
5:25 Great. And it's the reason that we
5:27 don't condone violence and the harm of
5:29 abortion. And we don't knowingly
5:31 associate with those who do that. We're
5:33 against that. But if somebody says, "Well, I
5:36 think your point of view,
5:37 that's that's inconsistent. That doesn't
5:40 satisfy me." Okay, well, it doesn't satisfy
5:42 you. Fine. Then you're not satisfied with
5:44 my response.
5:45 You don't have to be satisfied.
5:47 The fact that you're not satisfied with
5:49 my response does not nullify the
5:52 argument that we offer against abortion
5:54 itself, which is skillfully avoided in
5:57 this kind of charge. All that you can
6:00 show is that that pro-lifers are
6:04 Okay. So what? It doesn't make abortion