Abortion & Apologetics

Abortion as a Moral Issue in Apologetics

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala and welcome back. I think we're doing back-to-back. I had Colton Carlson on yesterday to critique mere Molinism and the work of Tim Stratton and ironically my guest today is a Molinist, but we're not going to be talking about Molinism today.

I have my guest on to talk about a very important topic which we will be introducing in just a moment. Just by way of kind of reminders and a quick announcement, by way of reminder, those who are interested in learning Presuppositional Apologetics, my online course is starting on June 7th.

So sign-ups are available on revealedapologetics .com if you want to sign up for PresuppU and it will be open, sign-ups will be open all the way up until the first day of classes where the links will go out and we'll be meeting with the folks who sign up.

So I'm looking forward to that. That's available right now if you want to go over to the Revealed Apologetics website. Also on June 9th, I'll be having Pastor Luke Pearson. He's one of the pastors over at Apologia Church.

If that name sounds familiar, he is associated with Dr. James White, Jeff Durbin, that church over there in Arizona. So we're going to be having him on June 9th to talk about Apologetics and the local church.

So the importance of doing Apologetics under the accountability umbrella of the local church. We'll talk a little bit about that. I think that's going to be a very interesting and I think an important topic to cover.

But all that said, let's kind of jump right in. I want to introduce my good friend, Eric Hernandez, and he can tell you a little bit about himself. He's been on the show before, but why don't I just give Eric here a moment to introduce himself to everyone.

How's it going, man? Good. How's it going? Yeah. Tell folks a little bit about who you are and what you do.

Yeah, my name is Eric Hernandez. I'm the Apologetics Lead for Texas Baptists, which encompasses everything from three annual, what we call the Unapologetic Evangelism Conferences, and doing trainings with churches, speaking on college campuses, doing debates, and having discussions with fine gentlemen like yourself.

Well, thank you so much for that. I'm very flattered. Thank you very much. Actually, Eric is a really good friend of mine. We've had many conversations. He's one of my many, but within the inner circle of people I like to call on my 40-minute drive home from work, where we have some great conversations, and he's just a good friend and an excellent apologist.

I highly recommend, before we kind of get started, if you have the ability to go over to, is it Eric Hernandez Ministries or Eric Hernandez, your YouTube channel? Just Eric Hernandez, yeah. Right, so look, Eric Hernandez, and subscribe.

He's got lots of debates, and he is an excellent debater. I know folks who know us, I know Eric comes from a more classical approach, a minor presuppositional approach, but I have learned so much from Eric.

I think he does an excellent job, especially when discussing issues of atheism and things like that. He even has a debate on the topic that we're going to be covering today, which is abortion. Maybe why don't you tell folks a little bit about that debate?

Who was the person you debated? What was the topic? Maybe kind of one or two highlights that can kind of wet people's whistles as they search for that later on.

Yeah, so I had a debate at a secular college campus. It was at Lone Star College Campus in Texas, and they have had up to maybe five campuses. And the long story short, a friend of mine had started a conservative group at the campus, and it's not a conservative campus, and the topic was on is it immoral to have an abortion?

And I debated Heather Busby, who at the time was the executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice, which is one of the biggest pro-choice organizations, and she's also a lawyer and a feminist and whatnot.

Yeah, I really enjoyed that debate. I thought it went well for me.

It was awkward. Let's just say if I supported the other side, it was very uncomfortable. I thought you did an excellent job of pressing some of the important issues there.

Yeah, well, thank you, and I'll leave it to the viewers to interpret this fact. I just report the facts. I don't interpret them. But sometime after our debate, she was no longer employed with NARAL Pro-Choice.

But, yeah, there were lots of great highlights, but, I mean, I expected her to bring a bit more to the table. And to be fair, I mean there's not much you can bring to the table on this topic when you're representing that side.

But, you know, for example, in one instance, she said something like we need to that we have an obligation to care, clothe, and feed the children who are already here. And, you know, and I would just write down things she would say here and there.

And when it came to cross-examination, I said, well, you said that we have this obligation, a moral obligation to care, clothe, and feed the children that are already here. And I said, well, why don't we have a moral obligation to the unborn to at least feed and care for them if they're not already here?

And if they're not here, where are they? Of course they're here. They're just inside of a womb. And then one of my favorites was just kind of piecing together a few things she said throughout her opening.

And at one point she said something to the extent that we should have equal rights across the board, whether you're gay, straight, transgender, homosexual, et cetera. And then later on she said that we have an obligation to support a woman's decision when they have an abortion, even if we disagree with that woman's decision, because at the end of the day, it's up to her.

It's her choice. It's her decision. So in the cross-examination, I just confirmed that she did say those two things. And I said, OK, I have a hypothetical question for you. Suppose a woman of a particular religion approaches you and wants an abortion.

And I ask that because she also runs like a charity, if you can call it that, that it's an organization that will pay for a woman's abortion if they cannot afford it. So I said, let's say this religious woman approaches you.

And let's suppose we have the technology that can not only tell you the sex of the baby, but could even tell you the baby's sexual orientation. Sure. Now, so she comes up to you and she says, I just found out I'm going to have a boy or girl, but I also found out that my baby is going to be born gay and I don't want a gay baby.

And so I said, now, in this instance, would you still be pro-choice? Because if you say yes, then you're implicitly OK with killing someone just because they're gay. But if you say no, then you're going against a woman's decision, which, according to your standards, should be respected and supported no matter what.

So would you still be pro-choice in this instance? She took a few seconds to respond and, you know, kind of laughed nervously. And her response was, that technology doesn't exist. And people laughed.

And I said, well, of course, it's a hypothetical. I said, but let's run with that. Let's suppose it didn't exist even in this scenario. And let's even take it a step further and say she was lied to by her pastor.

Regardless of how she came to this, according to you, it is still her decision, her choice. And you said earlier you have to support a decision even if it goes against, you know, what you personally would do.

So, again, would you still be pro-choice in this instance? She never answered the question. And it was a really difficult time to even get this to happen at the school. That's a whole nother long story.

But it was around that time that the person that was there from the school representing the school in the back was basically telling the moderator to move on to the next question or she's going to cut the mics off.

So it got heated, not in the sense that we're yelling at each other, but, I mean, you could just feel the awkwardness. But it went really great. And there were some other interesting results of that. From a larger perspective, the school derecognized the organization that put this together and said you can no longer meet on campus.

And basically my friend took the school to court, so to speak, with the Alliance Defending Freedom lawyers, those Christian lawyers who stand up in these kind of situations. And long story short, the school was forced to, first of all, put them back and recognize them as a student organization.

And to also make it equal for all organizations across all their campuses. Because, for example, the school would give the student organizations a certain amount of money. And I think they gave my friend, like, maybe $1 ,000 a year.

And he one day went to visit the LGBT group and asked, how much do y 'all get? And they got, like, $2 ,500 a year. So there was some obvious bias going on. And now, like, I think everybody got a flat, like, I don't know, $1 ,000 or something like that across the board.

So he upset a lot of people, but everything was made fair and equal across those groups. And then on the other hand, afterwards, I got to talk to a lot of young ladies and students of that that came to that debate.

And I had even some say that they came to that debate either pro-choice or on the fence, but as a result of that debate, they left pro-life. And, I mean, that was just really great. I got to talk to some other ladies who two twins that were no, they weren't twins, excuse me.

Two young ladies that were born in China around the one policy law. And long story short, they basically said thank you for standing up for people like us. I said, what do you mean? And they explained their situation, and one of them was basically because around the time they were born in China, you could only have one child.

And basically parents would abort their children if they found out they were female because they didn't want a female, and you could only have one. So it got to the point to where doctors stopped doing ultrasounds because of the high abortion rate for female babies.

So what mothers ended up doing was just having the baby at home to see and then decide whether or not they wanted to keep it. One girl was left behind a dumpster, and the other girl was left by a river, which was a river that was popular for just tossing the baby there.

The river would sweep the baby away, and there was no that way there was no crying or anything like that. You couldn't hear the baby. And what that girl said was she says it was probably the case that my mom just didn't have the heart to throw me in the river, so she just left me by the river.

And it was like December where it was really cold, and by the grace of God, she was found by the police. And so many years later, an American couple adopted him, and they said if it were up to people like the woman you debated, we wouldn't be here today.

And that, I mean, gosh, I was in tears. So I got to pray with some people, talk to some people, and it was a really great debate.

That's amazing. I definitely encourage people to check that debate out. Who was the other person? So how can people search that specific debate on YouTube? What would they type in in the search engine?

I think something like Eric Hernandez versus Heather Busby. There's a full debate, and then I made like a little highlight reel of my favorite parts of the debate as well.

The Image of God and the Moral Status of the Unborn

Okay, excellent. Now I want to kind of approach this because this is, from a Christian perspective, there's a clear answer as to how we should view abortion. But I think it's also appropriate to perhaps maybe kind of educate believers as to what our attitude should be when engaging this topic because I think because there is such a clear perspective from the Christian perspective, some Christians tend to kind of shoot from the hip in terms of engaging folks who are pro-choice.

So what should be the mindset of the believer when they're engaging this topic in various social settings? Yeah, good question.

There's a verse in Genesis 9. It's Genesis. Let me make sure. Genesis 9 5 -6, and it says the following. It says, And from each human being too, I would demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed. For in the image of God has God made mankind. Now what's interesting here is we find something revealing about human life. And whenever you look at any law for any society or culture, the laws will express and reflect the values of what that culture upholds.

Now here we find God saying that any time human blood is shed, whoever sheds human blood, then there's an allowance of capital punishment because basically, and the reason being is when you take someone's life, you're destroying something that bears the image of God.

And because of that, your life can be taken. That being said, when we talk about the question of abortion, really the one question that has to be answered to settle the question is, what is it that we're destroying or killing?

I like the way I've heard Greg Cockel use this illustration. He says, suppose you're washing the dishes with your back turned and your son or daughter approaches you from behind and says, you know, mom or dad, can I kill it?

Well, your answer will not be yes or no. Your immediate answer will be, can I kill what? You know, the roach, the spider? Sure. You know, dog or cat? No. You know, brother and sister? Definitely not. So essentially, the only question we need to answer is, can I kill what?

What is the unborn? And we can go to some quotes later. But essentially, the way Cockel puts it is that if the unborn are not human persons, then I mean, really, why is this an issue? In other words, no one no one asked permission to cut their toenails or cut their hair.

And if abortion is not taking the life of an innocent, unborn human person, well, then, you know, have as many as you want. Go for it. You know, I don't I don't have a moral dilemma when I pull weeds from my garden.

So the way Cockel puts it is that if the unborn are not human persons, then if he says, yeah, if the unborn are not human persons, then no justification is necessary. But if the unborn are human persons, that no justification is sufficient.

So when it comes to that, if going back to the biblical perspective, if this is human life, well, then biblically speaking, God has a lot to say about that. So much so that he told these people in the Old Testament, if you take human life, then your life can be taken specifically because you are taking something that bears the image of God.

Another interesting passage you in Psalms 137, verse eight and nine. I've heard Dan Barker quote this the second verse a lot. I mean, here's what verse nine says. It says, happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

And of course, Dan Barker jumps on that and says, this is God condoning, you know, killing babies or being happy about babies and how sick this is, yada, yada. You know, if you would just read one more verse above that, you see the context for this.

So in verse eight, it says, daughter Babylon doomed to destruction. Happy is the one who repays you according to what you have done to us. Then he says, happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against rocks.

Now, what does this mean? In these ancient times, when the Babylonians would go seize a city, one of the ways, one of their tactics for not only taking over the city, but literally mocking the God that this city worship would be to grab the infants by the ankles and slam their heads against rocks.

Because that was their way of saying, your God is so puny that he cannot even protect the most vulnerable among you. So what the psalmist here is doing is reflecting back on the time when this happened to Israel.

And that's why it says in verse eight, you know, you came and did this to us. And then he says, you know what, one day someone's going to be happy to do that to you. In other words, you're going to be judged for this.

God's going to judge you for this. And one day, just like you did to our infants, someone's going to be happy to do that to yours. So there's some lots and there's lots more to say just about the biblical principle.

But at the end of the day, we're made in God's image. Every life bears God's image. And there is no and we'll also get into this. It's not as if the image of God starts when you take your first breath or at this point and whatnot.

Being a human being, a human person is a nondegreed property. Anyone who's heard me talk about the soul will be familiar with that. For those who are not, in philosophy, you have degreed properties and nondegreed properties.

A degreed property is a property like being hard or loud. These are properties that can fluctuate or change and exist in various percentages or degrees. By contrast, a nondegreed property is a property that cannot fluctuate or change.

It's an all-or-nothing kind of thing. So the property of being even, the number two and the number six are both even numbers. They have the property of being even. But the number six is not more even than the number two because evenness is a nondegreed property.

It's all-or-nothing. I would say the same applies to being a human person. You don't gradually become a human person. Being a person, that property is a degree that you either have or don't have. It's not a degreed property, and we'll get into unpacking that a little bit more later.

So all that to say, if the unborn are human beings, and if Christianity is true, which we, of course, would argue and believe that it is, well, then every human life bears the image of God, and this is not something we should take lightly.

There are some things, like if I'm on Facebook, there are some things, or even just in social settings, if I hear someone talking about something, there are some times where I won't say anything just because, I don't know, I'm running late, or I just don't think it's worth the effort to talk about, or maybe it is a serious issue, but I know it has so much political baggage to it, and sometimes I'll just often not even comment or speak up about some topics.

And I won't mention which those are because I don't want anyone to take this the wrong way. But when it comes to the topic like abortion, this is a topic I don't think any Christian can be silent on. I don't see how any Christian could be silent on this.

When you see this from God's perspective, that you're destroying something that bears God's image, by all means, we should be standing up and saying something about this, and the truth is on our side, just like the truth of Christianity, the truth of God's existence, the truth of the soul.

The evidence, all the stuff that backs it up is on our side, and we should be saying something about it.

Engaging Nonbelievers Without a Bible Appeal

Okay, so you mentioned the image of God, you mentioned these things of value. What happens when you have someone who doesn't believe in God, and so they're saying, yeah, that sounds great, but I don't believe what you believe in, so stop trying to impose your beliefs on me.

This should be my choice. How would we interact with someone like that?

Yeah, great question. So yeah, so now let's take it to a perspective where we're dealing with non-believers. So in that debate that I had, my argument wasn't a, quote, religious argument, and that's something that's odd to me when I see people saying, no, keep your Bible, your religion isn't an argument against abortion or anything like that.

Well, first, I don't need to use those, and nor do I expect the unbeliever to abide by the word of God, so I'm not going to hold a believer to that standard. Second, you have atheists who are pro-life.

I know of an atheist who's an acquaintance of mine. We've met once or twice for lunch, and he's very much pro-life, and he's an atheist, so you can't say that these atheists are using biblical verses to be pro-life.

On top of that, I always like to quote Braxton Hunter here, who's friends of ours, and he says, abortion is not a political issue. It is a moral issue that has been politicized. So when it comes to abortion, I mean, depending on who you're talking to, first and foremost, for the most part, people are going to agree that human life is valuable.

I mean, gosh, just look at the political arena and how much everybody is wanting to say that I'm valuable because I identify as this, that, or the other. So there's something of value to human life, and even you look at the Constitution.

I mean, we have this right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So that right to life, and where do we get that? Well, it's an undeniable right endowed by our Creator. That's, again, those aren't my words.

This is, you know, government here. So if every human life, if human life has a right to life, if human beings have a right to life, well, then the question is, what is the unborn? Well, if the unborn are human beings, well, then it applies.

I mean, it's that simple. It applies that they have a right to life as well. Now, when it comes to the question of abortion, people can disagree on different levels. You can have, for example, factual disagreements, and this is also good to find out where the person you're talking to may disagree.

So, for example, I have no problem eating a hamburger. I don't have a problem eating meat. But let's say someone in the east, let's say of a Hindu religion or some other religion similar to that would have a problem morally eating meat.

Or Alex O 'Connor.

Right, yeah, sure, yeah, right. You don't have to go to the east to hear people here in the west, so.

Yeah, well, this won't particularly apply to him, but yeah, that's, I mean, that's a whole another point to get at. But now why do people, though, these Hindus, why would they have an aversion to eating meat?

Well, because they hold to the moral belief that it is wrong to eat grandma. Now, you and I also believe it's wrong to eat grandma. So, in other words, we don't disagree about the moral values of the situation.

We disagree about the moral facts or the facts of the situation. They believe eating a hamburger could be eating grandma because of reincarnation. I don't believe I'm eating grandma because I don't believe in reincarnation.

Hence, we agree about the moral value, don't eat grandma, but we disagree about the facts of what is grandma or who is grandma. On the other hand, you can have a difference of moral values. So one person may say, well, it is immoral to take human life, whereas the other person may say, no, I don't think it is immoral to take human life for any given reason.

So there's a difference there would actually be a difference of moral values. But then on a third level, you can have an agreement of the moral values, an agreement of the moral facts, and yet disagree about the priority.

So we can both agree that the unborn are human persons. We can both agree it is wrong to take innocent human life. But then we would disagree on which right or which value takes precedence, the bodily autonomy or the life of the unborn human person.

And then that's where a disagreement can lie. So you can have a disagreement of facts, a disagreement of the moral values or disagreement of the priority of the values. And that's kind of where I would start with someone when it comes to that question.

Health Risks, Intent, and the Difference Between Abortion and Medical Tragedy

Sure. Excellent. Well, I'm sure there's a lot to unpack. I could I could technically ask a bunch of objections as to how how would a Christian respond to various arguments in favor of abortion. But I know that that you have a presentation that actually will cover these in great detail and I think will be very beneficial to people.

I guess I only have one more question before we can get into that is what about people who because I know it's not people who have abortions. They're not all like these like self-centered people that want to have, you know, a sexually liberated lifestyle and they don't want the response.

And there are people who actually genuinely have like health concerns, you know, that they know beforehand that if the baby is born, the baby is going to have certain disorders that's going to make life very difficult for the baby.

And so when you have, you know, situations like that, how would we engage that sort of argument where someone says, well, hey, you know, I'm doing this because I'm trying to have the interest of the of the baby in mind.

You know, the baby's going to be born with disabilities or it's, you know, things like that. How would we engage that? And then I'll that'll be my last question before I allow you to kind of unpack your presentation where you go into much more details as to how to navigate this this terrain.

Yeah, good. Good question. So a few things is. So first, let me say this, too, is that, you know, what I'll be presenting and, you know, now keep it brief so we can take questions. It can apply to anybody, Christian or not.

In other words, you know, you don't have to be a Christian to use what I'm going to present. Now, what you're referring to is often about the mother's health being at risk now or the baby or the baby.

Right. OK. Yeah. So, well, let me let me answer these together and then and then we'll we'll kind of separate them later, because essentially, I mean, you have. And I'm already kind of jumping ahead of myself.

I mean, you have babies today who, you know, I used to substitute at a school and there were times where I substituted for a teacher who was a special needs teacher. And I saw everything from, you know, kids who were just on the spectrum to kids who were in a wheelchair, couldn't move, couldn't talk, had to be fed through a tube.

And and they were just as much as of a person as I was and that just as much had a right to life. Did that make their parents life much harder? I have no doubt. Absolutely. One hundred percent. But then the question becomes, is is inconvenience, if you will.

Does that become a right or justification for taking the life of an inhuman person? And of course, we would say no. Now, going back to the the mother's health at risk, Dr. Thomas Murphy Goodwin, he runs the largest prenatal health clinic in the world.

And he sees about 15000 women a year who are told by their primary care physician that if they don't abort their child, they'll have. And I wrote this have this notation down that they will either die or have incredibly serious complications to their health.

Now, he says out of the 15 to 16000 he sees a year, only one to two cases of that you're actually requiring the pregnancy to save the mother's life or in situations of grave health. I mean, this in other words, it's it's this is not something that is like an epidemic that people think it is.

On top of that, you have. Gosh, it was. And I'm trying to look for the statistic here. There was another instance where it was actually an abortion doctor, I believe. And basically they said that out of all the abortions that they have performed, only about one percent of these fall under that category.

OK, and that's a very, very I mean, one percent is a very small category.

Can I real quick? I do apologize because I guess this if we wanted to push it a little bit. OK, so it's one percent. So in the cases of one percent, should those should the the mother in that case have the right to choose to terminate the the birth in that one percent?

Yeah. So good question. So here's where I would differentiate between an abortion and something like this case. So first and foremost, we have to lay we label actions as moral and moral, not just by what is going on, but by the intent of the action.

So, for example, if if a suicide bomber straps bombs to his chest and blows himself up, we call that a suicide. But if a soldier jumps on a grenade to save his fellow soldiers and comrades, we call that a sacrifice.

So the in any situation, the intent. So let me can I let me jump into my slides, if you don't mind.

Yeah. Yeah. I apologize if my question is OK. But if you want to jump into your slides, I can sit back and you can you can explain that on packet because I'm sure your slides will answer a lot of questions.

And I just want to encourage folks who are listening, if you have a question, like every show towards the back end, we go through the questions or or Eric, in this case, will be going through the questions.

And so please preface your question with question, because this will be a great opportunity to to ask your super duper hard question on abortion. It's definitely a difficult topic to navigate. So so I encourage you guys to ask away, but go for it.

So would you like me to share the screen now here? Yeah.

OK, there we go. OK, so let me just get this set up here. So here's my argument. Let's start with this and then and then I'll finish answering the question. And this is why I wanted to get to my slide.

So here's a simple syllogism. It is wrong, i .e. immoral to intentionally kill an innocent human being as an end in and of itself. Now, the reason I specify it that way is because when it comes to these kind of cases, first of all, I think a lot of these cases will it'll be even less in the future because our technology is just increasing.

But note in these instances, if it is, in other words, if you can in some of these, OK, consider something like an ectopic pregnancy. This is where the baby is, is not in the proper place it should be.

I think it's unlike the fallopian tubes. And if if the baby continues to grow there, well, I mean, the mother's going to die. You know, babies aren't meant to develop in the fallopian tubes are meant for the womb.

Now, a few things to say about that. First, if if the doctor could remove the baby and somehow put the baby into the womb, then obviously that would be the choice to make. In other words, we don't say in this instance, the mother's life's at risk, so let's just kill the baby.

If you can save the baby, you save the baby. Right. Right. Now, that being said, most I don't know the exact percentage, but virtually every time that these ectopic pregnancies are discovered, the baby's already dead.

So it's just a matter of removing the dead baby from the fallopian tubes. In other words. Now, here's the interesting thing is that on the medical rector records, the doctor will label this as an abortion.

And that's why I go back to. The intent and really the describing the situation is relevant to how we label something. Now, why would a doctor label removing a dead baby from fallopian tubes as an abortion?

Well, because now we can say, look, abortions are necessary. In fact, some go as far as to say that a miscarriage is a, quote, natural abortion. No, it's not. When you begin to define words in certain ways, that's that's when it begins to get really, really suspect to me.

And you can tell there's some kind of an agenda. When Roe v. Wade was passed, not too long after, it was Dole versus Bolton, I believe, which is not as popularly known. But, you know, some people will argue, well, look, abortion is only legal up until this point.

Well, yes and no. In that other case, Dole versus Bolton. It I forget the exact wording on how and I can look it up if you want me to, but basically it said that abortions are allowed at any stage if the mother's health is at risk.

Right. And here's another reason this is important. A few sentences later, it actually defines what they mean by the mother's health and mother's health ranges anything from physical health, emotional health, mental health and implicitly even financial health.

So if I'm nine months pregnant, well, I will never be nine months pregnant. But if a person is nine months pregnant and they just feel, let's say, anxiety. And, you know, here's another thing. The doctor, first of all, doesn't even need to verify this.

If a lady nine months pregnant says I am my my emotional health is at risk. If I go to this pregnancy, well, then well, then there you go. The health of the mother's at risk and you can perform the abortion.

It's simply a word. If the person just expresses any of these things, that's enough to kind of go ahead with it.

Yes, exactly. Wow. And that's what a lot of people don't realize. And here's the crazy thing is the doctor doesn't have to report this to anybody. And on top of that, the doctor she's talking to is not a psychologist, is not a therapist.

They don't know how to assess whether or not this is actually the case. Sure. All they do is say, OK, well, your health's at risk. Let's go through with it. And legally speaking, at any stage, they can perform the abortion.

So the reason I say killing an innocent human being as an end in and of itself is because I'm trying to differentiate between the cases in which perhaps the technology is not yet there to save the baby versus situations where let's just be blunt, either convenience or because they feel that they can't handle the situation as of not being able to handle the situation.

Whatever that means justifies killing your child. So premise one, it is wrong, i .e. immoral to innocently kill an innocent human being as an end in and of itself. And again, going back to what I said earlier, I would not label these instances where you're removing the baby to save the mother's life as a, quote, abortion.

Just like I wouldn't label a soldier jumping on a grenade to save his comrades as a as a suicide. The intent is to save the mother's life and the doctor should do everything they can to save the baby's life.

And if they can't, it is an unfortunate byproduct of saving the mother's life. But it is not the intent and in to kill the child's life. And that is a difference. OK, so premise two, abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being as an end in and of itself.