PART 2: Let’s discuss PRO-HUMANITY APOLOGETICS
Apologetics are used as a defense and rational justification of Christianity, but the definition also includes “a DEFENSIVE method of argument”
It is Not apologizing for your views, but clearly proving and defending truth, while respecting all life
It IS Humble compassion – recognizing the possible trauma of others
It IS Finding common ground
It IS Asking clarifying questions
Whether we are arguing with a follower of Christ or an unbeliever, we do this with GENTLENESS and love for the person with whom we are speaking.
Sometimes you don’t know when you are speaking with someone who has been wounded by abortion. Sometimes the truth hurts, so we must always remember to include the MERCY of Christ in our conversations.
Next, it is crucial to recognize EXTREMIST ARGUMENTS and know how to address them.
Our Manual discusses the definition and inconsistencies of these:
An extremist argument requires an extremist position. (In other words, saying “my body, my choice” as though everyone gets to choose what happens to their body in any and every circumstance, while saying there are times when someone doesn’t have that right.).
Extremist arguments must be believed in 100% of situations or they are inconsistent. For example: Some people might say, “Dogs are people too.” Saying that means that dogs should have all the rights and responsibilities of a human. Most of us would definitely consider this an extremist view. Why?
While I love dogs, and they have individual, unique personalities (like people), and they should be treated w/care, and not abused – they don’t have the same rights as people. (here, the extremist view falls apart). Dogs can’t legally own property, sue other people, and can’t legally marry. So, when I say, “Dogs are people too”, the argument is inconsistent – no matter how much I love dogs.
I must determine the correct argument. A correct argument would be to say, “Dogs can be part of a family and should be treated humanely.”
“My body my choice” (MBMC) is used frequently regarding abortion and more recently regarding masks and vaccines.
Regarding Abortion: What about the choice of the preborn? Abortion takes the innocent human life of a person who does not get a choice. In Objection #3 in Manual – the extremist argument fizzles out when the arguer realizes she feels it’s too late for abortion after 20 weeks: “MBMC” no longer applies.
 
1. The pro-choice argument, “my body my choice,” which takes the life of an innocent human, seems INCONGRUENT with the parallel liberal ideology that mandated masks and vaccines, in order to protect others. One is all about my body, the other is all about other’s bodies –
a. “MBMC” is always an EXTREMIST argument.
b. If you make an argument that logically requires an extremist position, and you don’t take that extremist position, you are being INCONSISTENT.”
c. MBMC is extremist for ALL of Us
d. We, as Believers of the gospel, need to know how to NAVIGATE this argument.
— Masks and vaccines should be optional (a new variation of “MBMC”) It doesn’t apply it in all other situations: You can’t legally drive car w/o seatbelt; it’s illegal to commit suicide, take illicit drugs, or prostitute yourself. It seems incongruent with telling a woman she shouldn’t be able to have a “medical procedure” on her body. (Obviously it’s NOT just a medical procedure, but pro-choice people have not yet been enlightened to that fact.)
— Depending on the point of view, there are inconsistencies in the opposing opinion.
— Navigating the Conversation –
To the pro-life camp, abortion takes the life of a human being who has the right to be protected, regardless of a woman’s rights to her own body. To the pro-choice camp – the vaccine mandate requiring all to be vaccinated to protect others – usurps the right of others (MBMC) to not be vaccinated, regardless if someone believes it will harm their own body.
2. Identifying the ‘Real’ Argument –
a. The disconnect between pro-choice vs pro-life advocates is which lives (bodies) have the RIGHT to be protected.
— the Pro-choice “MBMC” mantra is really about when human life begins and when a fetus becomes a human with the rights of a person.
— the Pro-life vax/mask “MBMC” argument is really about the “safety” of the vaccine on the human body and whether it really saves lives or actually spreads the virus more.
It’s always fun to use the opponent’s saying for our benefit, but it doesn’t resolve the correct arguments.
b. First things first – We believe that life begins at conception (fertilization). And because of that belief, pregnancy and abortion are no longer solely about the mother’s body. Once we can have the rational conversation, as in Objections #4 and #5 in the manual, we can put into perspective our concern over the number of lives lost to ABORTION vs the number of lives lost to Covid.
c. With Whom Should We Have This Argument?
Articulating the response well with unbelievers is important, but we need to first help the body of CHRIST see our own flawed arguments.
d. Some “Fodder” for the Argument – (From Joni’s blog). When we are silent in the church about the fact that more than one child of a CHRISTIAN dies by abortion every two minutes in America, we are not communicating the value of both the child and her parents, which gives them (and often the grandparents) the false belief that abortion isn’t that big of a deal. Meanwhile, they suffer with this secret sin and devastating loss all alone, and the tragedy repeats itself endlessly right under our noses. We should be deeply concerned about this.
Google