Congressman Todd Akin's ill-chosen comments concerning a rape and incest exception to abortion laws certainly created a media firestorm. But the central question for Christians remains: what is the correct way to defend the sanctity of human life even in the worst of cases? During this week's broadcast, you'll learn effective, practical ways to communicate this vital message from two of the best Christian apologists for life you'll ever hope to meet. If you don't want to be tongue-tied next time the question of rape and incest comes up as it relates to the pro-life position, pay careful attention today as John Stonestreet welcomes our guests.
Scott Klusendorf, President of Life Training Institute
"Whenever I have questions about arguing the pro-life position convincingly and winsomely," says John, "I always turn to my favorite organization, and that's The Life Training Institute."
Founded and run by author, speaker and apologist Scott Klusendorf, the Life Training Institute equips more Christians than perhaps any other single outfit to effectively defend the sanctity of life—even against the toughest challenges. And the cases of rape and incest, as we have all seen, are the two scenarios used against the pro-life case to the most devastating effect.
"It's very easy to talk about the dignity of human life," explains John. "It's a lot harder to do so when you're talking about something as disastrous as rape and incest." Fortunately, our guests today have some serious experience on this playing field, and they'd like to share it with you.
Megan Almon, a graduate of Biola University who is one of the foremost apologists for the Institute, has followed the Akin controversy closely since the Congressman's comments first sparked it, and has a lot to say about a dialogue she believes has gotten terribly off-track.
"As complex as the psychological issues are, morally the question is still very simple," she insists. "Let's go back to our pro-life training 101, which is that you've got to simplify the issue by bringing it back to the fundamental question which is, 'what is the unborn?'
When we answer that question—which we know that science has already answered for us (we know that the unborn is wholly, uniquely and distinctly human)—that brings us back to the moral answer we're looking for, which is that we cannot kill something human and valuable... What we have to remember is that even in the worst kinds of grief and the worst kinds of situations, we can know what what is right."
For Scott Klusendorf, founder of the Institute and author of the must-read training book, The Case for Life, boiling down the question this way not only exposes our motives, but allows us to address a tragic topic with compassion and clarity.
"Well, the fundamental moral question, John, comes down to this: How should a civil society treat innocent humans who remind us of something painful? Should we kill them so we can feel better? That gets us right back to the issue of whether the unborn are human. Because if they are, we shouldn't kill them just because they case us painful memories any more than we kill a two-year-old who causes us painful memories.
The two-pronged approach of sympathizing with the woman, and drawing attention the second victim (the child), is the way to win. Legislatively, the law should protect all unborn children regardless of how they were conceived."