« Why Doesn't God Reveal Himself to Those Who Don't Believe? (Video) | Main | Links Mentioned on the 1/21/14 Show »

January 21, 2014


>> "So, how many babies have you adopted?"

To this point, how many children have my wife and I allowed to be born? Four.

To this point, how many people do I shoot dead on a given day? Zero (God be gracious to keep this so).

The value of life is the key. To adopt a child is a personal matter, and many factors have to be regarded. To blithely demand the adoption of a child as the hallmark of what it is to be pro-life misses the point that what is engendered via sexual union must never be reduced to the unwanted after-effects of recreational activity. What can produce life is a marvel of biology and to regard it as an "oops" in adult intimate play is practiced callousness.

Assuming you haven't adopted, here's two suggestions for what you could say...

Suggestion 1: None.

Then wait for them to make their point, and respond appropriately when they do.

Suggestion 2: I gave up trying to adopt a baby because the competition is too stiff, and the lines are too long.

Although it's not true, it gets the point across--there is no shortage of people willing to adopt new borns.

What does my adopting babies have to do with the question of whether it's morally acceptable to take the life of an unborn child?


This is just a game pro-abortion people play to take the focus off the reality of what they are supporting and instead put it back on you and get you on the defensive. Don't fall for it!

Those critics are behind the times. As of last year, the hip new thing is to hate on Christians because they are adopting TOO MANY babies, especially babies from impoverished countries. Google "Christian adoption movement" and watch the venom flow.

I agree that it is irrelevant how many children I have adopted as to whether or not it is morally permissible to take the life of an innocent human being with the justifications that people give for abortion. Sounds like a "who's going to take care of all these unwanted children" style arguments, which, again, is irrelevant to the moral permissibility of abortion.

My second response would be "one". She will hopefully be home in April :).

If a building is on fire and there is a child trapped inside and you are the only hope for their rescue, would you let them die a fiery death because you might not be able to take care of them? No, because their life has inherent value (I stole this from Alan).

Ask them if they're against crime. When they say "yes," then ask them how many criminals they've personally arrested. That should shut down that illogical line of thinking pretty quickly.

The first thing to do with this challenge is to try and get the person to clarify the objection. Since this challenge is phrased in the form of a question, it makes it more difficult to pin-point what exactly this person's challenge is. To get to a point where the question i clarified, I would simply ask:

"I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you mind clarifying for me what exactly you are trying to say?"

At that point, hopefully this person will restate the objection in a statement, making it easier to address the specific objection. I believe that The objection hidden in the question would sound something like this:

"People who are pro-life have no right to oppose abortion unless they are willing to adopt all those unwanted children."

Assuming that this is objection which this person is raising, I would offer a counter objection which triads on the "Trot Out the Toddler" tactic:

"Let's imagine that I am the father of two toddlers who are standing in front of me. Unless you adopt them by tomorrow, I'm going to kill them both. Do you think I am justified in doing that?"

The conversation from there would sound something like this:

"No. You can't do that."

"But why not?"

"Because they are human beings!"

"Ahhh. Then that's the question: are they human like the toddlers? Because if the unborn are human like these toddlers, then people would be no more justified in killing the unborn due to pro-lifers not adopting than I would in killing my two toddlers due to others unwillingness to adopt."

This gets us back to the foundational question that needs to be answered: what is the unborn? From here, I would then proceed to answer any objection dealing with the scientific and/or philosophical elements to the issue that might come up.

@Aarontj95 Very good post and the right thing to do.

Many objections sometimes get us to thinking too much rather than realizing the simplicity of our worldview.

In this case, the objection is a red herring and a type of non-sequitur that does not address the issue at hand, which is whether or not it is morally right or wrong to take the life of a human being in the womb.

@Robby Hall

Thank you very much! The first thing I do with any argument/objection to the pro-life view is ask myself "would this be a good argument for killing two-year olds?" If the answer is 'no' then the argument assumes that the unborn are not human. And the best way to help the objector realize that is by applying the argument to a situation involving toddlers instead of the unborn.
Thanks again

Logically, it doesn't follow as other commenters have pointed out. However, the point falls on deaf ears where people's ethics aren't logically derived.

But the adoption charge can be answered. While no official study has been done the statistics can be used to estimate how many families are waiting to adopt children versus how many children are being adopted and how many children are aborted. In the US each year, a conservative estimate is that among the number of families beyond those waiting to adopt the children in all the adoption systems, there are perhaps five times more families waiting to adopt than there are children who are aborted. So it's unreasonable to think that there aren't enough people willing to adopt children. The facts don't bear that charge out.


We really did give up because the competition is too stiff and the lines are too long. And we were trying to adopt older kids, not the cute little babies. It's worse with babies.

Charles, you ain't kidding! How eye opening. So I guess the questions is, are Christians (who are typically pro-life) adopting too many or too few? You can't have it both ways!

Not to mention, the question is irrelevant (kudos for "trotting out the toddler" above)

How many homeless people have you brought home to live with you?

So you want them to be homeless?

You had the opportunity to give them a home, and didn't.

@ Marshall - Congratulations!

@ Jay McHue - Excellent idea! I'll have to remember that.

Only people who have adopted get to vote for life.

So the anti-life camp now has way more votes.

Nice try, but no.

So you mean if I become pro-abortion like you, I don’t have to adopt any babies? You should know my conscience has been troubling me for quite some time regarding this. Glad to know I can refrain from adopting babies with a clear conscience like you.

In truth, it’s hard to waste time on this type of accusation because serious people don’t make it. It shows the ignorance of the accuser. But we must try to persuade, I know.

Yes, it is about voting. It always is, isn’t it?

Have you noticed how advocates of abortion-on-demand have a soft spot for people that are “personally opposed”?

They never get accused of not adopting enough babies.

Trot out the toddler.

"How many 5-year-olds have you adopted?"

None? Oh, then you've got no right to object to the legalized "abortion" of 5-year-olds.

Someone actually used a variation of this argument during an Internet discussion on abortion with me. The accusation went something like, "you conservatives want these women to have babies, but you don't want to take care of them by paying higher taxes".


Yes, this is an objection used with some frequency in pro-choice circles. I don't know how you responded, but you are right to say that the objection is similar, and therefore has a similar answer. The most effective way that I can see to answer this is by asking some questions to expose their assumption about the humanity of the unborn. I imagine that the conversation would boil down as follows:

"Let me ask you, when human beings get expensive, may will kill them to cut costs?"

"No, that's not right."

"Then by the same token, we may not kill the unborn even if they are expensive."

"But that's where you are wrong. People can't be killed, but abortion doesn't kill a person."

"Ahhh. Then that is the question: are the unborn persons like us? Because if they are, we can no more kill the unborn in the name of cutting costs than we would any other human being."

At this point, you are back to the real question that needs to be answered: what is the unborn? Again, I'm not sure how you responded or how well versed you are in pro-life thinking, but I thought this might help you and perhaps others who are reading.

The comments to this entry are closed.