Greg had a discussion with a critic on the radio show recently, which illustrated something to be alert to in conversations: moving the goal line. When you're posed with a challenge and then answer, don't let the critic move the goal line on you by changing the question or the terms before acknowledging that you answered the question. Otherwise, you'll get frustrated pretty quickly chasing that goal line that keeps moving out of reach. The objection in this conversation was that pro-lifers can't object to abortion unless they're doing something to help children already born. What counted as helping kept changing throughout the conversation.
The last question from Greg, "Are you satisfied with the answer now, Ann?" and her answer, "No!" reveals a great truth:
Intent precedes content.
Posted by: kpolo | August 04, 2009 at 06:48 AM
Wow. I am pretty sure that she expected Greg to say he did nothing for these children and parents. After Greg's initial answer she probably said to herself, "oh crap".
Would have liked Greg to ask her why, if in her opinion, someone should have been helping the child she referenced, if she provides on-going help and support OUTSIDE of the classroom to help the child (since she gets paid as a teacher to teach the child IN CLASS).
She was blindsided and it made her argument fall flat on its face. That is why we must act to support our convictions as is said in James 2 and 3.
Posted by: David in Illinois | August 04, 2009 at 07:00 AM
Keep doing incredible pro-life work, Gregory Koukl.
Posted by: Kyl Schalk | August 04, 2009 at 07:07 AM
Kyl, Think the lesson here is that we should ALL try to find ways to do work in those areas that we have convictions. Although Greg had a good argument without his having adopted his children and provided support for crisis pregnancy centers, the fact that he HAD actions to support his convictions allowed him to "tear the roof off" exposing this woman for her shallowness.
She wanted to show that Christians just like to judge and tell people how to live their lives with no actions to back up our rhetoric. Our personal response should be to back-up our convictions with actions.
Posted by: David in Illinois | August 04, 2009 at 07:15 AM
Amazing.
I always find it utterly contemptible when pro-choice advocates discuss an individual child’s hardships as Ann did in the segment - As if to say, society would be better off had this child been aborted. That’s the reason they bring up these specific cases.
Ann, in her mighty wisdom, is the one who says which life has value and which one does not. Which life is worth living and which is not.
Posted by: KWM | August 04, 2009 at 08:44 AM
Ann was unprepared and had a bad argument. She walked right into this. So what?
Suppose there were potential adoptive parents (whatever their view on abortion) for every unwanted pregnancy. Would this justify a ban on all abortions? Far from it.
RonH
Posted by: RonH | August 04, 2009 at 10:05 AM
>>”Ann was unprepared and had a bad argument. She walked right into this. So what?”
RonH,
Ann is far from alone in this faulty logic. That’s a point worth making. When people can point this out, as Greg did, it can lead people to reevaluate their views. Ann had more information once she hung up the phone.
>>”Suppose there were potential adoptive parents (whatever their view on abortion) for every unwanted pregnancy. Would this justify a ban on all abortions? Far from it.”
I definitely agree with this. This argument wasn’t being made by Greg however.
Posted by: KWM | August 04, 2009 at 10:18 AM
be nice to her! she was just having her songram
Posted by: Crystaline Dragon | August 04, 2009 at 10:40 AM
Hi David
I heard the conversation live, and after I had some time to think about it, thought the same thing. If Ann is unwilling to adopt or care for the child being abused in her class, then by her logic, she shouldn't say anything against it.
That was an amazing conversation, probably an all time classic. Amazing job by Greg.
Todd
Posted by: Todd | August 04, 2009 at 02:58 PM
The dialog between Greg and Ann was such a mismatch he should be embarrassed to call attention to it.
It's often said:
Your freedom to swing my arm ends at my nose.
Clearly, if I don't have a nose your freedom to swing your arm is unlimited. Freedom must be the default.
The five day embryo has no nose. Not literally and not in the figurative sense intended by the saying.
This is why an outright ban on abortion is wrong.
RonH
Posted by: RonH | August 04, 2009 at 03:26 PM
ha ha, that's:
Your freedom to swing your arm ends at my nose.
Posted by: RonH | August 04, 2009 at 05:53 PM
RonH,
"The dialog between Greg and Ann was such a
mismatch he should be embarrassed to call attention to it."
Might I call your attention to the words of KWM who already explained why this is important:
Ann is far from alone in this faulty logic. That’s a point worth making. When people can point this out, as Greg did, it can lead people to reevaluate their views. Ann had more information once she hung up the phone.
Posted by: Tom | August 04, 2009 at 08:26 PM
Couldn't listen to it.
Callers like her hurt my ears and make me wanna puke...
blaaaaaaaah
99.999999999% of pro-choicers suck so bad at philosophy it's scary.
In fact, other than my own arguments, pretty much every pro-choice argument i've ever heard was a pile.
Represent.
Posted by: ToNy | August 05, 2009 at 07:24 AM
I thought Greg did a very good job with this caller. The illustrations with slavery and wife beating were great.
I found it interesting that while she seemed to be personally against abortion, and questioned Greg's efforts to help, she herself did not offer anything that she was doing personally to take of these babies either. I wish Greg would have asked her what she was doing to take care of these children.
Posted by: Damian | August 05, 2009 at 11:45 AM
>>”I wish Greg would have asked her what she was doing to take care of these children.”
I agree Damian, but the sad thing is this: many pro-choice advocates feel that they don’t necessarily have to care for these children because they are for abortion. As if to say, “See, if it were up to me, every child would be a wanted child, so there would be no child to care for.”
They don’t come out and say it – it’s assumed in their arguments.
Posted by: KWM | August 05, 2009 at 12:41 PM
KWH,
Excellent point about wanted children. Excellent.
Greg Koukl is the most incredibly gracious person I've ever heard. This caller was polite, yet entirely ungracious. I wish he would have asked her what she would like to see him or anyone in the pro-life movement do to satisfy her that we are willing to help care for children born in "crisis pregnancies." Does she have something in mind, or would any amount of effort to help simply never satisfy her?
Perhaps her absence of reason about Greg and the pro-life movement is due to her conflating the inability of the movement to address all the needs of every child born into difficult situations with a failure to accomplish the movement's core purpose. Measuring the principle that innocent human life ought never to be aborted on the scales against the quality of the lives of children born in crisis pregnancies will always come up short for Ann, because any unacceptable level of suffering will mean the pro-life movement has failed in sum total to value human life. So unless Greg had said the pro-life movement was making every possible provision to eliminate every suffering for every such child, no amount of effort would matter to her... Even though eliminating suffering and providing people's needs (social justice) are not central to the cause of preventing abortion (ethical value of human life).
Posted by: Sage S | August 07, 2009 at 10:43 PM