Readability: 1
Length: 243 pgs
Author: Scott Klusendorf
Looking to be a better voice for the unborn? Buy Klusendorf’s The Case for Life. Klusendorf wisely calls us to narrow the debate to one question: What is the unborn? Here we have the advantage. The burden of proof lies upon pro-choice advocates to prove that the unborn are not humans. At the very least they must admit they are potential humans. Intellectually ours is not the weaker position, this book will help you demonstrate that.
Why should you want to be a better advocate? In the introduction Klusendorf recalls a mentor’s signature quote that haunts him to this day, “Most people who say they oppose abortion do just enough to salve the conscience but not enough to stop the killing.” Are you comfortable with the death of the innocent? I am, but I hope to be less so in the future. This book has pushed me out of my comfort.
In short, you didn’t come from an embryo. You were once an embryo. At no point in your prenatal development did you undergo a substantial change of nature. You began as a human being and will remain so until death. Sure, you lacked maturity at that early stage of your life (as does an infant), but you were human nonetheless.
Next time somebody says you shouldn’t impose your beliefs on other, ask, ‘Why not?’ Any answer he gives will be an example of imposing his beliefs on you!
If you’ve had an abortion, you don’t need an excuse. You need an exchange – his righteousness for your sinfulness.
No Other Boast 
hmm. I’d be interested in reading this book. I’ve recently had conversations about abortion and if it was wrong or not before the child has a heart beat– and if it is, is birth control wrong? So, I’ll add this to my reading list.
LikeLike
Not to change the subject from abortion to birth control, but I see your point Danielle. The argument I hear most often from anti-contraception camp comes from verses like Gen 1:28, 9:1, 9:7, ect.
LikeLike
(The above was not finished but my comp fails)
To my understanding they read those verses as commandments. If these verses are indeed commandments I see where they are coming from; however, I’m not for sure if the word ‘commandment’ is appropriate for describing the nature of these verses. Here is a short video Desiring God posted. I think Piper handled this issue very well. My favorite part is when he divides the contraception question into ‘Redemption’ and ‘Creation’ issues.
LikeLike
Thanks for posting that video, Cody. I agree, the part where he divides the question was, for lack of a better word, very smart. As well as extremely useful.
LikeLike
Devil’s advocate.
“At no point in your prenatal development did you undergo a substantial change of nature.”
I’m not so sure about this. Conciousness is the substatial chang of nature.
I’m not sure how to define a human, and by doing so I may just run into trouble. I think we can admit that consciousness is a big deal. It used to be thought that the “center of one’s being” was stored in the heart. With modern science we know that it is in fact the brain that houses this.
Brain development begins quite rapidly; however, it doesn’t have any activity until about 6 weeks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo#cite_note-2
So the arguement goes– how can this be considered a person if they are just as concious as a kidney?
One answer is that this person has a unique DNA sequence. However, there are cases when a sibling has absorbed his/her’s twin during gestation. The remaining twin will then have two sets of DNA. To be consistent the answerer would have to argue this type of twin is in fact two persons.
LikeLike