Last week, LiveActionNews published an article from Olivier Lindor called "Four Non-Religious Reasons to be Pro-Life". In that article, Lindor made the claim that science is all you need for the pro-life argument. Philosophy is (presumably) unreliable as a source of truth. Science is the only reliable source of truth, so science should be the standard we turn to when we make public policy. He gave three other arguments, but my purpose for this article is to specifically respond to Lindor's first argument from science. To be clear, I enjoy LiveActionNews. This is not a diatribe against them, but merely my intention to respond, as a pro-life educator, to an idea that I find detrimental to the pro-life argument and worldview, in general.
Lindor is right that there is a significant non-religious portion of the pro-life movement. He is also right that we do not have to specifically present a religious argument to justify the pro-life stance. However, he does not have to throw philosophy under the bus to do so.
Read the rest at the Life Training Institute blog.
Clinton, would you be willing to provide a list of any pro-life philosophers you know, especially if they specialize in ethical fields?
ReplyDeleteThank you,
I would, but just for clarification, do you mean philosophers I know personally or ones that I'm aware of?
DeleteAware of.
DeleteSure. Here's a list of pro-life philosophers, and I'm keeping the list among modern philosophers, as well as philosophers who specifically address the morality of abortion (so I'm leaving out, for example, Christian philosophers who are pro-life but don't write or talk about it much):
DeleteRobert P. George
Christopher Tollefsen
Don Marquis
Alexander Pruss
Edward Feser
Francis Beckwith
Christopher Kaczor
John T. Wilcox (no relation, as far as I know)
Peter Kreeft
Stephen Scwartz
Patrick Lee
Russell DiSilvestro
Stephen Napier