I realize many people don’t like reading anything long-form online these days. It’s a plague that I hope will one day be cured, because there is so much we can learn from spending the time and listening to well crafted arguments. That’s why I think you should spend the time reading this address from Francis Shaeffer that he gave at a church in 1982. Maybe you have read his book A Christian Manifesto which is basically summarized in this talk, but I think it’s worth your time either way.
Even though he shared this 30 years ago, it’s urgency is still relevant. It’s probably one of the best discussions on culture I’ve ever read and I commend it to you for your sanctification and growth. Here’s a snippet that I thought was worth sharing, but definitely take the time and read the entire thing (remember this is 1982):
The January 11 Newsweek has an article about the baby in the womb. The first 5 or 6 pages are marvelous. If you haven’t seen it, you should see if you can get that issue. It’s January 11 and about the first 5 or 6 pages show conclusively what every biologist has known all along, and that is that human life begins at conception. There is no other time for human life to begin, except at conception. Monkey life begins at conception. Donkey life begins at conception. And human life begins at conception. Biologically, there is no discussion — never should have been — from a scientific viewpoint. I am not speaking of religion now. And this 5 or 6 pages very carefully goes into the fact that human life begins at conception. But you flip the page and there is this big black headline, “But is it a person?” And I’ll read the last sentence, “The problem is not determining when actual human life begins, but when the value of that life begins to out weigh other considerations, such as the health or even the happiness of the mother.”
We are not just talking about the health of the mother (it’s a propaganda line), or even the happiness of the mother. Listen! Spell that out! It means that the mother, for her own hedonistic happiness — selfish happiness — can take human life by her choice, by law. Do you understand what I have said? By law, on the basis of her individual choice of what makes her happy. She can take what has been declared to be, in the first five pages [of the article], without any question, human life. In other words, they acknowledge that human life is there, but it is an open question as to whether it is not right to kill that human life if it makes the mother happy.