Turning Hume’s argument against miracle reports onto its head

David Hume (photo credit: Wikipedia, plus help from my daughter-in-law Brittney)

 

Turning Hume’s argument against miracle reports onto its head

By Hendrik van der Breggen

(Note: This article is a slightly expanded version of a chapter with the same title from my book APOLOGIA: The Columns: A Defence of Mere Christianity. It is also a highly condensed version of my PhD dissertation Miracle Reports, Moral Philosophy, and Contemporary Science.)

 

Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711–1776) is notorious for, among other things, his argument against miracle reports. According to Hume, no matter how good the historical evidence is for a miracle such as Jesus’ resurrection—even if the miracle actually occurred—the evidence is never good enough. Hume (and his present-day followers) would have us dismiss the evidence at the get-go.

I will set out Hume’s argument and I will show it fails. In fact, Hume’s argument makes three mega mistakes. First, it misconstrues the concept of miracle. Second, it engages in question-begging. Third, it backfires. In effect, my assessment of Hume’s argument turns Hume’s argument upside down—so it serves to strengthen the evidential value of miracle reports for Jesus’ resurrection.

 

Exposition of Hume’s argument against miracle reports

As a brief preliminary, note that Hume does not overtly attack Jesus’ resurrection; rather, he does so in a veiled way, though the veil is quite threadbare in places. Nevertheless—veil or no veil—if Hume’s argument succeeds, then Christianity’s foundational belief in Jesus’ resurrection is not reasonable to hold.

Hume argues that in the case of a miracle report, even if we concede that the reported miracle actually occurred and has excellent evidence in its favor, something about what is reported is sufficient reason for not believing the report of its occurrence.[1] According to Hume, “A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined.”[2] So, according to Hume, miracle reports should not be believed. Hume even boasts that his argument against miracle reports is, at least for thinking people, “an everlasting check…useful as long as the world endures.”[3]

Some influential contemporary thinkers agree. According to philosopher A. C. Grayling, Hume’s argument definitively renders miracle evidence “nugatory” (i.e., trivial, of no importance whatsoever, or of no force).[4] Philosophers Chris Horner and Emrys Westacott even attribute the rational authority of contemporary science to Hume’s argument. They write: “Hume expressed the attitude of science well when he argued that it is always more reasonable to assume that the report of the miracle is mistaken than to believe that the laws of nature momentarily ceased to operate.”[5]

I suspect that Hume’s argument also lurks behind the dismissal of New Testament miracles by contemporary Jesus Seminar scholarship—and thus behind Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code,[6] a popularization of Jesus Seminar musings. According to Jesus Seminar founder Robert Funk, “The Christ of creed and dogma who had been firmly in place in the Middle Ages, can no longer command the assent of those who have seen the heavens through Galileo’s telescope.”[7] In other words, Funk and Brown and company seem to hold that contemporary science, which apparently follows the spirit of Hume’s argument, disallows reasonable belief in Jesus’ miracles—including Jesus’ resurrection.

Let’s get some additional clarity on Hume’s “everlasting check.”

Hume’s idea is that “the very nature of the fact” to which the testimony testifies contains the seeds of the testimony’s destruction as credible evidence. More specifically, the evidential value of miracle testimony implodes because of the miracle’s law-violating aspect. According to Hume, the law-violating aspect of a miracle makes it reasonable to weigh the evidence for the laws of nature, evidence that is super strong, against the evidence of any report that the laws were violated, even if this evidence were super strong too, thus rendering the rational persuasiveness of miracle testimony impotent.

A miracle “violates” the laws of nature in the sense that the miraculous event goes against what the regular course of nature would predict or lead us to expect. The laws governing the regular course of nature are extremely well established by humanity’s collective experience. This makes the laws always better established than the much more limited evidence for some particular miracle, such as Jesus’ resurrection. This means that the evidence for the laws of nature constitutes good grounds for thinking that the miracle is improbable in the extreme, even maximally improbable. So we should believe the miracle report is very probably untrue. Moreover, even if the miracle evidence were super strong (i.e., a “proof,” according to Hume), the also-super-strong evidence for the laws of nature would still weigh against the miracle evidence. So we should suspend belief concerning the miracle report. In either case, according to Hume’s argument, to believe a miracle report is not reasonable. Miracle reports should be dismissed.

 

Assessing Hume’s argument against miracle reports

Hume’s argument, however, makes three mistakes. So, contra Hume, miracle reports should not be dismissed.

(Note: I have provided my first two criticisms of Hume’s argument in previous articles.[8] In my assessment below I will set out those two criticisms only briefly plus set out yet another criticism but in greater detail.[9])

 

Mistake 1: Hume misconstrues the concept of miracle

First, Hume misconstrues the concept of miracle. Hume is mistaken in thinking that a miracle violates a law of nature. A miracle is better understood as having the following characteristics: (1) It is an event that is extraordinary or unusual with respect to the regular course of nature in the sense that the event's occurrence is wholly beyond nature’s capacity to produce; (2) it is an event that consists of an introduction or coming into being of complex specifically structured matter/energy; (3) it is directly caused by a very powerful, intelligent, and nature-transcending causal source of matter/energy, i.e., God or a God-like being; and (4) it is religiously significant. None of these characteristics involve a violation of a law of nature. Properly understood, a miracle does not violate any laws of nature.[10]

 

Mistake 2: Question-begging

Second, Hume’s argument is question-begging. Question-begging (a.k.a. circular reasoning) is a mistake in reasoning which occurs when an argument assumes as proven that which is at issue. The conclusion, which is the claim in dispute, is used/ assumed as a premise, which is provided as support for the claim in dispute—so the disputed claim is provided as support for itself.

Philosophers Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker provide a fun example in their book Critical Thinking:

Two gold miners roll a boulder away from its resting place and find three huge gold nuggets underneath. One says to the other, “Great! That’s one nugget for you and two for me,” handing one nugget to his associate.

“Wait a minute!” says the second miner. “Why do you get two and I get just one?”

“Because I’m the leader of this operation,” says the first.

“What makes you the leader?” asks miner number two.

“I’ve got twice the gold you do,” answers number one.[11]

The humour arises because having twice the gold is assumed as settled and offered as support for having twice the gold while that is the very issue in dispute.

Back to Hume’s argument. It assumes what is at issue. For Hume’s argument to work, it requires the assumption that the laws of nature express either all of the goings-on of a universe without God or, if God exists, all of God’s intentions concerning the universe; but the truth of this assumption must be put on hold when a miracle (whether actual or alleged) is supposed to be under investigation. By not putting this assumption on hold, Hume assumes as established that which is at issue when we are investigating an alleged miracle. He assumes the outcome of the investigation before the investigation takes place. He assumes that either God does not exist or, if God does exist, God’s intentions are wholly expressed by the laws of nature. But if we are investigating an alleged miracle, these assumptions are what the investigation is supposed to be about. In other words, Hume sneaks his conclusion into his premises.[12]

 

Mistake 3: Hume’s argument backfires

Third, Hume’s argument—his so-called “everlasting check”—backfires, especially if we take it seriously today. (That is the focus of this article.[13])

It turns out that when Hume’s argument is viewed against the background of contemporary science and moral philosophy, the logical implications of the miracle concept actually add to the plausibility of miracle reports—especially in the case of Jesus’ resurrection.

Recall that the strategy of Hume’s argument is to tease out of the miracle concept some logical implications that (allegedly, according to Hume) count against a miracle’s occurrence, thereby making it improbable. Hume thinks that a miracle “violates” (goes against the prediction of) a law of nature and so the evidence of nature’s law weighs heavily—as heavily as possible, probabilistically—against the miracle report. However, as we have seen (in mistake 1), Hume’s allegedly logical implications are based on a faulty understanding of miracles as law-violating, which they are not. Now we will see that the very concept of miracle, when properly understood, has implications for the world which, because of what we know of the world today, actually count in favour of a miracle’s occurrence. In other words, contra Hume’s “everlasting check,” the implications of the miracle concept enhance the plausibility of a miracle hypothesis.

Before we go on, it should be understood that to say a miracle hypothesis is “plausible” means that the hypothesis fits well with the facts—the historical facts pointing to the alleged miracle—and it unifies those facts, better than alternative hypotheses. Also, it should be understood that just as a theory gains scientific respectability when it fits with the facts it attempts to explain and when its implications/predictions are satisfied/ confirmed by other facts, so too a miracle hypothesis gains plausibility when (a) it fits with the historical facts it attempts to explain plus (b) its implications/ predictions are satisfied/ confirmed by the facts of the universe.[14]

In the case of Jesus’ alleged resurrection, we have some historical facts that strongly suggest a miracle has occurred, and, when the concept of miracle (properly understood) is employed in the hypothesis to account for these historical facts and their supernatural cause, we also have some logical implications/ predictions with which to contend.[15] This means that to show that Hume’s argument backfires in the case of Jesus’ resurrection requires three steps. First, we need to justify our use of the concept of miracle in the miraculous resurrection hypothesis in the case of Jesus. Second, we need to look at the implications/ predictions of that hypothesis. Third, we need to ask whether those implications/ predictions have been satisfied/ confirmed.

 

Step 1: Justifying the Miracle Concept in the Miraculous Resurrection Hypothesis. What allows us to appeal to miracle in a miracle hypothesis? Answer: It has very much to do with what we know about the relevant evidence.

When it comes to the notion of a resurrection, we have very good knowledge of what the relevant natural causes can and cannot do. Our universal experience (with the possible exception of Jesus’ case) over thousands of years is that dead people, when left to themselves, do not resurrect. (We are talking here about resurrection into a super-powered body, not a mere resuscitation.) Our knowledge of non-reversible cell necrosis (cell decay at death) is extremely strong: bodily decomposition starts within minutes after death and after a day or more without refrigeration renders a resuscitation, let alone a resurrection, physically impossible (on naturalistic assumptions). Moreover, as Francis Beckwith points out, resurrections are on naturalistic assumptions “more than presently inexplicable.”[16]  Beckwith adds, “they are prima facie not the sorts of events about which one could speculatively develop and propose ad hoc hypotheses on the basis of which one can reasonably imagine they would be explicable under a future, yet undiscovered, scientific [naturalistic] law.”[17]

To think that there are some previously unknown natural laws waiting to be discovered may be reasonable in some not well understood fields of investigation (say, a healing of cancer as an apparent answer to prayer) and so in those fields one must explain why one is not rash in saying those laws cannot be found (perhaps our bodies have built-in, non-miraculous healing powers which become activated when we exercise an attitude of faith).[18] However, the fact remains that it is not reasonable to think this way in the very well understood realm of human death. Stephen Evans explains: “we surely know enough about the natural order to know that it is most unlikely that there could be any natural explanation for a person who has been dead for three days being restored to life.”[19] We know that dead bodies, if left to themselves, stay dead and begin, irreversibly, to decay. We know that, on their own, dead bodies do not transform themselves into living bodies made with rejuvenated flesh and new powers. Moreover, and clearly, advances in science over the last few centuries serve only to underscore the fact that no naturalistic explanations are forthcoming.

Now, add to all of this the fact that, in the case of Jesus, we also have the resurrectee making claims that imply his deity, thereby suggesting supernatural involvement all the more.[20] Therefore, if a resurrection—Jesus’ resurrection—were to occur, it is reasonable to think that it would be a supernaturally caused resurrection, i.e., a miracle. Why? Because it satisfies the four conditions of what a miracle is. (1) The event would be extraordinary or unusual with respect to the regular course of nature in the sense that its occurrence is wholly beyond nature’s capacity to produce. (2) The event would consist of an introduction or coming into being of complex specifically structured matter/energy. (3) The event would be the result of very powerful, intelligent, and nature-transcending causal source of matter/energy, i.e., God or a God-like being. And (4) the event would be religiously significant. The evidence for Jesus’ alleged resurrection evidence, then, is theory-suggestive in a supernatural/ theistic direction, and so we should entertain the miracle concept in a hypothesis to explain that evidence. But this means we should also come to grips with what such a hypothesis logically implies/ predicts.

 

Steps 2 & 3: The $64,000 Question. The $64,000 question actually has two parts: What are the implications/ predictions of the miraculous resurrection hypothesis, and is it reasonable to think that there is good evidence which satisfies/ confirms the implications/ predictions of the miracle hypothesis?[21]

It turns out that the miracle hypothesis in Jesus’ case logically implies/ predicts several things. One implication/ prediction is that the universe is the universe created by the God who Jesus purports to be and whose creating activity is described in the Old Testament. This means that, as Genesis 1:1 makes clear, the universe is not eternal. In other words, the miracle hypothesis predicts (retrodicts) that the universe began. Question: Did it? Answer: Very apparently, yes. According to the reigning contemporary scientific theory of the universe’s origin—the Big Bang theory—the universe came into existence approximately 13.7 billion years ago.[22]

Another implication/ prediction is that the beginning of the universe was caused by a powerful universe-transcendent being. Question: Was it? Answer: Very apparently, yes. Because it is reasonable to think that whatever begins to exist has a cause for its beginning, it is reasonable to think that the universe’s beginning was caused. Because this cause produced the entire physical universe—i.e., all matter/ energy and space and time—it is reasonable to think that the cause of the universe is very powerful plus transcends space, time, and matter/ energy.[23]

Another implication/ prediction is that the universe’s cause is intelligent. Question: Is it? Answer: Very apparently, yes. Contemporary science also tells us that the universe’s initial conditions are exquisitely fine-tuned for life. Because life, especially human life, has value (more on this below), it is reasonable to think that the universe’s fine-tuning was purposeful. So it is reasonable to think that the very powerful and transcendent cause of the universe is an intelligent agent. Moreover, in view of the facts that the cell is chalk full of marvellously-complex molecular machines, that DNA contains a super-sophisticated code/ language, that the machines and code clearly smack of intelligent design, and that non-intelligent causes do a demonstrably poor job of accounting for the machines and code, the intelligent cause hypothesis is supported even more.[24]

Another implication/ prediction is that people have objective moral value. (By objective moral value I mean great intrinsic worth that’s real: it’s not a mere feeling or social construction.[25]) Part of the religious significance of Jesus’ resurrection is its affirmation that human beings are made in the image of God, where God is a Being who is of great (greatest) moral worth, and so people also have objective moral value/ real worth. Question: Do people have objective moral value/ real worth? Answer: Very apparently, yes. People have objective moral value and we know this via intuition (i.e., we are directly aware of it).[26] In fact, the thesis—that people have objective moral value and we know this via intuition—is used as a pre-theoretic check on ethical theorizing. That is, some ethical theories obviously have major moral flaws and we recognize the obviousness of these moral flaws because we know that people have real value (great intrinsic worth) and thus people should not be violated or destroyed. (Consider moral relativism, utilitarianism, contractarianism, survivalist/ evolutionary ethics.)[27]  Moreover, the thesis—that people have objective moral value and we know this via intuition—is assumed as foundational for some major ethical theories and we know this, too. (Consider the golden rule, Kantian ethics, natural law theory, vital needs human rights.)[28] Thus, it is reasonable to think that human beings have objective moral value (great intrinsic worth) and we know this via intuition. Our assessments of the above theories show us that we know this.[29]

Thus, the implications of the miracle hypothesis are satisfied, i.e., the predictions of the miracle hypothesis are confirmed—thereby adding to a miracle’s plausibility. But this means that when the logical implications/ predictions of the miracle concept are taken into account in the context of contemporary science and moral philosophy, Hume’s “everlasting check” not only fails but also backfires: the consequences count in favour of the miracle hypothesis, not against.

 

Conclusion

According to Scottish philosopher David Hume, no matter how good the historical evidence is for a miracle such as Jesus’ resurrection—even if the miracle actually occurred—the evidence is never good enough. According to Hume, such miracle reports should be dismissed at the get-go.

But, as we have seen, Hume’s argument makes three mistakes. First, it misconstrues the concept of miracle. Second, it engages in question-begging. Third, it backfires. In effect, not only does Hume’s argument fail, but also our assessment of its failure shows us that the evidential value of miracle reports for Jesus’ resurrection is strengthened. Hume’s idea was that “the very nature of the fact” to which the testimony testifies contains the seeds of the testimony’s destruction as credible evidence, but in fact, in the case of Jesus’ resurrection, the very nature of the fact to which the testimony testifies contains the seeds of the testimony’s enhancement as credible evidence.

Hume’s argument against miracle reports has been turned onto its head. And so the miracle reports concerning Jesus’ resurrection should be taken seriously and investigated, not dismissed at the get-go.[30, 31]

 

Notes

1. Hume’s argument is in Part 1 of “Of Miracles,” which is Section 10 of David Hume’s An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Oxford Philosophical Texts, edited by Tom Beauchamp (Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 1999). Hume’s argument from Part 1 of “Of Miracles” is, it seems to me, Hume’s most significant and influential philosophical argument against miracle reports. Hume also sets out other, less significant arguments in Part 2 of “Of Miracles.” For my assessments of the latter arguments, see Hendrik van der Breggen, “Hume’s Scale: How Hume Counts a Miracle’s Improbability Twice,” Philosophia Christi 4:2 (2002): 443–453; and see the section “Hume’s Four Others Arguments” in Hendrik van der Breggen, The Seeds of Their Own Destruction: David Hume’s Fatally Flawed Arguments against Miracle Reports, Christian Research Journal 30:01 (January/ February 2007): 30–38. For a careful reading of Hume’s overall argument, see Hendrik van der Breggen, Hume, Miracle Reports, and Credibility (M.A. thesis, University of Windsor, 1994).

2. Hume, Enquiry, 173.

3. Hume, Enquiry, 169.

4. A. C. Grayling, The Meaning of Things (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2001), 126.

5. Chris Horner & Emrys Westacott, Thinking Through Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 239.

6. Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code (New York: Anchor Books, 2003). The cover of my copy of Brown’s book says that the book is a “#1 Worldwide Bestseller” and that, according to the Washington Post Book World, we should “Read the book and be enlightened.” In 2006 the book came out as a movie with the same title, starring Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, and Sir Ian McKellen, and directed by Ron Howard. According to Wikipedia, The Da Vinci Code was in 2006 the second-highest-grossing film worldwide. All this to say, the impact of Hume’s argument seems to be wide-ranging.

7. Robert Funk, Roy Hoover, & The Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels (New York: Scribner, 1993), 2. Included in the creeds (dismissed by Funk and company) would be Jesus’ miraculous resurrection.

8. See my articles: Do Jesus’ miracles violate the laws of nature? No, they don’t APOLOGIA (blog), April 3, 2014; and Easter and philosophy: David Hume’s argument against miracle reports, APOLOGIA (blog), April 8, 2010.

9. The additional criticism that follows is based on my PhD dissertation. See Hendrik van der Breggen, Miracle Reports, Moral Philosophy, and Contemporary Science (PhD dissertation, University of Waterloo, 2004).

10. For an exploration of the concept of miracle and a defence of the definition of miracle I have set out (which does not include the notion of “violating” a law of nature), see chapter 1 “Miracle” in van der Breggen, Miracle Reports, Moral Philosophy, and Contemporary Science. Also, see my blog article Do Jesus’ miracles violate the laws of nature? No, they don’t.

11. Brooke Noel Moore & Richard Parker, Critical Thinking, 10th edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012), 227–228.

12. For further discussion of Hume’s question-begging, see my blog article Easter and philosophy. For further insight into the fallacy of question-begging, see Hendrik van der Breggen, Question-begging, golden nuggets, and Jesus’ resurrection, APOLOGIA (blog), February 6, 2016; and Hendrik van der Breggen, Question-begging fallacy, God’s Word, and apologetics, APOLOGIA (blog), October 22, 2009.

13. As mentioned, this is also the topic of my PhD dissertation. See van der Breggen, Miracle Reports, Moral Philosophy, and Contemporary Science.

14. For further discussion of the notion of plausibility, see “A Plausibility Structure for Miracles” which is chapter 5 of van der Breggen, Miracle Reports, Moral Philosophy, and Contemporary Science. See especially the section “Clarifying Plausibility” on pages 310–316.

15. For a list of recommended resources on the historical facts concerning Jesus’ resurrection (and failed attempts at explaining them in terms of non-resurrection hypotheses), see second last note of the present article.

16. Francis Beckwith, “Theism, Miracles, and the Modern Mind,” in The Rationality of Theism, edited by Paul Copan & Paul Moser (London and New York: Routledge, 2003), 225.

17. Beckwith, “Theism, Miracles, and the Modern Mind,” 225.

18. About prayer and healing, see: Craig S. Keener, Miracles Today: The Supernatural Work of God in the Modern World (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2021); J. P. Moreland, A Simple Guide to Experience Miracles: Instruction and Inspiration for Living Supernaturally in Christ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2021); Lee Strobel, The Case for Miracles: A Journalist Investigates Evidence for the Supernatural (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2018).

19. C. Stephen Evans, The Historical Christ and The Jesus of Faith (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 160. In the case of Jesus we are talking not of 3 full days but of 1.5 days.

20. On Jesus’ self-understanding, see William Lane Craig, “The Self-Understanding of Jesus,” in Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd edition (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2008), 287–332.

21. This is discussed in much greater detail in my PhD dissertation.

22. See “The Big Bang” (chapter 3) in van der Breggen, Miracle Reports, Moral Philosophy, and Contemporary Science.

23. Van der Breggen, “The Big Bang.” And see my articles Kalam cosmological argument, APOLOGIA (blog), September 24, 2009, and Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and the North Pole, APOLOGIA (blog), November 19, 2009, plus see related chapters in my book APOLOGIA: The Columns: A Defence of Mere Christianity (Amazon KDP, 2023) in which I deal with objections and provide updated readings.

24. See relevant chapters on intelligent design in my book APOLOGIA. And see “Intimations of Design” (chapter 4) in my dissertation Miracle Reports, Moral Philosophy, and Contemporary Science. See, too, my blog articles:

• DNA and Intelligent Design, APOLOGIA (blog), March 26, 2009;
• Who Designed the Designer? Debunking Dawkins’ Objection, APOLOGIA (blog), November 24, 2016; 
• God-of-the-gaps objection, APOLOGIA (blog), March 17, 2012;
• Universe’s Fine-Tuning vs. Multiple Universe Theory, APOLOGIA (blog), November 5, 2009;
• Universe’s Fine-Tuning vs. Anthropic Objection, APOLOGIA (blog), October 9, 2009.

25. For my replies to J. L. Mackie’s objections to moral realism, see my blog article Is moral realism odd? APOLOGIA (blog), November 28, 2014. See too “Is moral realism odd?” which is chapter 59 in my book APOLOGIA (my book has additional explanatory notes, references, and suggestions for further reading).

26. See relevant chapters on ethics in my book APOLOGIA. For a summary of how those chapters provide grounds for thinking that people have objective moral value and we know (intuit) this, see “People have objective moral value: An argument from ethics for God’s existence” (chapter 106). See, too, van der Breggen, “Moral Philosophy” (chapter 2) in van der Breggen, Miracle Reports, Moral Philosophy, and Contemporary Science.

27. On moral relativism, see chapters 50–53 of my book APOLOGIA. Or see Assessing Moral Relativism, APOLOGIA (blog), January 16, 2010. (My book has additional explanatory notes, references, and suggestions for further reading.) On utilitarianism, see chapter 57 of my book APOLOGIA. Or see On Utilitarianism, APOLOGIA (blog), November 15, 2012. On contractarianism, see chapter 56 of my book, or see Morals By Agreement? APOLOGIA (blog), February 12, 2010. On survivalist evolutionary ethics, see chapters 54–55 of my book, or see Atheistic Darwinian Evolution and Ethics, APOLOGIA (blog), March 12, 2010, and Criticisms of Atheistic Neo-Darwinian Ethics, APOLOGIA (blog), March 27, 2010.

28. On the golden rule, see chapter 61 of my book APOLOGIA. Or see The Golden Rule, APOLOGIA (blog), February 4, 2016. (My book has additional explanatory notes, references, and suggestions for further reading.) On Kantian ethics, see my PhD chapter 2, “Moral Philosophy,” 145–146. See too “It’s Your Duty: Kantian Ethics” in Steve Wilkens, Beyond Bumper Stick Ethics: An Introduction to Theories of Right and Wrong, 2nd edition (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2011). On natural law theory, see my PhD chapter 2, “Moral Philosophy,” 147. See too “Doing What Comes Naturally: Natural Law Ethics,” in Wilkens, Beyond Bumper Sticker Ethics. On vital needs human rights, see my PhD chapter 2, “Moral Philosophy,” 147–152.

29. See van der Breggen, “Moral Philosophy,” 153–154. For objections to my view and my replies, see 154–166.

30. For more—much more—about the historical facts concerning Jesus’ resurrection, see the following:

• Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids, Michigan/ Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2006.
• Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd edition. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2008. (See chapter 8: “The Resurrection of Jesus.”)
• Craig, William Lane. On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision. Colorado Springs, Colorado: David C. Cook, 2010. (See chapter 9: “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?”)
• Groothuis, Douglas. Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, 2nd edition. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2022. (See chapter 27: “The Resurrection of Jesus: The Evidence.”)
• Habermas, Gary R. & Benjamin C. F. Shaw. “An historical case for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.” In Christianity Contested: Replies to Critics’ Toughest Objections, edited by Paul Copan & Stewart E. Kelly, 148–167. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock/ Cascade Books, 2024. (Habermas is well-known for setting out the “minimal facts approach” for Jesus’ resurrection. That is, he sets out a relatively small number of historical facts each of which is “supported by multiple lines of historical evidence” and “widely accepted by virtually all critical scholars in relevant disciplines from diverse theological backgrounds” [Habermas & Shaw, p. 149; italics in original.] The benefit of this approach is its succinctness and convenience in an otherwise large and difficult subject. This article by Habermas and Shaw is a helpful introduction to Habermas’s magnum opus on Jesus’ resurrection, that is, his 4-volume On the Resurrection. Two volumes of On the Resurrection have been published thus far: Volume 1 Evidences, Volume 2 Refutations. Forthcoming volumes: Volume 3 Scholarly Perspectives, Volume 4 title to be determined.)
• McDowell, Sean. The Fate of the Apostles: Examining the Martyrdom Accounts of the Closest Followers of Jesus, 2nd edition. London & New York: Routledge, 2024. (Note: In this 2024 second edition, McDowell sets out some updates and helpfully deals with some new objections.)
• McGrew, Lydia. Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts. Chillicothe, Ohio: DeWard Publishing Company, 2017. (McGrew’s book helps us keep in mind that the evidence for Jesus is not limited to the “minimal facts” to which other apologists, such as Craig, Habermas, and Strobel, typically reference. The minimal facts, about which many or most scholars agree, are helpful time-wise in presenting evidences, but the evidences can be set out even more strongly, as McGrew does, which is hugely significant.)
• McGrew, Timothy & Lydia McGrew. “The Argument from Miracles: A Cumulative Case for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.” In The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, 593–662. Malden, Massachusetts and Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.
• Pitre, Brant. The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ. New York: Image, 2016. (In his case for Jesus’ resurrection, Pitre includes Jesus’ self-proclaimed fulfillment of Scripture—Jesus’ fulfillment of “the sign of Jonah”—which includes Jesus’ resurrection and the repentance of Gentiles. Scribes and Pharisees demanded a sign/miracle from Jesus, and Jesus says the only sign to be given them is the sign of Jonah, yet “now one greater than Jonah is here.” [Matthew 12:41] According to Pitre, in the story of Jonah the miracle included the repentance/ conversion of the Ninevites, not just Jonah’s return from the belly of a great fish. Pitre writes: “According to Jesus, it is not just his resurrection from the dead that will be a reason for believing in him. It is also the inexplicable conversion of the pagan nations of the world—the Gentiles.” [Brant, 189; italics in original.] Pitre adds: “Jesus of Nazareth was right. The Son of Man was crucified. The Son of Man was buried. The Son of Man was raised on the third day. The tomb was empty. It still is. And the Gentiles turn to the God of Israel in droves. Because something greater than Jonah is here.” [Pitre, 191; italics in original.] My question/ thought: Could it be that a personal epistemological-metaphysical “risk” of seriously considering Jesus’ historical resurrection is that one encounters more than merely historical evidence?)
• Strobel, Lee. The Case for Easter: A Journalist Investigates the Evidence for the Resurrection. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2003. (This is a very short yet very helpful beginner-level book.)
• Swinburne, Richard. The Resurrection of God Incarnate. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
• Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.
• Wright, N. T. & Mike Bird. Easter Special: NT Wright on the Resurrection: History, Theology & Why It Still Matters. Premier Unbelievable? April 20, 2025. (34 minute video.)

Also, an excellent video series (still in progress), which I highly recommend (thus far), is Can I Trust the Bible? by Apologetics Canada, featuring Wes Huff and Andy Steiger:

• Can I Trust the Bible - Episode 1: The Right Books (19 minutes)
• [Q&A] Can I Trust the Bible? - Episode 1 (27 minutes)
• Can I Trust the Bible - Episode 2: The Right Text (19.5 minutes)
• [Q&A] Can I Trust the Bible? - Episode 2 (28 minutes)
• Can I Trust the Bible - Episode 3-4 Coming Soon... (1.5 minute trailer)

31. A very recently published book on David Hume’s essay “Of Miracles” is Robert A. Larmer, Hume’s Counterfeit Check: An Appraisal of Hume’s “Of Miracles” (Lausanne, Switzerland: Peter Lang Group AG, 2025). I have not yet read Larmer’s new book (it’s very expensive), but I am confident it is excellent. Larmer is chair of the philosophy department at the University of New Brunswick, and I have read much—and have been long-time admirer—of Professor Larmer’s work on miracles. In the late 1980s I discovered and delighted in his book Water into Wine? An Investigation of the Concept of Miracle (Kingston & Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1988). Before my retirement in 2019, I taught a course titled Special Studies in Philosophy: Miracles. My required textbooks included Larmer’s Dialogues on Miracle (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 2015) and his The Legitimacy of Miracle (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington, 2014). Larmer’s latest book is also endorsed by Tim McGrew who is a highly respected philosopher (like Larmer) as well as professor and chair of the philosophy department at Western Michigan University. Thus, I recommend and look forward to reading Larmer’s latest book on Hume. And if any librarians are reading this note, I hope you will order Robert Larmer’s books for your library—along with the books on Jesus’ resurrection listed in the previous note.

 

---

 

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosophy professor who lives in Steinbach, Manitoba, Canada. 

Untangling Anti-Poilievre Pension Propaganda

 

Pierre Poilievre on Jordan B. Peterson Podcast

 

Untangling Anti-Poilievre Pension Propaganda

 

By Hendrik van der Breggen

 

With Canada’s federal election coming soon (April 28, 2025), political “discussion” is often reduced to—and stymied by—memes.

Sadly, a meme/bullet-point-list titled “Pierre’s Record,” sponsored by the Liberal Party of Canada, led by present Prime Minister Mark Carney, is such a case.

It tells us that Conservative contender Pierre Poilievre “[r]eceived a government pension at 31 then raised the retirement age on hard-working Canadians.” The not-so-subtle suggestion is that Mr. Poilievre did a couple of really bad things—so he shouldn’t become Canada’s prime minister.

Whether we support Poilievre or Carney or whomever (or nobody), fair-minded Canadians should realize this Liberal talking-point reeks of political propaganda.

 

Receiving vs. becoming eligible

First, it should be noticed that Poilievre didn’t start receiving a government pension at age 31. Rather, at age 31 he became eligible for the government’s pension plan.  The government pension payments would kick in later, at retirement age.

In fact, it is standard policy for Canadian members of parliament—whether Conservative or Liberal or whatever—to qualify for the government’s pension plan, which begins payments at retirement age, after they have served as an MP for six years. Poilievre was 25 when he became an MP, so he became eligible at age 31.

Yes, Poilievre, Leader of the Official Opposition of Canada, is the youngest MP to do this, but that is because he was elected into parliament as a very young man—unlike most of his colleagues.

Yes, Poilievre’s pension is a lot. But that’s because Poilievre, now 45, has contributed a lot into it (MPs pay about 20% or more of their pay into their pension plan). Significantly, former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s pension is also a lot—and more than Poilievre’s.

MPs earn considerable incomes (at least compared to me and most other Canadians) and their pension plans are “gold plated” (unlike mine and most other Canadians). If we Canadians have concerns about MP pensions, it seems unfair to focus on Poilievre when we should put all MPs—and the former PM—into the spotlight. (And what about PM Mark Carney’s pension?)

Again, contrary to what Liberals would have us think, Poilievre hasn’t been receiving a government pension since he was 31. Becoming eligible is different from receiving—a distinction blurred in anti-Poilievre pension propaganda.

 

About raising retirement age

Now, consider the point about Poilievre raising the retirement age for Canadians (so their retirement benefits don’t kick in until later).

Yes, in 2012 Poilievre, along with then-prime minister Steven Harper, did pass a plan to increase retirement age (for eligibility for benefits) from 65 to 67 (to commence in 2023). And this plan was rescinded by Justin Trudeau in 2016 (Trudeau became PM in 2015 when he defeated the Harper Conservatives).

But it helps to know why Poilievre and Harper wanted to raise the retirement age. It turns out that they were concerned about Canada’s national debt. It was part of an attempt to cut back on costs. This is not a bad thing (though, understandably, many Canadians were not happy).

Trudeau, on the other hand, didn’t care about Canada’s national debt. Sadly, Trudeau’s record over his ten-year tenure as PM shows he spent like a teenager who had stolen his parents’ credit cards, and Canadians are the parents footing the bill. In fact, Trudeau increased national debt so much that our grandchildren and great grandchildren will be paying for the retirement benefits we enjoy.

Presently, Poilievre is promising to keep the retirement age at 65, but he is also working on plans to sell Canada’s clean energy to pay down the national debt. It helps to know this, but the meme doesn’t make this clear.

Don’t be fooled by the anti-Poilievre pension propaganda.

 

For additional thought

“Poilievre is wise to resist Canada’s weird security clearance law,” APOLOGIA, March 31, 2025.

“Tar baby: Unsticking Anti-Poilievre Propaganda (and sticking it to the Liberals),” APOLOGIA, April 2, 2025.

“Carney’s view on abortion is deeply problematic,” APOLOGIA, April 6, 2025. (I add this article in this list because Poilievre seems to hold a similar view on abortion as Carney and so my criticisms of Carney’s view seem to apply to Poilievre, too. I hate propaganda, regardless of which political party is espousing it. In other words, I am an equal-opportunity political offender, though I presently see a great deal more anti-Poilievre propaganda coming from the Liberals than anti-Carney propaganda coming from Conservatives.)

 

---                     

 

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosophy professor who lives in Steinbach, Manitoba, Canada. Hendrik is author of the book Untangling Trudeau: MAID, COVID, ABORTION, LGBTQ+. (Hendrik’s book may be helpful to Canadians for better understanding Prime Minister Mark Carney and those who have staunchly supported former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Also, the book should be read by Conservatives and others who hold views similar to Liberals on medical assistance in dying, Covid mandates, abortion, and LGBTQ matters.)

Carney’s view on abortion is deeply problematic

 

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney (photo credit: Jason Franson/ Canadian Press via AP)

     

Carney’s view on abortion is deeply problematic

And should be seen as such by all Canadians, whether Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Green, or whatever.

 

 By Hendrik van der Breggen

 

Mark Carney took over Justin Trudeau’s job as Canada’s prime minister on March 14, 2025. Whether Mr. Carney continues as PM depends on the federal election on April 28th. In the meantime, Canadian voters are scrambling to know more about Carney.[1]

Let’s look at PM Carney’s view on abortion. Below I will set out Carney’s view, then I’ll set out my assessment. My conclusion: Carney’s view on abortion is deeply problematic—and should be seen as such by all Canadians, whether Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Green, or whatever.

Carney’s view on abortion

In a recent short video from Global News, Carney states his position on the abortion issue clearly and succinctly as follows:

I absolutely support a woman’s right to choose—unreservedly—and will defend it as the Liberal Party has defended it, proudly and consistently. I will defend the Charter, proudly and consistently, as the Liberal Party does.[2]

I appreciate PM Carney for being clear and succinct, but his view has serious problems. Very serious problems.

No, Mr. Prime Minister, abortion is NOT a Charter right

I am glad PM Carney wishes to defend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but on the topic of abortion he’s got a problem: abortion is not a Charter right. It’s not in the Charter, nor is it implied by the Charter.

Contrary to what Mr. Carney and the Liberals would have Canadians believe, Canada’s 1988 Supreme Court ruling did not give women the right to abortion. In fact, “Ultimately, the 1988 Morgentaler decision did not assume a right to abortion, did not create a right to abortion, and cannot be interpreted as implying a right to abortion.”[3]

Yes, there have been some failed attempts by Canada’s parliament to pass laws related to abortion, and, yes, since 1988 in Canada there have been no abortion laws.[4] But, again, abortion is not a Charter right.[5]

All Canadians—especially Canada’s PM—should be clear on this fact.

We need an abortion law (of some sort)

Moreover, Canada needs an abortion law, at least in some cases. Why? Because abortion kills human beings—a lot of them.

Every year in Canada between 90,000 and 100,000 pre-natal children are destroyed by abortion. Compare that to the fact that between 700 and 900 homicides occur yearly in Canada.

Let. That. Sink. In.

Also, presently, abortion in Canada is legal right up to birth. Yes, most abortions occur much earlier, and most doctors don’t do late-term abortions. Nevertheless, a law would be appropriate to protect children in their, say, fifth or sixth month and later. Surely.[6]

Also, a law would be appropriate to protect children from sex-selective abortion, that is, the killing of children merely because they are girls. Sadly, gendercide is popular among immigrants who value boys more than girls.[7]

Moreover, a law would be appropriate to protect children who risk being killed merely because they have Down syndrome. How many Down syndrome babies are aborted in Canada? I asked this question on Google. Google’s AI answer: “While Canada doesn’t collect specific data on abortions following prenatal diagnoses of Down syndrome, studies suggest that a high percentage of such pregnancies are terminated, with some estimates reaching around 90%.”[8] From what I have heard from friends and neighbours who have children with Down syndrome (and were often advised by doctors to abort), these ghastly estimates seem correct.

Surely, for the sake of protecting young children who are clearly part of the human family, at least some legal restrictions on abortion are needed. Surely, too, most Canadians, whatever their political stripes, can agree on this.[9]

Defend abortion as the Liberal Party has defended it?

Carney says he “will defend abortion, proudly and consistently, as the Liberal Party does.”

Really? It turns out that such a defence is the height of absurdity—and should be understood as such by all thinking Canadians.

Bear with me, and think.

The Liberal Party defends abortion (a) as a part of “reproductive health and rights” and (b) as “an essential health service.”[10] But such a defence is an intellectual disaster.

(a) Is abortion a part of “reproductive health and rights”? Is this true?

Answer: No, not at all.

Reproduction, i.e., the creation of a child (pre-natal human being/person) conceived via sex, occurs before abortion takes place. The right to reproductive freedom is exercised before abortion takes place.

The late Michael Bauman, Professor of Theology and Culture at Hillsdale College, observes:

When pro-choicers have unforced sex, they are choosing. That is freedom of choice. When they decide to kill the child conceived during that sexual encounter, that is freedom from choice. They chose; now they want to be free from the consequences of that choice, even if someone has to die.[11]

In other words, justifying abortion via “reproductive health and rights” is an intellectual bait and switch. If unintentionally done, it’s merely a mistake (a big mistake). If intentionally done, it’s a ruse (and evil).

(b) Is abortion “an essential health service”? Is this true?

Answer: No, at least not in general, i.e., not in the majority of cases.

The claim that abortion (in general) is essential health care is false because most abortions are not done for medical reasons. The vast majority of abortions are done not for medical reasons but for other reasons.

It turns out the hard cases—rape, incest, threat to life of the mother—to which many abortion-choice proponents point as justification for abortion account for fewer than 5 percent of all the abortion cases.

In his 2015 book The Abortion Wars ethicist Charles Camosy reports that the number for the hard cases is 2 percent.[12]

But there is more to be said—much more.

Abortion is not even needed medically.

Dr. Kendra Kolb, a neonatologist, stated this in 2019: “There is no medical reason why the life of the child must be directly and intentionally ended with an abortion procedure.”[13]

Yes, treatments for ectopic pregnancies occur, but they’re not abortions per se, if we use language accurately. Yes, treatments for heart disease or cancer can involve pre-term deliveries that might result in the death of a child, but they’re not abortions per se, if we use language accurately. When we accurately define “abortion” as the direct and intentional ending of a pre-natal human being’s life, abortions are not medically necessary.

As Dr. Kolb points out, medical treatments/procedures have different purposes, which need to be made clear with language that accurately describes reality. This is important to remember, especially when we are being told by politicians and others that, in general, abortion is “an essential health service.”

Contrary to what Mr. Carney and the Liberals would have Canadians believe, abortion (in general) is not an essential health service.[14]

Again, for Carney to say he “will defend abortion, proudly and consistently, as the Liberal Party does” (my italics) is to embrace absurdity—and should be understood as such by all truth-seeking Canadians.

One more Liberal defence of abortion deconstructed

But perhaps (probably) PM Carney agrees with former PM Trudeau, who two years ago stated this on his (Trudeau’s) official Facebook page: “[The Liberal] government will never tell a woman what to do with her body.”[15]

In reply, we should notice that in the context of abortion, the issue is not merely about telling a woman what to do with her body. In the context of abortion there are two bodies, not just the woman’s body.

The fact is that the unborn baby is not the woman’s body. It is the child’s body. And abortion destroys the child’s body. And whenever someone chooses to destroy another human body, government has a legitimate interest.[16]

Conclusion

Canadians—whether Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Green, or whatever—should realize that Prime Minister Mark Carney’s view on abortion is deeply problematic. Contrary to what Mr. Carney claims, the facts are these: abortion is not a Charter right, some abortion restrictions are needed, abortion is not a reproductive right, and abortion (in the vast majority of cases) is not health care.

Most abortions are due to social and economic problems. But social and economic problems should have social and economic solutions, not the killing of children.

O Canada, be strong and free, but not at the expense of your weakest and most vulnerable.

May God have mercy on us.[17]

 

Notes

1. For an overview of Mark Carney on matters other than abortion, see Joe Oliver, “The authors of Canada’s ‘lost decade’ would like another try,” Financial Post, March 26, 2025. For a review of Mark Carney’s 2021 book Value(s): Building a Better World for All, see Peter Foster, “Mark Carney, man of destiny, wants to revolutionize society. It won’t be pleasant,” National Post, June 5, 2021.

2. “Carney says he supports a woman’s right to choose abortion,” Global News, March 23, 2025 (1 minute video, my transcript).

3. See “Under Section 7 Abortion is Not a Charter Right,” Position Paper, We Need a Law, 2019.

4. For two examples of reasonable but failed attempts in 2012 to pass laws related to abortion, see Hendrik van der Breggen, “Reflections on Motions 312 and 408,” APOLOGIA, October 4, 2012. On a more recent reasonable but failed attempt in 2021 to pass a law against sex-selective abortion, see “Sex-selective abortion bill fails in House, but debate reignited,” We Need A Law, June 3, 2021.

5. See again “Under Section 7 Abortion is Not a Charter Right.”

6. According to the results of a DART & Maru/Blue poll conducted for the National Post (reported by the National Post in January 2020) in answer to the question of whether abortion should be legal or illegal in the last three months of pregnancy only 30% of Canadians polled favoured legal late-term abortions whereas a majority of 70% favoured making late-term abortions illegal. (Sharon Kirkey, “As abortion debate becomes increasingly polarized, poll shows the views of many Canadians are more complicated,” National Post, January 31, 2020.)

7. About sex-selective abortion, the following observations from Margaret Somerville (Professor of Bioethics at University of Notre Dame Australia and founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics, and Law at McGill University) are important:

“That unfettered access to abortion should be the litmus test of whether a society respects women and their rights is a long-standing claim of pro-choice advocates and at the heart of their rationale for supporting unrestricted access to abortion. They focus on women’s rights to autonomy and self-determination and argue that such access is required to protect these rights and women’s dignity. But sex-selection abortion promotes the exact opposite values—it expresses a lack of respect for women in cultures in which sons are highly valued over daughters. It also differs from other abortions in that the woman wants a baby—just not a girl. In one study reported from India in which 8,000 consecutive abortions were followed, three were of unborn boys and 7,997 of unborn girls.”

(Margaret Somerville, “The preposterous politics of female feticide,” The Globe and Mail, September 29, 2012.)

8. This is Google’s answer to my question “How many Down syndrome babies aborted in Canada?”

9. Importantly, Canadians should notice that there’s room to be creative here. Because of the polarized political views on abortion presently in Canada, perhaps a politically practical law against abortion could at the very least (1) criminalize late-term abortionists only, not women pressured into abortion, plus (2) help women so pressured (just as Canadian anti-prostitution law criminalizes pimps and johns, not the women pressured into prostitution, plus helps the women get out of prostitution). Or perhaps we could take the view of Canadian lawyer Leslyn Lewis, PhD (a Conservative Member of Parliament who placed third as a candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada in 2020). Her fourfold platform on abortion could easily be supported by people of all political stripes: (1) ban the misogynistic practice of sex-selective abortion (since many girls are aborted just because they are girls), (2) protect women from coerced abortion (who wouldn’t want that?), (3) support pregnant women via government support for pregnancy care centers (which help both mother and child), plus (4) direct foreign aid away from abortion providers and instead to those groups who promote overall health care (which is supportable by all, surely).

          Such a law/laws could save the lives of many children and help desperate women, plus provide political space—political common ground—to encourage thoughtful, democratic discussion about creating even better, more life-affirming laws and ways to help desperate women facing crisis pregnancies. Perhaps it could even be a significant step to making unthinkable the idea that to solve problems surrounding a pregnancy we should kill children.

10. The Liberal Government of Canada’s document “Sexual and reproductive health and rights” includes abortion as part of reproductive health services and understands abortion as a reproductive right. And the Liberal Government of Canada’s document “Abortion in Canada” refers to abortion as a “healthcare service.” Also, former Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, in “Statement by the Prime Minister on International Safe Abortion Day” (September 28, 2022), states that abortion is part of “sexual and reproductive health and rights” and abortions are “an essential health service.”

11. The late Michael Bauman made this comment on Facebook in 2018.

12. For my review of Charles Camosy’s book, see “Beyond the Abortion Wars (book review),” APOLOGIA, August 8, 2016.

13. Kendra Kolb, “The Pro-Life Reply to: ‘Is Abortion Ever Medically Necessary?,’” Live Action, July 30, 2019.

14. For more criticisms of the claim that abortion is so-called essential health care, see my article “Is abortion really ‘essential health care’?” Mercator, January 26, 2021. In this article I set out reasons for thinking not only that abortion (in general) is not health care but also that it’s logically contradictory and even sexist.

15. Justin Trudeau Facebook page, April 22, 2023 (1.5 minute video). A link to Trudeau’s video (and my criticisms of it) can be found here: Hendrik van der Breggen, “Trudeau’s Defence of Abortion is a Fail—Again,” APOLOGIA, April 22, 2023.

16. At this juncture, Carney (following Trudeau) might argue that the fetus/ unborn child is a part of the woman’s body, so abortion is still justified in terms of the right of a woman to control her own body. However, such a move logically implies absurdities that show this view is false. In fact, the fetus/unborn child is not a part of the woman’s body, though it is (temporarily) connected to it. For more on this topic, see Hendrik van der Breggen, “Aborting Trudeau’s (other) abortion argument,” APOLOGIA, January 30, 2018.

17. For additional thought about the abortion issue, see Hendrik van der Breggen, Untangling Popular Pro-Choice Arguments: Critical Thinking about Abortion (Amazon KDP, 2020).

 

---

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosophy professor who lives in Steinbach, Manitoba, Canada. Hendrik’s most recent book is Untangling Trudeau: MAID, COVID, ABORTION, LGBTQ+. This book may be helpful to Canadians for better understanding Prime Minister Mark Carney (and other Liberals) who supported former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.