Monday, June 8, 2026

When Culture Hates You: Persevering for the Common Good as Christians in a Hostile Public Square by Natasha Crain Chapter 9

 


Chapter 9: Cruel Rights-Deniers

The view from Transgender Activists 

“Transitioned it to live an authentic self in the world “


-today the US celebrates a Transgender Day of Visibility every March

-culture has demanded for unwavering affirmation


***to not affirm the reality of people’s ability to change genders and to not support the corresponding societal accommodations of such changes is now considered a cruel violence to the transgender community


-it has been made to be a matter of life and death for people who are suffering and suicidal

-even churches are pressured to be in consensus with culture

“People of faith are doing the loudest and most significant harm to the transgender community personally and politically” (Lutheran leader Jaime Bruesehoff).


-there is a push that anyone who doesn’t believe a person can change genders is guilty of life-threatening harm to transgender people


Definitions:

History:

-the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is a reference book on mental health published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA)

-1980: gender-related diagnosis appeared for the first time in DMS history

-transsexualism and Gender Identity Disorder of Childhood (GIDC) were listed in the Psychosexual Disorders category

-DSM-III: transsexualism refers to adults with a “persistent sense of discomfort and inappropriateness about one’s anatomic sex and a persistent wish to be rid of one’s genitals to live as a member of the other sex.”

-GIDC: referred to children with a similar sense of discomfort and “the desire to be, or insistence that he or she is, of the other sex.”


**in both cases, the prevalence was noted as “rare”


-transgender activists became increasingly concerned about these new entries in the DSM because inclusion in the DSM implied that want to or feeling the need to live as the opposite sex is a mental health problem in need of diagnosis and treatment


***many activists didn’t want what they considered to be an identity stigmatized as a mental illness 


-at the same time, they realized that a diagnosis is typically required for access to the medical interventions necessary for gender transitions, so eliminating transgender-related entries from the DSM would be problematic as well


-1994: the DSM, fourth edition, there was a shift but not far enough

-2013: DSM-5 came out with a profound shift

-DSM explicitly stated that “gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder”

-Gender Identity Disorder was correspondingly replaced by Gender Dysphoria, a diagnosis representing only the:

“psychological distress that results from incongruence between one’s sex assigned at birth and one’s gender identity.”


-APA: “Guide for Working with Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Patients” explains the significance of the diagnostic shift 

-the change focused diagnosis on the gender identity-related distress that some transgender people experience

-gender identity if related to distress

-the presence of gender variance is not the pathology but dysphoria is from the distress caused by the body and mind not aligning and/or societal marginalization of gender-variant people 


***the persistent desire or felt need to live as a member of the opposite sex was not longer considered a disorder to be treated 


-the shift: identity is be embraced


DSM-5:

-didn’t cause culture to begin thinking of being transgender as an identity, but it did give validation to existing ideological trends

-people’s understandings of being transgender as an identity not as a disorder 

-transgender identity claims can be traced to cultural developments that have taken place over hundreds of years

“Those who see being transgender as an identity have what functions as an expert witness–if the main professional association of Psychiatric experts says it’s true, it must be true.”


-anyone who disagrees that gender can be separated from biological sex is now looked at with contempt for holding archaic beliefs inconsistent with modern psychiatric science

-the diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria implies that a person with feelings of gender incongruence needs help changing their body, not their mind


***the shift is to view transgender as a mentally healthy identity that requires people to view the body as the problem


-the culturally approved assumption is that transgender people know who their authentic self is and need a body to match

-to suggest there’s a need to change a person’s mind is to suggest that people aren’t the authority on who their true self is

-to say there is something wrong is deeply offensive in today’s culture


***you must unquestioningly affirm transgender feelings as corresponding to reality 


-when a person does feel gender-related mental distress, the blame is now largely placed on those who don’t affirm their identity

“It’s important to remember that while being transgender is not in itself an illness, many transgender people need to deal with physical and mental health problems because of widespread discrimination and stigma” (Nation Center for Trandsgender equality).


-if society were fully accepting of transgender identities and provided the accommodations necessary to support those identities, transgender people wouldn’t feel distress

-when they do feel distress, it reflects a problem with society, not the person

-the shift to viewing being transgender as an identity has had far-reaching implications for society, especially for those who don’t affirm that view


Numbers: The Transgender Explosion

-DSM-III first described transsexualism in 1980 

-DSM-5 described transsexualism as Gender Dysphoria is 2013

-Past: people with gender-related distress is exceedingly rare

-Being transgender is no longer rare and no longer biologically male 

-for the first time in medical history, biological females make up a large number, and possible the majority, of those identifying as transgender

-Before 2012: there was no scientific literature at all on girls ages 11-21 having developed gender dysphoria


***rapid onset gender dysphoria exploded among females (65% of the adolescent girls who had discovered transgender identity in adolescence out of the blue)


-due to prolonged social media immersion

-due to girls’ friend groups  


-Gender Dysphoria cases were exceedingly rare, predominantly male, and nearly always emerging in early childhood

-2018: Littman named the rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) after all her findings

-regular people were appreciative of her findings

-Transgender activists were furious and labeled Littman a bigot and a bully

-they called her work dangerous and said it would lead to “worse mental health outcomes” for transgender adolescents


***if it is assumed that being transgender is an identity based on a person's knowledge of their authentic self, then suggesting it might sometimes be nothing more than peer contagion is going to ruffle a lot of feathers


Dangers:

-we are not talking about a group of girls dressing like boys for a few months because their friends are (a social contagion)


-we are talking about girls taking puberty-blocker

-we are talking about girls seeking to have double mastectomies

-we are talking about girls making serious, life-altering decisions 


Personal Story: Helena Kirshner

-she was 15 years old when she was introduced to transgender ideology on social media and on microblogging site Tumblr (transgender ideology meaning the worldview assumptions driving the idea that a person’s gender can differ from their biological sex)

-she began to identify as nonbinary

-by 18, she considered herself a transgender man

-she participated in a year and half of testosterone

-then she realized she has caused a “disaster” for her health and decided to detransition

-she made the social and physical changes to be able to still live again as her biological sex 

-during her detransition, she gave a detailed account of what led her to seek a gender change

-she explained how it was the critical theory-based social justice thinking

-she didn’t want to be seen as “privileged,” “white,” “straight,” and “cisgender”

In her words:

-you can’t change your race

-you can absolutely change your gender

-instantly you are transformed from oppressing, entitled, evil, bigoted, selfish, disgusting (cisheterosexual) white scum 

-you become a valid trans person who deserves celebration and special coddling to make up for the marginalization and oppression you supposedly now face

-no longer expected to do much groveling as you are now part of the marginalized groups 

***I was incentivized to be a transgender


Detransitioners:

-adolescent girls tell their stories of struggling with social acceptance, depression, anxiety, and other mental health issues only to find a community online ready to embrace and celebrate them

***as long as they take on the “oppressed” identity (oppressed according to the neo-Marxist social binary)

-desperate for attention and affirmation, they were willing to do anything to be part of a marginalized group

***gender is the one identity characteristic culture says you can actually change 


***Critical theory-based social justice thinning has been the bus driving crowds of young girls to a presumed transgender utopia, but as many look back they have realized it only delivered them into a nightmare


-there is a connection between the seismic cultural shift on transgender issues through the lens of two especially important drivers: definitions and numbers


1-the growth in transgender numbers impacted

2-the shift to culture viewing being transgender as an identity wouldn’t have been so evident


-if the numbers had not jumped it would have just stayed as an insignificant fringe issue

-the shift to the identity view facilitated the numbers explosion


***being transgender went from a disorder to a celebrated identity due to the concurrent shift in critical theory-based social justice thinking


-the redefinition of beingtransgender is an identity broke the dam and secular social justice ideology brought the flood

-a child’s gender has been given the visibility of the subject in culture that pervasively promotes secular justice ideas 

-more school-age children are identifying as transgender because public schools are teaching students as early as kindergarten that they may be a gender other than their biological sex

-this encourages kids to explore gender in ways they may never have otherwise considered

-there are more adolescent girls identifying as transgender due to the factors we discussed surrounding ROGD

-there are more boys and girls identifying as transgender when feeling various kinds of discomfort with their bodies which may be just “classic” gender dysphoria

-depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and autism are all highly correlated in teen reporting feelings of gender incongruence

-with increased social acceptance and celebration comes an increased attribution of diverse issues to Gender Dysphoria

-there are more people young and old willing to identify as transgender when experiencing gender dysphoria given that there is now increased social acceptance


***culture is ready to receive, with open and affirming arms, anyone who questions their gender 

Three truths Christians must Understand:

1-biological sex cannot be separated from gender

-the heart of today’s transgender ideology is the notion that individuals determine their identity and that one aspect they can determine is their gender (which may or may not line up with their biological sex)

-the first facts established in the Bible is that God created humans


“God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1: 27).


-these male and female forms aren’t incidental biological categories mentioned in passing

-Scripture is essential to God’s entire plan for humanity

-men and women are to come together in marriage as “one flesh” because of their physical complementarity, so they are able to fulfill the command to “be fruitful and multiply”

-the relationship between a husband and wife is so important it’s considered to be a picture of Christ’s relationship to the church 

-Scripture never envisions men and women as disembodied “genders” that can be separated from their bodies

-our bodies are a physical expression of maleness and femaleness 


“Men and women are more than just their anatomy, but they are not less. Our anatomy tells us what gender we are” (Ethics Professor Andrew W. Walker)


-truly love transgender people in a biblical sense, but we need to advocate for what’s objectively good for them 


2-because biological sex cannot be separated from gender, “gender-affirming” medical and surgical procedures cause grave bodily harm to transgender people

-culture now views being transgender as a body problem, medical and surgical procedures to alter the body are correspondingly considered to the the solution

-this solution is euphemistically labeled gender-affirming care and refers to the health services provided to those who want to align characteristics of their physical body with their transgender identity

-among the nonsurgical options: puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and voice therapy

-among surgical options: breast removal, breast augmentation, facial feminization, hysterectomy, vaginoplasty (creating a vagina for biological men), and phalloplasty (creating a penis for a biological woman)


***these are clearly serious medical decisions 


-they are considered to be the healthy, lifesaving response to gender dysphoria when the body is assumed to be the problem

-biblically, the body isn’t the problem

-a person’s body reflects their God-given gender as it should 

-these procedures are harmful, destructive, mutilating, and sterilizing 

-determining what’s beneficial or harmful for a person or object depends on the purpose of that person or object

-humans are created for something = to know God, love God, and make Him knowns

-God has a design for human flourishing including gender and sexuality

-our design facilitates the meeting of our objective purpose

-”gender-affirming care” works against Dog’s design

-it can never be beneficial not matter how much any individual may feel it it

-forcing a body to develop traits other than it was designed to have, removing healthy organs, or creating artificial organs that will never function the way real ones do will only ever be harmful


***this doesn’t mean transgender people don’t need compassionate help


3- transgender people need truth-driven, compassionate mental health care

-gender-affirming procedures are considered lifesaving because people with gender dysphoria report tragically high rates of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts

-the body is presumed to be the the problem that’s causing suicidal thoughts or desires 


***fix the body = mental health will be good = presumed the lifesaving solution


-parents of children exhibiting gender dysphoria are being blackmailed into supporting gender-affirming procedures

-culture will tell you that you literally will have blood on your hands if you do not support “gender affirming care”


***emotionally weighted accusations are difficult to respond to 


-culture presupposes that gender dysphoria is a body problem that needs to be fixed, so we mustn't get in the way of the help people need 


***mentally suffering people need is truth-driven, compassionate mental health care, not access to physical destruction 


The Transgender Explosion Affects Everyone:

-42% of Americans say they know a transgender person, that means the majority of Americans 


***not only do Christians need to properly care for individuals in our own lives who struggle with this issue, we need to care for the common good of a society that’s promoting systemic changes to accommodate the destructive falsehoods of transgender ideology 


-Christians must lead the way in voicing support on Legislative action:

1-maintaining the division of sports teams based on biological sex

2-protecting minors from gender-affirming procedures (medical and/or surgical)

3-establishing school district policies that protect parents and kids from the impact of transgender ideology in a variety of ways


-the bills are labeled as anti-trans, but they are good for confused transgender people and pro-good for everyone else

-the trans movement are still trying to gauge legislation to pass bills:

-to medically facilitate youth gender transitions

-hide youth gender transitions from parents

-promote transgender ideology in public schools at younger and younger ages


***trans advocates claim they are doing so in the name of rights, love, equality, protection, and human dignity 


-Culture may be deceived by transgender ideology, but Christians can’t sheepishly play along

-we are to follow the Good Shephard, we must boldly follow His voice and His alone 

-doing so  is the only way to truly love transgender people no matter what the culture claims 


Responses to Challenges:

1-no matter how much you refuse to accept it, transgender people exist

-no one denies people exist who believe they’re a gender other than that which corresponds with their biological sex

-that’s different than believing people exist whose gender is actually different from their biological sex 

-Christians do not believe gender can be separated from biological sex because the Bible teaches God created each person male or female

-our bodies reflect that God-ordained design even when individuals sometimes fell otherwise 


2-if you believe in God, you should believe God made transgender people the way they are and let them live as their authentic selves 

-I do not merely believe in a creator God–I believe in a God who has revealed, in the Bible, the truth about who He is, who we are, and the way the world is 

-the Bible teaches that God created each person male or female and that our physical bodies reflect that God ordained design

-from a biblical perspective, a person’s true or authentic self–including their gender—is defined by God, not by the individual  


4-Trans rights are human rights

-human rights are rights to which every person is entitled by their Creator and are based on equality in human value and dignity

-equality in human value and dignity doesn’t imply that the government must give transgender people every right they seek 


5-intersex people prove there are more than two genders

-intersex conditions are disorders of male/female sex development, not the development of a third sex

-this is unrelated to transgender issues, where sex development is normal, but a person feels like they’re the opposite sex


What to do:

-make your voice heard with your elected representatives on transgender-related bills in progress’

-support bills limiting gender-affirming medical and surgical  procedures for youth

-encourage others to recognize the harm being done to kids in the make of “lifesaving” care

-gather information on how your local school district handles gender-related issues and bring concerns to your school board

Make note:

-Supreme court requires school curriculum to be transparent

-these policies requires educators to seek permission form parents before teaching topics related to gender identity or sexuality

-Supreme court sides with parental disclosure rules

-these policies require school staff to inform a student’s parents if the student show signs that they’re identifying as transgender

Ex. schools are not allowed to allow a student to go by a different name or using pronouns that don’t align with their biological sex 

***this should be a basic school policy, but in many schools to through great lengths to hide a student’s transition from their parents 

-Be aware if schools deviate from sex-based designations for school facilities

-these policies require students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that align with their biological sex

-advocate for sex-based designations for school facilities

-these policies require students to participate on sports teams that align with their biological sex

-refuse to participate in pronoun declarations

-asking for pronouns assumes that transgender ideology corresponds with reality and therefore every person needs to identify with their gender because it may not be the same as their biological sex

-to declare your pronoun is to tacitly participate in the promotion of a false worldview

-Christians need to reject and speak up when organizations impose this falsehood on others

-speak yo when companies promote transgender ideology

-take the time to say something when you see companies promoting transgender ideology through their ads, products, or online messaging 

-reach these companies through customer channels to voice your concerns graciously and let them know you will be spending your money elsewhere

-take the opportunity to spend time with a transgender person and hear about their experiences firsthand

-make it personal not condemning

-Christian can think rightly about transgender ideology

-just a reminder that we are speaking to people

-if you look at them as human they might be more willing to share about their gender experiences over lunch

-talking with transgender people will help you engage on this issue form a more personal perspective

-speak to the youth group in your church or other churches about gender from a biblical perspective 

-teens are particularly exposed to transgender ideology

-develop a talk to educate the youth at your church on gender from a biblical perspective and how that differs from the transgender ideology so popular today

-discuss how they can love their transgender friends without affirming their transgender identity

-start a ministry at your church to reach transgender and/or detransitioning people

***this is a significant ministry gap

-Christian ministries exist to reach them


***Sadly, if you google “Christian transgender ministries" you will find more churches who are affirming people in their transgender identity


-If you have the desire and ability to reach people struggling with gender-related issues, talk to your church leadership and consider what you can do 


When Culture Hates You: Persevering for the Common Good as Christians in a Hostile Public Square by Natasha Crain Chapter 8

 Chapter 8: Controlling Misogynists

The View from Pro-Choice Activists

Cut through culture’s confusion to see abortion for what it is and gain the clarity needed to advocate for righteousness in the midst of today’s greatest evils 


Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization: There is no constitutional right to abortion


-the 1973 decision Roe v. Wade in a 6-3 decision was overturned 

-pro-life Christians celebrated the Dobbs decision as an incredible win

-pro-choice culture displayed outrage, indignation, and dismay

-pro-choice claimed the Supreme court has just taken away women’s rights


“After today, young women will come of age with fewer rights than their mothers and grandmothers had” (Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan).


“From the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of. A state can force her to bring a pregnancy to term even at the steepest personal and familial costs” (Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan).


***the narrative that women were being stripped of basic reproductive rights, effectively putting their bodies under the control of the government forcing them to give birth, was an emotionally powerful motivator for the pro-choice cause 


-activists seized on the opportunity to label those who are pro-life forced birthers

-they drew parallels to the dystopian novel, The Handmaid’s Tale (in which a theocratic government forces subservient women to bear children)

-there were rallies and protests across the country and turned social media into a platform for rage

-pro-choice culture that the pro-life movement is closely associated with Christianity 

-media outlets tried to convince Christians they don’t have to be pro-life

-media outlets tried to tell the public that it pro-life was just a reflection of religious extremists 

Ex. Rolling Stone Headline: Think Christianity is anti-abortion? Think again. Extremists have sought to use religion as a tool to dominate women’s bodies, but Christians have a long history of being in favor of abortion rights.”


***culture’s message was quite clear after the Dobbs decision that women had lost important rights and religious people were to blame 


***Dobbs didn’t make abortion illegal, it only gave abortion policy decisions back to the individual states 


Understanding the lost rights of the Dobbs decision:

-the cultural narrative on abortion revolves around the language rights

-we need to establish what rights were lost

-and if the loss of rights is inherently a bad thing


1973 Roe v. Wade

-the Supreme Court had concluded that a right to privacy is inherent in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

-justices inferred that privacy included “a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy”

-the original purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, was far removed from granting abortion rights

-its purpose was to grant citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States-including formerly enslaved persons


****14th Amendment: enslaved persons = equal protection under the law 


“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


-the Constitution does not explicitly mention any right to privacy

-justices stated that there is an implied right to privacy

-justices then inferred that privacy would include a woman’s right to “terminate” her pregnancy

-so that is how a constitutional right to abortion was found


2022, Dobbs decision

-the ruling that Roe was “egregiously wrong” and its reasoning “exceptionally weak” and an “abuse of judicial authority”


“The only legitimate unenumerated rights (rights not explicitly stated in the Constitution) are those ‘deeply roped in the Nation’s history and tradition’ and ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’” (Justice Alito).


-the justices in Dobbs weren’t making a statement about the morality of abortion

-the justices were not making abortion illegal

-the justices weren’t’ trying to reflect popular opinion on the subject 


***they were concluding that a judicial error had been made in Roe because the Court at the time had asserted a constitutional right that didn’t exist 


-if there is no constitutional right to abortion then abortion policies going forward would necessarily fall under the jurisdiction of individual states 


****a constitutional right to abortion was “lost”


-all 50 states have the option to give women unfettered rights to kill their preborn babies 

-the court simply concluded that the Constitution itself doesn’t confer that right 


***Is the loss of rights inherently bad?


-to understand the difference between God=given and government given rights 

1-God-given rights are those that precede any human law

-they are rights that every human being is entitled to by virtue of their humanity

-the Founding Fathers in America referenced such rights in the Declaration of Independence 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”


-the US Constitution was designed to protect those rights from government violation

-these God-given rights are, by definition, objectively good because they’re rooted in the authority and nature of a perfect God

-the loss of God-given rights, therefore, is inherently bad

-a person losing something good to which they’re entitled by their Creator 


2-Government-given rights can arbitrarily given and taken away at the discretion of those in power because these rights aren’t rooted in an authority higher than the state

-government-given rights are not necessarily good

-Americans had the government-given right to hold slaves

-the government later took away that right 

-no one today laments the loss of slaveholding rights because we recognize that it was a right people shouldn’t have had in the first place 


1896, Plessy v. Ferguson

-the Court affirmed the right of states to maintain racially segregated public facilities, in a doctrine of "separate but equal”

-in 1954, the court reversed the ruling in the Brown v. Board of Education stating that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal

-whether the loss of government-given right is good or bad it depends on whether the right itself is good or bad

***if it’s a right to do evil by enslaving another human as property then the loss of that right is actually a good thing 


-so when people are outraged or indignant over the idea that women “lost rights” we need to remember that losing government given rights isn’t necessarily bad

-the language has a strong emotional pull, but as Christians, we need to think more deeply


***Is the government-given right to kill a preborn baby an objectively good right we should want to protect? 


Abortion isn’t Complicated:

-Christians are the religious group most often associated with the pro-life movement

BUT

-many Christians believe abortion is such a complicated issue that we should agree to disagree in order to not drive women away from church

***the morality of abortion isn’t complicated


-the circumstances that lead to unwanted pregnancies may be complicated, but the circumstances don’t change the morality of ending a life

-abortion is emotionally complicated but not morally so 

-separating a person’s circumstances can result in a person feeling the desire or need to sexually assault someone else

-societies determine that rape is wrong and make it illegal accordingly–no matter what kind of awful like circumstances a perpetrator may have had that contributed to their actions


***Is it morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being?


-the Bible unequivocally condemns the intentional taking of innocent human life

-It is the 6th Commandment given to Moses in Exodus 20:13

“Thou shall not kill”


“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image” (Genesis 9”6).


“Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked” (Exodus 23:7).


“There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are abominations to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood” (Proverbs 6: 16-17).


***we know from both the Bible and science that preborn babies are, indeed, human


-the Bible doesn’t explicitly state that the preborn are human, but it speaks that we assume as much


Ex.

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you: I appointed you a prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5).

“You formed my inward parts: you knitted me together in my mother’s womb” (Psalm 139:13).

“The Lord called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name” (Isaiah 49:1).

“He will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb” (Luke 1:15).

“When Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit” (Luke 1: 41).


-science of embryology affirms that human embryos are not creatures of a different kind from human beings, but are human beings at different stage of development 


“Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, the zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell (capable of giving rise to any cell type) marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”


-the moment sperm and egg come together, a unique human being is formed

-pro-choice activists try to avoid the implications of this undeniable fact

-they claim there are certain criteria a human must meet to have the value we normally associate with humanity

-humanity = a “person” with the right to life

-the Bible makes no such distinction in value between humans

-pro-choice do not look the the Bible as their authority for truth 

-nor do they recognize the differences in human characteristics as a reason not to kill an unborn human


***four key differences between embryos and adults are nonessential 


1-size

-toddlers are smaller than adults but we do not justify the killing of toddlers so why do we use body (embryo) size to determine value 


2-level of development

-the argument is that embryos are less developed than adults

-toddlers are also less developed than adults

-there is no sliding scale of human value  as we develop mentally and physically throughout childhood 


3-environment

-we don’t accept the killing of toddlers based on where they are located

-it is rationalized to accept the killing of an embryo based on where they are located

-the journey of 8 inches down the birth canal changes the essential nature of the preborn from a being we can kill to one we can’t

 

4-degree of dependency 

-embryos depend on their mothers for survival, but so do toddlers

-dependance on another human doesn’t determine when it’s acceptable to kill someone–if it did we should be free to kill toddlers as well


-pre-born babies are human beings

-there’s no logically consistent reason to assign a lesser value to their lives based on the differences 


Pro-life Rationale:

-it’s morally wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being

-abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being

-therefor, abortion is morally wrong 

-abortion is the intentional taking of innocent life so it’s murder


***Christians should recognize abortion as one of the greatest acts of evil against individual humans and the common good today


This is a government-given right we should unequivocally seek to eliminate 


Beyond Lost Rights: Breaking Down the Charges

1-abortion is murder

2-nearly everyone agrees that murder is morally wrong

-culture is overwhelmingly in favor of having the choice to abort

-culture also is not just in favor of having the choice, but enraged at those who are opposed to it

-culture is not saying that killing is not with making the case that murder is never ever morally wrong

-culture is making the case for they are okay with the murder of certain categories of humans and don’t feel the need to offer further justification for their pro-choice position 


“Pro-choice advocates primarily frame the debate from the perspective of the woman, whereas pro-life advocates primarily form it from the perspective of the preborn baby.”


-pro-choice advocates focus on the (alleged) harm to women that comes from not having the right to abort

-pro-life advocates focus on the harm to preborn babies that comes from women having the right to abort

-culture is overwhelmingly pro-choice despite believing murder is wrong because it typically isn’t even thinking about abortion as an issue of harm to preborn babies

-it’s thinking of it as an issue of harm to women

-that distinction is also the source of the emotional outrage on the subject 

-culture doesn’t only see Christians and other pro-life advocates as wrong; it sees them as misogynistic oppressors 


***The central question is whether it’s morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human?


-pro-choice are okay with the morality of abortion when it only claims to the harm done to women

-pro-life look at the morality of abortion as dictated by what happens to the baby


***the alleged harm done to women in taking away their right to abortion is equal to or greater than the harm done to a baby in taking away their life


Claim 1: Pro-life advocates want to control women’s bodies (my body my choice)

-this is questioning the motivation of the person’s position

Ex. if it’s morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human then it’s morally wrong regardless why any given person hold that position

The claim:

-pro-life advocates are harming women by oppressively trying to control their bodies 

-this fails in logic because there are societal laws that are against murder

-we have collectively agreed that it’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being

-preborn babies are indeed “others”---unique humans with their own set of DNA

-if it is morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being, therefore it’s not harmful to have laws on whether women can use their bodies to do so 


Claim 2: Pro-life policies impose trauma on women and kids because kids are being forced into a world in bad circumstances

-ending abortion will bring nothing but pain for not only women but children

-children will be born to parents who can’t afford them

-children will be born to parents who are not ready and will end up in foster care

-more poor kids will be born

-more kids will be abuses

-more kids will be traumatized 


***consider the logic to this claim


-First, does it harm women if they’re unable to kill a preborn baby and consequently have to raise that child in less than desirable circumstances?

-a mother can certainly struggle emotionally, physically, or financially

-raising a child may even require a vastly different path in life than the one a would would have


***but that is true for every mom who gives birth to babies they want


-moms can cherish their kids and struggle to raise them

-the circumstances then, aren’t harmful

-some circumstances are simply unwelcome by moms who have an undesired pregnancy

-hardship doesn’t justify murder 

-this logic is not applied to a toddler


***no one says the toddler would be better off dead 


Claim 3: Pro-life policies force a woman to bear her rapist’s child

-people instinctively want to minimize the suffering of rape and incest victims by not requiring them to give birth (which seems like further trauma)


***two wrongs do not make it right


-the woman who is a victim of violence is a tragic moral wrong

-an abortion then is an additional victim of violence which is another tragic moral wrong

-the only just response to rape and incest is to punish the criminal not the innocent preborn baby

-pro-life ministries offer counseling to women who are victims of rape or incest and can help with the placement of a child for adoption if desired


Claim 4: Pro-life policies cause women to die because they can’t get lifesaving abortion care

-a tubal ectopic pregnancy is not an intentional abortion but a medical emergency that can be fatal to mother so therefore the embryo will need to be removed through surgical removal or medication


***there is not one state law that prevents a physician from treating an ectopic pregnancy to save the mom’s life-including in states that restrict abortion


-there is a distinction between a miscarriage and abortion

-treatment of a miscarriage has never been limited 

-a miscarriage is a spontaneous and naturally occurring death of a developing baby

-an abortion is the intentional killing of the developing baby


***ending a preborn baby’s life is morally justified in saving the mother’s life if we’re going to maintain consistency with the stand that it’s morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being at any other time


***the sole intent of an abortion is to produce a dead baby–that is why it’s called a “failed abortion” when the baby survives 


Bringing Moral Clarity to Light:

Culture:

-culture claims the Supreme Court had stripped women of their basic reproductive rights and set them back decades in progress toward gender equality

-women will be forced to give birth by a government that controlled what they could or couldn’t do with their own bodies 

-they will be forced to bear their rapist’s child

-they would die for not being able to access to lifesaving care when pregnancies threatened their lives 

-women are being oppressed and that is the gravest moral outrage 


Pro-life

-you must have clarity that abortion is murder

-be able to rebut the claims of the morally, logically, or factually confused

-we do not agree to disagree 

-do not be blinded by culture’s darkness

-be alert, educated, and ready to expose the truth on abortion


Responses to challenges on abortion:

1-pro-choice doesn’t mean pro-abortion (I don’t love abortion, but women should have the right to choose)

-slavery was morally wrong but still claimed to be pro-choice on the matter (pro-choice doesn’t meant pro-slavery)


2-pro-life laws are racist because rich white women will still be able to get abortions even if abortion is outlawed

-this presupposes that the ability to have an abortion is a good thing 

-it presupposes that if not everyone has access to it is a bad thing

-if abortion is indeed murder then it’s not racist to have laws against it even if certain groups are better able to skirt around the law 


3-pro-life advocates are hypocrites who don’t care about the lives of babies after they’re born

-pro-life advocates are opposed to abortion because they believe that it’s morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being

Ex. a person can morally oppose rape, but not become a rape victim advocate and still hold the moral position-these people are not called hypocrites

-Christian do love and care about all people

-there are Christians ministries that exist to provide support families in need


4-you should keep your religion out of my uterus

-ask for the definition of religion

-ask if a society should ever allow laws that are based on values held by religious people

-ask if we should only allow laws based on values held by atheists

-ask if it’s okay to pass laws that incorporate values held by  religious people

-ask which ones should be allowed and which obese should not


***as a society, we make laws all the time that are based on values held by religious people

Ex. we outlaw murder and murder is considered morally wrong by nearly every religious group, so we are not legislating anyone’s personal religion when we pass laws against murder 


5-men have no right to tell a woman what she can or can’t do with her body

-ask if this principle applies to other issues other than abortion

-ask if men should have a say in whether women can use their bodies to drink and drive

-in a democracy, both men and women vote on what they believe is best for society

-pro-life advocates believe it is morally wrong to kill a preborn human being just as it’s morally wrong to kill any other human being

-the gender of a person holding a position has no bearing on the morality of the action itself 


What to do:

-stay informed about abortion-related bills in your state and take action accordingly

-vote against any bill supporting the destruction of life

-bring awareness about pending legislation at your church and everyone you know

-many Christians do not stay up to date on legislation 


-we must work together to educate others about important votes

-pray for, volunteer with, or donate to your local  pro-life women's health clinics (also known as a crisis pregnancy center)

-volunteer with a mobile pregnancy clinic or start one at your own church (a women’s health clinic on wheels)

-bring a speaker to your church, school, or event to help get more Christ-followers passionate about pro-life advocacy

-host a pro-life book study group at your church or on your own 

-create a fundraiser for pro-life organization of your choosing

-buy products from companies committed to a pro-life position