Fetch Your Copy The Case For Life: Equipping Christians To Engage The Culture Engineered By Scott Klusendorf Conveyed In Pamphlet

is not a new book, so some of the stats are out of date, and mention of an intact Roe vs.
Wade is obviously obsolete, but it has still aged well,

In part, Klusendorf hammers away at the main issue: Is a fetus a human He skillfully brings the points against prolife back to that question repeatedly.
He also gives clear evidence that a fetus is a human,

Partacknowledges that the prolife movement is in harmony with a biblical worldview and proceeds to give apologetic reasons for why one should take the Christian worldview seriously.


Partdeal successfully deals with this theme: "ProLife Christians Answer Objections Persuasively"

For example: "Women will die from Illegal abortions," "You shouldn't force your views on others," ' ProLifers should broaden their focus," "Rape Justifies Abortion," "Men Can't Get Pregnant," and other personal Attacks "It's My Body, I'll Decide.
"

Partdeals with pastors equipping local churches hope for those who have contributed in some way to an abortion, cobelligerence without theological compromise and the question, "Can we win"

Partcould have been strengthened by defining the mission of the gathered church more clearly and how that relates to equipping individual Christians to live for the gospel and encouraging biblical justice in all areas of life.
Is the church's responsibility to equip with a biblical worldview and conviction of living on mission with the gospel and standing up for biblical justice in all areas of society, or is the church also responsible for coordinating these things as a gathered assembly I don't fault the book for not deeply dealing with these questions, but it would have been helpful to give some direction, so there is no confusion on this point.
His few usages of the phrase "social justice" sounds different in the ear inthan it would have in.
He cannot be faulted for that,

It would have also been helpful to clarify what theological compromise would look like even as believers seek to work with other prolife unbelievers to resist abortion.
I greatly appreciated the clear gospel presentation and application of God's grace to those who have failed in this area of devaluing life.


This is a helpful tool, Super easy to understand. Gives just enough details for you to understand the argument but not too much to overwhelm you,

There were multiple times that I had to stop and take a break because the cases that he presented absolutely disgusted me.


Everyone should read this, I need to make an appreciation post about this book, I've been reading articles and watching videos of Scott Klusendorf for a long time now, So I know very well that he always always presents a rational case for the prolife position, I didn't expect this book to say more than what I had already heard Scott say before, But it does and I'm glad to have bought this book, Most proaborts and most people in general are unbelievably ignorant when it comes to the abortion debate, That's the only reason why it's even legal anywhere, Because they think it's settled matter that it's already won, It's only "won" because it's easy to exploit their ignorance about the issue, This book can be a good start for people to educate themselves on the issue, I meant to write a review of this book earlier, with better memory of the reading rather than two years after finishing the book! In light of the importance of the abortion issue even being more so with the election season and Planned Parenthood being on the news, it's important that I review this work as a Christian resource to equip the believers with the issue.
The author is a Christian bioethicist who writes this work for Evangelicals as his primary audience, though of course those who are not Christians will benefit from his content as well in making a case for the unborn as a human person.
He even have a chapter presenting the case for Christianity summarized, This book is excellent for contemporary discussion about abortion, with the author devoting a chapter chapter four discussing the issue of Embryonic Stem Cell Research ESCR as well.
The first part of the book presents the prolife argument very well, beginning with the need of clarifying the debate by focusing on what the issue really is about, and then asking what is the unborn, whether human beings are valuable, etc.
For those who have been involved in the abortion debate, one realizes that all kinds of objections are thrown against the prolife position and this book is helpful addressing some of these objections and popular side topics.
In fact, this section of the book is the biggest portion of the book, Klusendorf ends the book with a section of how to act for the cause of the unborn, such as what pastors can do and how Christians can be involved with prolife with others without compromising their faith.
Worth the readand perhaps for me, a second read of this book again to refresh the memory and the arguments.
This was the first book I ever read regarding abortion and it completely changed my perspective, I had always seen it from a religious side, but Scott breaks it down and shows the scientific and logical side of the issue and presents it very clearly.
I enjoyed reading Klusendorf's book which encourages Christians to really take a stand for life and for truth.
The book is clearly laid out into four parts, The first part helps Christians to simplify debates over abortion and embryonic stem cell research, The second section shows how moral neutrality is really impossible, The third section helps Christians to answer common objections, This section was so good as it really tackled some hard cases, The final section addresses questions related to pastors including whether or not it is okay to join hands with other religions to protect life.
I wholeheartedly agree that yes it is okay to join hands with others for the sake of saving lives.
The book also talks about how to give hope to postabortive men and women, I love the author's grace filled approach, Overall this book was clearly laid out and really helped me to think about hard issues that I honestly don't think about enough.
I highly recommend this book, Please note that I did receive a review copy of this book from Crossway Publishing, All opinions are my own, "Most people who say they oppose abortion do just enough to salve the conscience but not enough to stop the killing.
"

This is an excellent summary of the prolife position, written in a firm yet winsome style.
While I don't expect it to change the mind of prochoice advocates, it will remind and encourage prolifers like myself that our position:

Is backed by the scientific evidence
Is more logical, intuitive and selfconsistent
Is more just, merciful and reflective of basic human rights and dignity

Introduction

There are two foundational points to make in any discussion of abortion.
First, we're arguing about moral truth, and whether it is real an knowable or simply a preference, Second, we're arguing over human value, and whether we are valuable for what we are intrinsically or only valuable for what we can do functionally.


Prolife Christians answer that truth is real, knowable and nonnegotiable, Although humans differ in their respective degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature that bears the image of their Creator.
Humans have value simply because they are human,

We need to simplify the debate by focusing on the one question that truly matters: What is the unborn These issues are not morally complex, though they are often presented that way.
Can we kill the unborn Yes, but only if the unborn are not human beings, The issue is not really one of choice, as some choices are wrong, like killing innocent human beings simply because they are in the way and cannot defend themselves.
We thus make our case in two steps, Step one is to simplify the issue as above step two is to make a case for life.


Prolife advocates contend that elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenceless human being, This simplifies the abortion controversy by focusing public attention on just one question: Is the unborn a member of the human family If so, killing him or her to benefit others is a serious moral wrong.
It treats the distinct human being, with his or her own inherent moral worth, as nothing more than a disposable instrument.
Conversely, if the unborn are not human, elective abortion requires no more justification than having a tooth pulled.
Prolife advocates defend their case using science and philosophy, Scientifically, they argue that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings.
True, they have yet to grow and mature, but they are whole human beings nonetheless, Philosophically, there is no morally significant difference between the embryo we once were and the adults we are today.
As has been pointed out using the acronym SLED, differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are not relevant in the way that abortion advocates need them to be.


In short, prolife advocates contend that although humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature.
The prolife view is that it's always wrong to take human life without proper justification, This means that we define elective abortion as those abortions not medically necessary to save the mother's physical life e.
g. in the case of ectopic pregnancy,

A useful heuristic is, whenever we hear an argument for elective abortion to stop and ask this question: Would this justification for killing the unborn work for killing a toddler If not, your critic is assuming that the unborn aren't human, a point for which he needs to argue.
The science of embryology is clear, From the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings,

Embryology and the ProLife Position

In summary, the evidence clearly indicates that the human embryo, from the zygote stage forward, is a distinct, unitary human organism a human being.
The key point is that even though the cells in the early embryo are totipotent that is, able to develop into any kind of bodily cell, they function in a coordinated manner as parts of a unified organism, the embryo.


Again, humans have value simply because they are human, not because of some acquired property that they may gain or lose during their lifetime.
If you deny this, it's difficult to account for fundamental human equality for anyone, ProLife advocates contend that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human organisms.
They are not parts of larger human beings like skin cells are but are whole human entities capable of directing their own internal growth and development.
Prolifers don't look to theology to tell them these things but to the science of embryology,

Science alone cannot justify the prolife position, though it can give us the facts we need to draw moral conclusions on a host of controversial issues, including abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and cloning.
Thus, the first step in resolving these issues is to state the proper scientific facts about the biological nature of the unborn entity.
As we have seen, those facts are not in dispute,

A Philosophical Question: Human NonPersons

We are left with an important philosophical question: Do all human beings regardless of size, level of development, environment, or degree of dependency have an equal right to life Prolife Christians contend that human beings are valuable in virtue of the kind of thing they are, creatures endowed by their Creator with an unalienable right to life.
That right to life comes to be when they come to be,

The prolife case for human equality is grounded in the substance view of human persons, Substances are living organisms that maintain their identities through time, while property things, such as cars and machinery, do not.
What moves a puppy to maturity or a fetus to an adult is not an external collection of parts but an internal, defining nature or essence.
As a substance develops, it does not become more of its kind but matures according to its kind.
It remains what it is from the moment it begins to exist, Consequently, a substance functions in light of what it is and maintains its identity even if its ultimate capacities are never realized due to disability or injury.


Most critics of the prolife position reject the substance view of human persons outlined above, Instead, they ground human rights and human equality in one's ability to immediately exercise certain capacities that embryos and fetuses, in virtue of their immature stage of development, cannot yet immediately exercise.
In other words, they merely assert that certain traits are necessary for personhood but never say or prove why these supposedly valuegiving properties are valuegiving in the first place.
In the end, the property view of human value is ad hoc and arbitrary, Why is some development needed And why is this particular degree of development, selfawareness, the morally relevant factor rather than another These questions are left unanswered.


Religion and the ProLife Position

Although the prolife view is implicitly religious, it is no more religious than alternative explanations about human value and human rights.
Most people claim to believe that all humans are equal, If they truly believe that, we need only use science to show the unborn is a human being and their belief about equality should compel them to accept the prolife view.


Opponents of the prolife view believe that human beings who are in a different location or have a different level of development do not deserve the protection of law.
They assert, without justification , the belief that strong and independent humans have basic human rights while small and dependent ones do not.
This view is elitist. It violates the principle that once made political liberalism great, a commitment to protect the most vulnerable members of the human community.


In sharp contrast, prolife advocates contend that no human being, regardless of size, level of development, environment, degree of dependency, race, gender, or place of residence, should be excluded from the human family.
In other words, our view of humanity is inclusive, indeed wideopen to all, especially those

who are small, vulnerable, and defenceless.


Ground Rules for the Debate

Objective Moral Truth: When prolife advocates claim that elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenceless human being, they are not saying they dislike abortion.
They are saying it's objectively wrong, regardless of how one feels about it,

Moral Neutrality: Moral neutrality is impossible, Both sides of the abortion controversy bring prior metaphysical commitments to the debate, Why, then, is it okay for liberals to legislate their metaphysical views on the status of the unborn but not okay for prolifers to legislate theirs

Does God Matter, Or Are We Just Matter: Even if the prolife view cannot be fully explained without explicit reference to Christian faith, it does not follow that the prolife view is inherently irrational.
Christian theists make rational arguments for their position, and it's wrong for materialists to simply presume the truth of their position.


Does The Bible Justify Abortion: We don't need Scripture to expressly say that elective abortion is wrong before we can know that it's wrong.
The Bible affirms that all humans have value because they bear God's image, The facts of science make clear that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are unquestionably human.
Hence, biblical commands against the unjust taking of human life apply to the unborn just as they do to other human beings.


Objections to the ProLife View

Asking the Right Questions: When we hit a blocker in a conversation, we should ask a good question.
The results can transform the discussion and put us back in the driver's seat, where we belong, These include:

"What do you mean by that"
"How did you come to that conclusion" "Why do you believe that" "How do you know that" "What are your reasons for thinking youre right"
"Have you considered.
. . " Then finish the sentence in a way relevant to the issue at hand, Here we are offering an alternative view that gently dismantles your opponent's case or, at the very least, exposes a serious flaw in his reasoning.


Objection: The Coat Hanger Women will die from illegal abortions: Every death from abortion is a tragedy we mourn.
But why should the law be faulted for making it more risky for one human to take the life of another completely innocent one

Objection: Tolerance It's intolerant to impose your view on others: Next time somebody says you shouldn't impose your beliefs on others, ask, "Why not" Any answer he gives will be an example of his imposing his beliefs on you!

Objection: Single Issue ProLifers should broaden their focus: How does it follow that because prolife advocates oppose the unjust killing of innocent human beings, they must therefore take personal responsibility for solving all of life's ills If prolife advocates want to win debates over abortion, we must stay focused like a lazer beam on the central question: What is the unborn The people calling for prolifers to broaden their efforts are not our friends.
They are a distraction from the real issue,

Objection: Hard Cases What about rape and incest: How should we treat innocent human beings who remind us of a painful event That single question clarifies everything.


Objection: I Don't Like You You cant get pregnant, and other personal attacks: Even if prolifers are the worst people in the world, others must still refute their arguments.
Anything less is intellectually dishonest,

Objection: Bodily Autonomy It's my body, I'll decide: Does a mother have no more duty to her own child than she does to a total stranger who is unnaturally hooked up to her The central claim in this objection is that pregnant mothers have an absolute right to do whatever they want with their bodies regardless of what it does to the children they carry.
This argument is particularly popular among prochoice advocates in Ireland today, There are a number of issues with this argument and the related analogies such as the "life support patient" analogy:

First, we may not have the obligation to sustain strangers who are unnaturally plugged into us, but we do have a duty to sustain our own offspring.

Second, the child is not an intruder, He is precisely where he naturally belongs at that point in his development, If the child doesn't belong in the mother's womb, where does he belong
Third, abortion is not merely the withholding of support.
It is also the deliberate killing of a child through dismemberment, poison, or crushing,
Fourth, barring cases of rape, a woman cannot claim that she bears no responsibility for the pregnancy in the same way she bears no responsibility for patient in the "life support" analogy.

Fifth, pregnancy, unlike the "life support" analogy, is not a prison bed,
Sixth, unlike the "life support" analogy, the motherchild relationship is not parasitical, A parasite is an alien being who should not be present, The unborn child is the mother's own flesh and blood and is where he naturally belongs at that stage in his development.
True, a child who is breastfeeding draws nourishment from another person, but this relationship can hardly be called parasitical.
This is because the child's relation to the mother is indeed a proper one,

The bodily rights argument is compelling if and only if a pregnant woman's right to control her own body is absolute, meaning she can do whatever she wants with her body regardless of the impact on her unborn offspring.
In fact, while the mother's claim to bodily autonomy is important, it is not absolute and does not supersede her obligation to the child.


According to these arguments and analogies, moral obligations to one's own offspring are consensual or voluntary.
This is a strange response, Moral obligations, by their very nature, are nonconsensual, That's precisely what makes them moral obligations, So the question becomes, what moral obligation does a mother have to her own child Put another way, is there a proper moral expectation that a mother provide lifesustaining care for her offspring The assumption of bodily autonomy proponent, that parental responsibilities toward one's offspring are voluntary, is at best odd and at worst monstrous.


Equipping God's People to Engage the Culture

Prolife Christians contend that although humans differ in their respective degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature that bears the image of their Creator.
Humans have value simply because they are human, This biblically informed prolife view explains human equality, human rights, and moral obligations better than its secular rivals.


When human nature is up for grabs, pastors committed to biblical truth must commit themselves to four vitally important tasks.


First, he preaches a biblical view of human value and applies that view to abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and cloning.

Second, he equips his people to engage the culture with a persuasive defence of the prolife view.

Third, he restores lost passion for ministry with crosscentred preaching,
Fourth, he confronts his own fears about preaching inconvenient truth,

My detailed summary of the book is available here: sitelink google. com/openidpDR .