Echo Zoe Radio Podcast

Scott Klusendorf: The Case for Life

Published

For the July 2011 episode of Echo Zoe Radio, I chatted with Scott Klusendorf, president of Life Training Institute, and organization that endeavors to equip Christians to share a pro-life point of view in an articulate manner. Scott also lectures at Biola University as a bio-ethicist, and is the author of The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 50:34 — 34.3MB)

Subscribe: RSS

An outline of our discussion is as follows:

  • Scott described his background, having majored in English Literature, which helped him to organize his thoughts, as well as a Master's in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He also described the mission of Life Training Institute, to equip Christians to make a case for the Pro-Life view persuasively and graciously.
  • Scott sees the question of abortion as moral, theological, philosophical, and political.
  • The fundamental case in the discussion, in Scott's view, is that an elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being. He makes his case both scientifically and philosophically. Scientifically he makes the case from embryology that the unborn are human, and philosophically he argues that there is no essential difference between the embryo you once were and the adult you are today that would have justified killing you at that earlier state of development.
  • Scott uses the acronym S.L.E.D. to illustrate the four essential differences between embryos and adult humans:
    • Size – body size isn't considered key to the value of human life. A two-year-old is smaller than a ten-year-old, but has no less fundamental right to live than the older child.
    • Level of Development – A four year old girl does not have a fully developed reproductive system, as a twenty-four year old woman does. This does not justify taking her life.
    • Environment – Where we are has no bearing on who we are. If moving from one room to another doesn't change who you are, or the value of your life. Why would traveling eight inches down the birth canal be any different?
    • Degree of Dependency – Some newborns can only tolerate their mother's milk, and not formula. Does this dependency on mother's milk change the value of that child's life?
  • The value of a child seems to be determined by the mother in our current legal system. If the mother wants the child, it has the legal right to life, but if the mother doesn't want the child, it can be legally killed. For example, my wife is pregnant with our third child. She wants the child, so no one can legally kill him. If I, even as the father, didn't want the child, and harmed her with intent to end her pregnancy, I would be charged criminally with murder (and rightly so).
  • When asked about rape, incest, and life of the mother, Scott stated that we need to distinguish between intellectual arguments and emotional ones. To cut through the underlying assumption that the child in question is not human, he will use a tactic called “trot out the toddler”, which is to apply the same argument used to abort an unborn child to justify killing a toddler. If the argument doesn't hold water for the toddler, it's not a good argument for aborting the unborn child either. The first question that always needs to be asked is “what is it?” before the question can be addressed whether or not it is okay to kill it.
Olson boy #3
Andy's third child, due mid August, 2011
  • Scott also addressed the challenge that Christians often face: if you are not willing to adopt all of the children that are unwanted, you shouldn't argue to take away the “right” of the mother to kill her child. Again, does the same argument hold up when applied to a toddler?
  • Another objection Scott addresses is that Pro-Lifers are often in favor of the death penalty, which is argued is an inconstant view in their opinion.
  • Most arguments offered by people in favor of the pro-choice view are ad-hominem attacks. 80% of the arguments that Scott encounters fall into two categories: assuming the unborn are not human, and attacking the person rather than refuting or addressing the argument.
  • I asserted that many of the debates we encounter in the world today illustrate that most people do not have a proper understanding of logic and logical fallacies, and that it affects their thinking.
  • Scott and I discussed the legal mechanics of an abortion ban. As I understand our American legal system, and because I see abortion as an act of murder, I understand it to be an issue that the states should address as any murder is in our current legal framework, though I desire to see it criminalized throughout the country. Scott would like to see a federal ban, recognizing that life is a fundamental and inalienable right as described in the Declaration of Independence.
  • Also in the realm of the mechanics of an abortion ban, Scott addressed the consequences of abortion under a Federal ban. One common challenge pro-choicers ask is “do we execute women who have abortions?” to which Scott responds “it depends.” Motive, intent, and circumstance would play just as much a role in an abortion ban as currently play in cases of homicide today.
  • The most compelling argument from the pro-choice side, in Scott's opinion, is Judith Jarvis Thomson's Violinist argument. It surmises that a small violinist requires you to be attached to him for nine months in order to sustain life while he receives treatment for a kidney disorder. She grants the humanity of the unborn child, but treats him/her like a parasite. Though Scott finds this the most compelling argument he's heard, he is certainly not persuaded by it.
Additional Resources
Get Connected

Sign up for email notifications of new episodes of Echo Zoe Radio, and follow me on Twitter, and/or Facebook! Note that if you've followed Echo Zoe on Twitter in the past, you are probably now actually following my personal Twitter account, and will need to re-follow @EchoZoe for the blog and podcast.

You may also like