Life Ethics - Abortion, Contraception, and Genetic Manipulation

Well, good evening, everybody. We're going to be pressed for time to finish tonight because we have a lot to do. But I will do my best to try to get us through everything. Tonight we are going to be looking at the subject of life ethics.

However, before we get to the lesson, I want to talk about the quiz. How many of you have not yet taken the quiz? Okay. All right. Well, I'm not going to give you all the answers. I also know there's a few people online who I think have not finished it, even though we do have quite a few who did.

And the average grade is very good. There was one question specifically that created a lot of difficulties, and that was the fill-in-the-blank question because it was a direct quote from the book, and some folks would use another word that meant the same thing, but it wasn't correct because it wasn't the direct quote from the book.

However, I did go back, and I was a little gracious to those who put a word that meant the exact same thing because I know fill-in-the-blank is a little difficult sometimes, so I was very gracious on that.

So you may want to go back and recheck your grade if you haven't, if you missed that one. The other one was the one about Christian ethics being a combination, and I realized after I started getting the returns in that there could be some confusion between my lecture and what the book says.

So I want to clarify something. Dr. Ray in the book says that Christian ethics is a combination of virtues and principles. I believe that, and I'm going to explain what he means, what I think he means in a minute, but I have been using the word law a lot because I've been talking about the law of God as God's explanation of his character as he expresses his character through his law, right?

His moral, righteous character is expressed in his law. Therefore, I've been using the word law. So a lot of you chose the answer that had law, and I get that, and I can imagine you were getting that from thinking of how I was talking about that.

But the book describes the ethics as a combination of virtues and principles. And here's Ray's point, and I think it's a good one. He said if you consider the concept of virtue, which in our first class I talked about goodness, and that is one of the ways in which we can define virtue, what is virtue?

Virtue is that which is good, that which is right, that which is holy, good, and just, right? So those two things work together. Virtue is where we get our understanding of good, and then the principles that work off of that are like this.

If it is virtuous, if life is good, then murder, do not murder, is a principle based on the virtue that life is good. That make sense? Stealing is wrong because property is someone owning something, someone having property is a virtue, that's a good thing.

God gives us things. And therefore, if you take something that doesn't belong to you, that thievery, the principle is violating the virtue. So virtue is that which is good, and the principle of the law is based upon those virtuous things.

And this is where we get into arguments about, well, what about if one virtue is, you know, when you got the issue of lying to save a life or something like that, which virtue, which trumps, right? The virtue of life versus the virtue of truth, right?

Because that's why lying is bad, because truth is a virtue, right? And so that's the way he's describing it in the textbook, and that's why he says Christian ethics is a combination of virtue and principles.

And I don't think I explained that very well in the first class as to go along with the book. So if you missed that one on the quiz, I was generous with that one as well. I wanted to make, I don't ever want you to miss something simply because I haven't explained it well.

But if you did get it, good on you, that means you read the book. Cuz honestly, if you read the book, the answers were, several of them were taken directly out of the book. So it should have been easy enough.

But this leads us to tonight, where we are going to talk about the virtue of life, because that's the good that we're going to discuss, is the concept of life ethics. With the idea that life is a general good.

Life is, God created life. God created life for flourishing. God created life for a good purpose. And therefore, life is good. And so we are going to address those issues which typically fall under the category of life ethics.

And the three that we're going to look at tonight, number one, is the concept of abortion. Certainly, in any class that deals with the subject of life, you're gonna deal with the subject of abortion. The second thing we're going to look at is a little bit more controversial.

Even though abortion's pretty controversial, this one may lead to more division within a class like this. And that's the concept of reproduction. A lot of subcategories fall under that, such as things like contraception, birth control, things like that.

So that, among Christians, tends to be a little bit more of a difficult place to land. But we'll talk about why in a little while. And then the third category that we're gonna look at tonight is one that maybe a little bit, might seem like it's a reach for this class, cuz it's gonna get to areas that we certainly won't be able to dive into very deeply, but that's the subject of genetics.

A lot of questions right now deal with the ethical issues surrounding the science of genetics, genetically altering human beings, genetically altering babies in the womb, things like that. All kinds of questions arise, and it has to do with life.

Now next week, Bert has the class, and he's going to be talking about death ethics, where he's gonna talk about suicide, capital punishment, euthanasia. So similar to this, we're looking tonight at life.

Next week, we will look at death, and so pretty heavy topics to dive into, but before we do, let's pray. Father, we thank you for the opportunity to be here tonight to study, to seek, to conform our understanding of virtue, to conform our understanding of goodness to you, as you have expressed yourself in your word.

To live by principles which are based on these virtues, principles which are informed by the law and word of God. And I pray, O God, that we would be better at seeking out scriptural truth as we seek to understand what your word says.

We pray all this in Jesus' name, amen. We are all familiar with the scenario. A young woman, just about to finish high school, engages in a sexual encounter with her boyfriend and becomes pregnant. She was already on her way to success, having been accepted into a prestigious school, and is looking forward to a very bright academic future, followed by, one could only imagine, a very lucrative financial future.

Upon finding out of her pregnancy, her boyfriend chooses to abandon her and to make matters worse, her parents are encouraging her to simply get it taken care of and get on with her promising life. She feels alone, afraid, and that if she has the baby, her life will be over.

Now, before we begin to discuss the ethical dilemmas of abortion, we must first admit that this is an all too common story. We've all heard stories, maybe not as elaborate or descriptive as the one I've just given, but we've all heard stories similar to this.

I have friends who stand outside of abortion clinics pleading with women not to kill their children, I have done that as well. And often, those women who are walking into the abortion clinics are being escorted by family members who are pressuring them to, as I said, get it taken care of.

It's heart-wrenching to see these young women at times being escorted to destroy the life that was in their womb simply for the sake of convenience or to expedite a way out of a difficult situation. So that sort of sets the stage tonight for our conversation.

And we're going to look at this from what are the two most well-known sides, even though I am going to point out that there is a third side that does not need to be left out, but for now, we're going to at least just address this from the most basic sides, and that is what we would call the pro-life position.

And the, what is the other one, we all know. Pro-choice position, that's right. Now, I said there is a third position, and it is what is called the abolitionist position. I do want to mention it, and I would put it over here.

Abolitionists tend to separate themselves from the pro-life movement, and I'm gonna talk about why later. But for now, for the simple sake of the class, we're going to only look at the pro-life and the pro-choice arguments, and then we're gonna talk about why some of the abolitionist issues.

If you heard my interview on my podcast recently, I had an interview with one of the women from the Steadfast Women Ministry. She was an abolitionist, and she talks about some of her issues with the pro-life movement.

And there's more, if you want to get more out of this, you could go and listen to that and add a little bit of an additional information. But for now, let's just talk about the two basic camps. Ever since the legalization of abortion within the landmark Roe versus Wade decision, which happened in the Supreme Court in January of 1973, essentially legalizing abortion on demand, two groups have emerged on either side of this debate.

The first being the pro-choice advocates who believe that it is ethically wrong to demand that a woman keep a pregnancy which she does not want, and she should have the right to end her pregnancy. Now, there are varying levels of pro-choice, but pro-choice always falls into the category of she should be allowed to, at some point in her pregnancy.

There are pro-choice advocates who say after a certain point, she should no longer be allowed. Like for instance, who's the Democrat running for the, is it Kennedy? Robert, Kennedy's nephew or something?

There's a new Kennedy running for, is that who it is, Daisy? Well, he argues for a nationwide abortion ban after 15 weeks, all right? So he's not anti-abortion, he would still be considered pro-choice, but he believes that after a certain point, it should no longer be legal.

And so, he would still fall under the pro-choice category. He believes that abortion should be legal, he just believes it shouldn't be legal after a certain point. The pro-life advocates believe that it is ethically wrong to terminate a pregnancy because a baby in the womb is a person and has an inherent right to life, getting back to the issue of life ethics.

So pro-life, again, saying that because the child is a life, it has a inherent right, and the child's right to live should be respected. Pro-choice says the mother has a right to choose, and therefore, her right should be respected.

This gets back to the issue of virtue and principle. Because we would argue, I think, all of us at least on some level, would argue that both the right of life and the right of choice are both virtuous.

We believe in certain freedoms, and we wouldn't want our choices robbed from us. So we would say on a certain level, the right of choice is a virtue, and we would say the right of life is a virtue. So this is where the argument becomes the debate, where I'm gonna show you later, which I don't think this is even fair, but this is where the argument is, because this is why you never see a pro-abortion advocate, it's always pro-choice, because they're arguing for the virtue.

What they see is the virtue of choice. They're not arguing for abortion or death. You don't have pro-life, pro-death. That's what you would think would be the opposite, and even though I would argue really is what it is, but that's why the language matters.

That's why the nomenclature, meaning the names people use for things, matters. The pro-choice, what kind of American would not say, we're all for choice, right? We wanna have every choice. We wanna be able to choose anything.

And so they don't call themselves typically pro-abortion, they call themselves pro-choice, because they're trying to find a virtue upon which people will support. That's the whole reason. And there is a sense, as I said, where there are varying degrees to both sides.

I wanna be clear. I don't always tip my hat in this class this quickly, but I'll just be very clear. I fall about as close to an abolitionist position, I am here, about as close as you can get. So, but every time we discuss any ethical issue, I'm gonna be fair to all sides and say this is what they say.

But don't think for a second I'm endorsing in any way abortion when I'm giving their side, fair enough? Okay, I'm gonna tell you what they say and why they say it, but just know, I don't always show my cards, but tonight I'll show my cards, okay?

I'm over here, but getting back. So when I say there are varying degrees, this is their argument. Not all pro-life advocates would say that all abortion is wrong. Many would allow for abortion in so-called extreme cases, such as rape or incest or things like that.

Likewise, as I just mentioned, some pro-choice advocates say that there's a point in which abortion should no longer be an option. As we just said with the person running for president saying it shouldn't be allowed after 15 weeks.

So just because someone says I'm pro-life or I'm pro-choice, doesn't mean that they personally do not make exceptions to their stated positions. You rarely find those who say abortion should never be allowed for any reason, even though there are those who say that.

And you rarely find a person that says abortion should be allowed for any reason, even though there are people who say that. And this is why the use of language is so important. You have to listen to what people are saying and listen to their arguments.

And understand this phrase, you don't have to write this down, but this is a truism that you may wanna remember. He who defines the terms wins the argument. He who defines the terms wins the argument.

And the person who defined this as pro-choice did so for the purpose of winning the argument. Cuz they wanted the support, and the support was not going to come for a pro-abortion argument, but it would come for a pro-choice argument.

And what are the pro-choice arguments? I'm gonna give you a few. And these come from MIT. You guys know the, what is it, Massachusetts Institute of Technology? Right, or, am I right? That's MIT? Well, this is the MIT .edu slash pro-choice slash reasons.

This was reasons given on the MIT website by students of MIT. So these are intelligent young people who have degrees in science, in general, cuz that's the Institute of Technology. I want you to hear their arguments.

These are the arguments given. Number one, I am pro-choice because I don't think there is any reason why a woman should have to face all the consequences from something she did not.

Do alone.

If a guy can get a woman pregnant and then run away, there's no reason why she should be the one responsible for everything. Having more options puts a woman on more equal footing with men, instead of being someone of whom they can take advantage.

In addition, I believe it is best for a child to not be born at all, than to be born hated to a mother who is forced to have him because she has no choice and not because she wants the child. That is the argument, again, from a young woman.

This is an undergraduate student in chemistry, so she's not a philosopher or a theologian, but this is her thoughts. One, she says the guy can get out of it, why can't she? If he can run away, she should be able to run away.

She shouldn't be forced to deal with all the consequences if he doesn't have any consequences. And it'd be better for the baby to be killed than to be hated. Which again, she's basing this on some of her understandings of virtue.

Her understanding of virtue is, first, fairness. If he can get out of it, then I should be able to get out of it. Or if the man can get out of it and the woman. That's an argument from fairness, right?

From their understanding of if it's okay for him to run away, why is it not okay for her to run away? But for her to run away requires a medical procedure, right? But she still should have the right to run away.

And the further argument is that a child who is going to be born hated would be better not to be born at all. That again is, I don't agree with any of this. I'm giving you the virtue there, of course, the argument for virtue is it's better to have no life than a bad life.

That's the argument. In simple terms, it's better to have no life than a bad life. Second one, this is a graduate student in biology. So this one has a little bit more in regard to the subject of understanding life.

Biology is the study of life. This is what this person says. The single most important factor for women's advancement in society is our ability to control our fertility. I'm assuming this is a woman because she's using personal pronouns, but pronouns are a little dangerous now, so I might not want to assume anything.

But she does say, the single most important factor for women's advancement in society is our ability to control our fertility. Without that, we are trapped by the realities of pregnancy, childbirth, and child rearing.

Rather than a privilege and a gift, these aspects of being female become an unbearable burden. Attempts to limit women's reproductive freedoms are no more than a gambit to keep women in their place, a gambit in the guise of religious moralism.

True, the guise can run deep, and many so-called pro-lifers genuinely believe that killing a fetus is equivalent to killing a human being. But such religious feeling has no place in the public policies of a country that claims to separate church and state.

In the words of Supreme Court Justice O 'Connor, Kennedy, and Souder, quote, at the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life, end quote.

No one wants to plan an abortion, but the best way to prevent abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies through sex education, improved distribution of birth control, and general empowerment of women to shape our own individual lives.

Sound like she running for office. It's a very thought out argument. It is based on certain virtuous ideas, or ideas of virtue. First, the idea of virtue is the idea of a woman's potential. They're looking at that as the virtue.

This is robbing a woman of her potential to do certain things and accusing the system of being rigged. Notice she used the word gambit. It is a gambit. It's a rigged system to benefit the male and to enslave the female.

That's the argument being made here. And she makes the argument of the separation between church and state. She says that this is a religious argument and we do not have to, we who do not believe the same, do not have to abide by the same set of rules.

So you see where they're arguing from their perspective of virtue. They're arguing from their perspective of these are the things that should be put above the life in the womb. Notice also that she used that key word that so many of us have heard, she used the word fetus.

Now why does a person in this argument insist on using the word fetus? Man, if I could give an A plus. That was an A plus answer, Mr. Michael. Very good, because that is exactly right. They are defining the terms.

Fetus, of course, simply comes from the Latin word, which means a child. It's no different to call a baby in the womb a baby than it is to call it a fetus. But by defining the term fetus, the way that they have as an unliving organism, that's the idea that's trying to be pushed, is that the fetus does not have life, therefore it does not have right or rights.

So the word fetus becomes a key point in the argument, one of those important words used to push a certain idea. I'm not gonna keep reading these to you all night, but I do have one more. This is from an undergraduate student in mathematics.

So I got you a range, a wide range. We got a chemistry student, a biology student, now a math student. So math students tend to think very logically, all right? That's what math is, a logical system. This is their argument.

I'm pro-choice because it's the only option that isn't poisoned with misogyny. I'm sorry, I messed up my words and I shouldn't be laughing. It's just like, I just said it was gonna be real logical. First thing out of the gate.

It's the only position that isn't poisoned with misogyny. Now, what is misogyny? Misogyny comes from the idea of being opposed to women. Gynos, where we get the word gynecologist, is the root of misogyny.

That's where that idea of women. So misogyny is anti-women. So the argument is that pro-choice is the only position that isn't anti-woman, goes on, says I believe that we are responsible for justifying our beliefs and just as one cannot claim that a given race is inferior to another because it's what I believe.

I don't think one can argue that old white men can assert control over a woman's uterus and future because they claim to believe that a fetus is comparable to a human life. I said this was gonna be really logical, right?

Notice this one is the one that's most filled with emotion. So far, it's all been what we would call red herring style arguments, pointing at things that don't matter, whether it's old white men. Doesn't matter whether it's an old white man or a young black woman.

Doesn't matter who's saying it. It matters whether or not it's true. But this is a bad argument. Whoever this, I don't know if it's a she or not, I'm assuming. Says that belief is so clearly a result of the fact that only women can get pregnant and only women would ever have to carry an unwanted fetus to term, that I find it laughable that anyone claims being anti-choice has anything to do with concern for potential life.

Stop right there and just know that this was certainly written before five years ago. Cuz she said only a woman can have a baby. That would not, I wonder if this is still on the MIT website. I know that this is at least two years old cuz I taught this class two years ago and I used these examples then.

So I know this is at least two years old, but I didn't recheck to see if it's still there. But I wonder if this quote is still there. She just said something that's no longer allowed in the cultural zeitgeist, and that is to say that only women can have babies.

Cuz now, am I wrong, AJ?

You know I'm right, right?

Yeah, you are, you're just laughing. Yeah, it is, but I know that it, like I said, I got these examples two years ago, I didn't recheck. So if anybody wants to go to, as I said, MIT .edu slash pro-choice slash reasons, this was there on their website.

This person goes on to say, can anyone really believe that abortion would even be an issue if men had to face the possibility of giving birth to and raising a child because of one night failed contraception?

I think Florence Kennedy said it best, quote, if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament. It's a great quote. I hate what it's saying, but it's, that's a legitimately witty retort. But this entire argument has left the reservation of logic and moved into the position of the emotion.

And it's a very emotional driven argument. It looks to the entire situation as being based upon one sex or gender's desire to oppress and imprison the other sex or gender, men being the antagonist and women being the victim.

And in this particular case, white men, I don't know why that matters, but specifically that it would be white men who are making the decision. So I didn't choose these because they're bad arguments. I chose these because there's a ray.

There's an array of arguments. As I said, the first one, she made her arguments based upon what she thought was logical virtues. We may disagree, but at least she's making a virtue argument, right? Last one, more of an emotional argument.

Now the same thing happens on our side. We have people who make very good arguments for pro-life, and we have people who make very bad arguments. So it can go either way. We have to be at least fair when we talk about that.

I do have one last thing for the pro-choice side, and then I want to move to the pro-life side. The BBC, which is the British broadcasting company, has an ethics guide. And the BBC ethics guide gives a list of rights, excuse me, women's rights arguments in favor of abortion.

These are one sentence, so these are much quicker than what we just read. And I would say much more well thought out. These are individual sentences that give the basic overview of what they say is an ethical guide to abortion.

Number one, women have a moral right to decide what to do with their bodies. How many of us have we heard this? Isn't that the very basis of the argument in general? Women have a right to decide what to do with their bodies.

Number two, the right to abortion is vital for gender equality. Now that's similar to an argument we just heard, because what did the one woman say? She said if a man had to do this, it would be legal, because men don't have to do it, it puts women in a category of subversion.

Number three, the right to abortion is vital for individual women to achieve their full potential. I'm gonna stop for a moment. I didn't bring the video with me tonight, but there is a video online of one of the men, I believe he is a representative of the military, speaking at the White House, arguing why the military should be paying for abortion.

And he said the reason the military should be paying for abortion is because they need to keep women in. And when women get pregnant, they tend to not remain in, and we need their talent. We need them to reach their full potential, so we need to be paying for their abortions.

How scary and how dangerous is that? To think that our taxes are going towards the funding of abortions for women, so that we can keep them in the military. But that's the point there, right? To reach full potential, you have to have the ability to do this.

Number four, banning abortion puts women at risk by forcing them to use illegal abortionists, that is a very popular argument that you've heard the term coat hanger abortion. And that is the argument that if abortion is not legal, they will find illegal means to do it.

And the last one on this list is the right to abortion should be part of a portfolio of pregnancy rights that enables women to make a truly free choice whether to end a pregnancy. This argument reminds us that even in the abortion debate, we should regard the women as a person and not just a container for the fetus.

This is continuing on their argument. We should therefore give great consideration to her rights and needs as well as those of the unborn. Pro-choice women's rights advocates do not take a casual or callous attitude to the fetus.

The opposite is usually true, and most of them acknowledge that choosing an abortion is usually a case of choosing the least bad of several bad courses of action. That's their quote, not mine. So they're saying, we understand this is bad, but it's not the worst bad.

Remember we talked about that, virtue and principle, right? They're saying there are certain virtues that rise above the virtue of life for the fetus. The virtue of the woman's freedom rises above that.

The virtue of the woman's potential rises above that. The virtue of the need for the military to have women serving, right? Anything you can put above life becomes a virtue that trumps that. The good thing is we're still streaming.

If you're watching this and I just went all wonky on the camera, I think the wire gave out for some reason. But we'll hope that does not happen again. All right, so I've given the last ten minutes to the arguments for the pro-choice side.

I don't have time to go and wash my hands, but I do feel a little dirty having given the pro-choice arguments. But honestly, this is a subject that, for me, turns my stomach to even discuss. But because it's an important part of this class, I have to give that side.

And some would say I'm not being fair, because obviously I don't support it. But I am trying to give the arguments that are being used. I didn't write these. These are coming from the websites that are out there.

And certainly there are other websites, there are books. But I do want to tell you this. Going against the abortion position, going against the pro-choice position is a lot like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall.

And if you've ever tried to nail Jell-O to a wall, you'll realize very quickly there's not much where you can find a purchase. Because every time you get something to stick, it falls, and you gotta try to get something else to stick.

And that often is the case. No matter what you say, they come up with another reason, another place to go. Do you want to say?

Okay.

The Pro-Life Case and the Question of Personhood

So now we look to the other side, and that is the arguments of the pro-life side. Pro-life advocates usually base their argument simply on the personhood of the child in the womb. The personhood of the child in the womb.

If the child is a person, then the right to personhood should be recognized. And one of the rights to personhood is the right to life. The problem is that the concept of personhood is not easy to define.

What makes someone a person? And when does a person begin, and is life the same as personhood? That's the questions that are challenged to the pro-life advocate. Okay, you say you're for life. Well, when does life begin?

And when does that life become a person? And so, often pro-choice arguments will be based on scientifically quantifiable data. Scientific advances, particularly in the past century, have given a large volume of information that is used by pro-life advocates to conclude when life begins.

For instance, here's just a few. All genetic information, including the entire genetic code that generates the particular characteristics of human beings, is established at the very moment of conception.

And from that point, the growing being is not a part of the mother, but is an individual genetic person. So, from a scientific perspective, we now know that a new genetic code and a new specific person is generated at conception.

That is true. That we know. Number two. Within 18 to 25 days, there is a discernible heartbeat. Some have argued that this is not the case, but rather it is the, that pro-life advocates have faked this one.

That they've created heartbeats that are created. They're hearing sounds that aren't genuine heartbeats. That it's, it didn't stick, but that was one of the arguments that was made relatively recently, was that they're not real heartbeats.

It's something else that's being picked up by the machine, but not a heartbeat. However, it is pretty well accepted within scientific circles that within 25 days, there is a heartbeat. I will tell you a personal story.

My wife and I have six children, two by way of adoption and four by way of natural childbirth, and we have three children who did not survive the womb. And all three of those children, we heard their heartbeat.

Our second one that we lost, we had actually named him because he lasted in the womb into the second trimester. We named him Paul, and he, when he, his passing required a lot more of my wife because it was a lot more difficult in the sense of physical.

Her body had already begun to prepare and different things within. There were just, there was more physical that went along with that miscarriage that hurt. But the point is, all three of my children, whom I never met, were, I heard their heartbeat.

So, and all of them were, except for Paul was within the first trimester, within the first three months. Actually, the first two, or the other two were within, was eight to ten weeks, and we heard their heartbeat.

So, anyhow.

Within eight weeks, brain waves and fingerprints are present, and within 12 to 13 weeks, the fetus is sucking his thumb and recoiling from pain. This has been documented on recorded devices, sonography, the pictures within the womb have recorded children being probed and then recoiling from the pain.

There is a terrible film that I have seen. I say it's terrible. I think it's an important film. It's terrible in the sense that I hated watching it. The title of the film was The Silent Scream. The Silent Scream is considered to be propaganda by the pro-choice movement, and I imagine it's considered that because of what it shows.

But The Silent Scream is a film that records an actual abortion, and the images of the sonogram are seen as the child is being pulled apart. And during the act, the fetus is contorting against the invasion of the clamps and the knives to separate its body parts and pull them out piece by piece.

It really is just a tremendously ugly thing to consider. As we talk about this, it's hard. One person, pro-choice person, said that the fetus is simply an undifferentiated mass of protoplasm. That is intellectually dishonest.

That is intellectually dishonest. You will see pictures in certain books that try to push the idea of abortion, and they'll show pictures of a human embryo fetus development, and they'll say, oh, it's the same as a lizard or something else.

They'll show other animals, and they'll say it's all the same. It is drastically different at a very, very early point, and it's just simple intellectual dishonest. So the point I'm making simply is this.

The arguments of the pro-choice side tend to or the pro-life side, rather, tend to be arguments about the virtue of life that exists within the womb. Virtue of life that exists within the womb. One of the most common arguments for abortion, I'm sorry, for pro-life, anti-abortion, is called SLED.

Now, this may end up on a quiz. You may want to write this down. SLED is S-L-E-D, and it is size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. Size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency.

Now, I don't use this argument a lot. I use a biblical argument, which we haven't gotten to yet, and we're running so low out of time. I didn't realize I was going to be on this so long, but this is just such an important point for me, but I do use, I do teach people this because this is one of the most commonly used arguments by pro-life advocates who don't want to use the Bible.