If you’re pro-life, this probably feels obvious to you. You might be surprised I even bothered to type it out.
If you’re pro-choice, though, this is likely an explosive, even offensive, statement to you. But this statement happens to be accurate, and it doesn’t depend on a single pro-life premise in order to be true. Said another way, I don’t need to convince you of the pro-life position in order to demonstrate that you’re committed to the public support of violence against other humans.
Josh’s favorite Christian apologist, Dr. Randal Rauser, joins the show. Randal describes himself as “progressively Evangelical and generously Orthodox.” Josh asks him about open-mindedness, his observations about the pro-life movement, when it’s appropriate to call leaders out publicly, and the difference between an “agitation apologetics model” and an “agreement apologetics model.”
While Josh doesn’t agree with everything Rauser believes, that’s not the point, and this isn’t a debate episode. Josh found this to be a good opportunity to listen to the views of a very careful thinker in spite of the fact that they don’t agree on everything within the abortion debate.
Dobbs was a victory for the pro-life movement, ending a nationwide judicial ban on legislation to protect unborn humans. However, while it allowed the states to pass pro-life legislation, that’s all it did—allowed the unborn to be protected. Instead of being at the mercy of nine unelected justices, unborn humans are now at the mercy of voters across the country, including in states like California, New York, and Washington.
It’s not enough to allow human rights to be voted up or down in various states. It is the responsibility of the federal government to protect the human rights of unborn children across the nation.