The AK47 Podcast Season 2: Episode 18

Aaron and Kyle come together to discuss various issues in politics, discussion, arguing logically, the state of discourse, and more.  Aaron tells us about his recent radio appearance and work at a private Christian university, we talk about everyone's desire to control others, Kyle expresses an unusual amount of frustration with how stupid and evil people are, we talk a little about the Mueller Report, and the recent backlash that Nathan Pyle, the creator of the Strange Planet comics, experienced over a tweet a couple of years ago.

Listen to the episode here.

To learn how to support our podcast, click here.

The AK47 Podcast Season 2: Episode 16

Aaron and Kyle come together to discuss Hollywood, whether or not we should be financially supporting Hollywood, the Unplanned movie about Abby Johnson, and abortion in general. 

Listen to the episode here.

To learn how to support our podcast, click here.

The AK47 Podcast Season 2: Episode 11

I am doing a new series of interviews interviewing people who are Christian apologists, but not academics.  My purpose in these interviews is to encourage Christians who want to do apologetics, have apologetics ministries, or implement apologetics into their discussions with skeptics, but don't want to spend thousands of dollars of their money and years of their time on formal degrees in apologetics or other related fields.

Kyle continues his series on becoming an apologist without getting an advanced degree by interviewing Clinton Wilcox.  Clinton is a Christian, but he mostly engages in pro-life speaking and debate.  He has defended the pro-life position in both written and verbal form for years and he has done this without getting an advanced degree.  Despite this, he is very intelligent and informed on the topic.  In this interview, I ask him how he got into pro-life apologetics and how people can prepare themselves to intellectually defend the unborn without having to spend thousands of dollars and years of time getting a degree.

Listen to the episode here.

To learn how to support our podcast, click here.

Be sure to check out Aaron and Kyle's previous interview with Clinton Wilcox on pro-life arguments.

Follow Clinton on Twitter.

Find his writings and other resources at Life Training Institute and Secular Pro-Life.

Books Mentioned in the Show
1. Pro-Life Books
 - The Case for Life by Scott Klusendorf
 - Persuasive Pro-Life by Trent Horn
 - Defending Life by Francis Beckwith
 - The Ethics of Abortion by Christopher Kaczor

2. Pro-Choice Books
 - A Defense of Abortion by David Boonin
 - Arguments about Abortion by Kate Greasley
 - Abortion and Infanticide by Michael Tooley

Other Episodes in the Series

1. Sam Harper (Philochristos)

2. Evan Minton (Cerebral Faith)

3. Cameron Bertuzzi (Capturing Christianity)

4. Richard Porter

What is the Point of Debating Online?

I came across this picture on FB that I think makes a very good point.  

Earlier this year, I was debating abortion with some people on my FB page and I was in several other debates on that topic over the period of a couple of months. During that time many people have said to me that we should just ignore pro-choice commenters, especially ones that are more emotional and do not give cogent arguments. They won't be convinced, so what's the point debating them? Not everybody says this, but it is something I hear relatively often.  Sometimes, you hear cynical people in any controversial discussion say "What is the point in arguing about this?!  No one is going to change their mind!"

I definitely understand that issue. It is very unlikely that they will be convinced by any arguments we give on this platform. In my experience, they often just repeat the same things over and over again without considering what my pro-life friends or I argue. I do, however, think that entering these debates with pro-choicers on FB is a worthwhile endeavor. I don't necessarily enter these debates to convince these people, though it would be nice if they were convinced. Here is why I engage them

1) It may at least help them understand why people are pro-life beyond "You just want to control women's bodies!"
2) It may help them become pro-life ten years from now.
3) It helps a brother out. If a friend of mine is debating the abortion issue with multiple people, I don't want to leave him alone. I want to help him out. I also appreciate it if people help me out and don't leave me alone.
4) I don't want these people to be so confident in their assertions. I don't want them to get away with saying what they want without being challenged.
5) The audience may be genuinely helped and educated by seeing your contribution to the debate.

I'm not saying that all pro-choicers are bad arguers or closed-minded. I am also not saying that there aren't legitimate times avoid engaging with some people. I just don't like the categorical charge that engaging them is always pointless because they won't be convinced.  This doesn't just go for the abortion debate.  This applies to any topic of debate online.  

The AK47 Podcast Season 1: Episode 17

Aaron and I talk more about abortion, focusing on some of its social issues and the issue of sexual responsibility.  We also talk about the Joe Rogan podcast and give our recommendations for Christians that he should invite onto his show for the purposes of opening him and his audience up to the intellectual viability of Christianity.

Edit: Around minute 6, Aaron means Casey vs. Planned Parenthood.

Listen to the episode here.

For the story about the two angels around J.P. Moreland, listen here.

The AK47 Podcast Season 1: Episode 11

Aaron and I interview Clinton Wilcox on abortion.  What are the arguments for the pro-life position?  Why should we listen to a man's opinion?  Do abortion laws affect abortion rates?  Are pro-lifers just pro-birth?  Does a woman's bodily autonomy justify abortion in some cases?  Listen to find out.

Listen to the interview here.

For more from Clinton Wilcox, check out his blog, his Twitter, and check out the Life Training Institute for more pro-life apologetics.

Abortion and the Death Penalty

This article was originally featured on ResistanceTV.

I recently published a post on Twitter and Facebook that went something like this:

People often claim that pro-lifers are being inconsistent for being against abortion, but supportive of the death penalty.  Not everyone who is against abortion is for the death penalty, of course, but some are.  It is not clear to me, however, what the inconsistency is, because people usually don't explain what it is.  Here is my best attempt at two propositions that anti-abortion, pro-death penalty people believe:

1. It is never justified to take the life of a human being that is innocent of any wrongdoing.

2. It is sometimes justified to take the life of a human being that is guilty of wrongdoing. 

What, exactly, is inconsistent about believing these two propositions?  Keep in mind that I'm not asking if (1) or (2) are true, I'm asking what is inconsistent about believing them both.

I posted this because I frequently see people accuse pro-lifers of being inconsistent in being against abortion, but in favor of the death penalty.  This objection can come from pro-choice people who want to criticize pro-lifers for being hypocrites and it can come from pro-lifers who believe that the “pro-life” label can only apply to people who are against both abortion and the death penalty.

It is not clear to me what the inconsistency is, so I posted this tweet to see what people would say.  I was not asking if the anti-abortion or pro-death penalty viewpoints were right or true.  I was asking if a person is being intellectually inconsistent by being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty.  I am also aware that not all people who are anti-abortion are pro-death penalty.  The question is whether or not those who are both anti-abortion and pro-death penalty are being intellectually inconsistent .  I didn’t get any conversation going on Twitter (I still have a very small following), but I got a lot of interaction on Facebook.  There was a big discussion, but the best answer came from a Catholic philosopher named Ron Belgau, who writes for a blog called Spiritual Friendship.  With his permission, I decided to share his response here.

Are pro-lifers who support the death penalty morally inconsistent? In order to answer this question, it’s important to consider alternate ways of understanding the right to life and the nature of personhood.

A. Regarding life:

1. One view would be that the life of a human person is always sacred, and that it is always wrong to intentionally kill a person.

2. Another view would be that it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human person, but that in certain circumstances–war, or the punishment for very serious crimes, for example–a person forfeits their right to life, and may be killed in order to protect the right to life of other innocent human persons.

B. Regarding persons:

1. One view would be that every human being is a human person from the moment of conception; that is, that they are a person simply because they are a human being.

2. The other view would be that personhood requires something more–a certain kind of self-consciousness that is typical of normally functioning adult human beings. On this view, certain human beings are not human persons, or are only “marginal persons,” and so are not protected by either version of the principle about the sanctity of human life.

A person who holds both A1 and B1 would oppose abortion and the death penalty. Holding A1 and B2 would entail opposition to the death penalty but could permit abortion; and holding A2 and B1 would entail opposition to abortion but could permit the death penalty. Holding both A2 and B2 could permit both. In other words, B1 is the essential conviction for pro-lifers, while A1 is the essential conviction for those who oppose the death penalty. In order for it to be logically inconsistent for pro-lifers to support the death penalty, it would have to be logically inconsistent to accept B1 and also accept A2. Or, to put it another way, accepting B1 would have to logically entail accepting A1. I do not see why it would be logically inconsistent for someone who supports B1 to accept A2; but at the very least, if opponents of the death penalty want to argue that pro-lifers are logically inconsistent, they need to show why the belief that life begins at conception is logically inconsistent with the belief that societies can kill in extreme circumstances to protect themselves from those who are a serious threat to the lives of others

Side Note: When I say that A2 could permit capital punishment, and B2 could permit abortion, I do not mean that they must do so. Consider A2 and the death penalty. To say that people may be killed to protect society against war or murder is not to say that they must be killed. It only means that if there is no other way to defend life except to kill those who threaten it, then killing them is permitted. But if there are non-lethal methods of protecting society from war or murder, these are preferable. In a society with a relatively low level of social development, it may be a serious burden to keep criminals locked up, and may be difficult to establish jails secure enough to protect against escape. So I think such a society could be justified in executing murderers after a serious effort at verifying guilt. But in an advanced society like the United States, it may be possible to adequately protect society without putting murderers to death. In which case, A2 may not provide an adequate justification for the death penalty. Nevertheless, if an unborn child is a person (B1), then A2 provides a much stronger reason for opposing abortion than for opposing the death penalty, because the child is innocent and is not threatening anyone; therefore, killing it cannot be self-defense in the same way that killing can protect society from war and murder. (This principle might be used to authorize abortion in cases where continuing the pregnancy directly threatens the life of the mother.)

I hope Ron’s response helps everyone think through the logic or this issue.