A number of years ago, I was asked to debate abortion at the University of Arkansas. My opponent was a leading abortionist in the state. I lost the coin toss so I went first and began to detail medical arguments against abortion. Then my opponent took the podium and began to read from a prepared speech about Christians who presume to know the will of God and force the Bible and their view of abortion on society.
Then I got up and gave legal arguments against abortion. Then it was my opponent's turn again. He again read from a prepared text about the dangers of the Christian right and Christians who use Scripture to subjugate women's bodies. When it was my turn again, I talked about philosophical arguments against abortion. By that time, my opponent started abandoning his prepared text. He assumed that I would use biblical arguments against abortion, because he assumed that those were the only arguments Christians had against abortion. Obviously, he was wrong.
I thought of that debate the other day when I heard about Princeton professor Robert George. He was scheduled to debate deconstructionist Stanley Fish on the subject of abortion at the American Political Science Association. In published articles, Fish dismissed arguments against abortion because they were based on "religious conviction" alone. He argued that science supports the case for abortion.
But George argued that science supports a pro-life view and sent a copy of his paper to Stanley Fish before the debate. When the debate opened, Fish shocked the audience by throwing the paper on the table and saying that the pro-life position is supported by scientific evidence. The audience sat in stunned silence.
The pro-life position isn't just supported by biblical arguments. There are scientific, legal, and philosophical arguments against abortion as well.
I'm Kerby Anderson of Probe Ministries, and that's my opinion.