The video below is a candid interview with Al and Lisa Robertson of the Duck Dynasty Robertson’s. In the video Al and Lisa discuss their views on abortion and, to the surprise of many I’m sure, Lisa shares that she considers herself pro-choice.

After revealing that she had an abortion when she was younger in discussing their new book “A New Season: A Robertson Family Love Story of Brokenness and Redemption,” Lisa says that while she opposes abortion based on her religious convictions, she does not want to force her beliefs on anyone else. Lisa says:

“I’m not going to put my belief on you. If that’s the way you feel then that’s your choice … in the end, you have to speak to God about that and so will I.”

It seems that Lisa is saying she is only against abortion because of her religious beliefs. And because her opposition to abortion is based on her religious beliefs she is not pro-life but pro-choice.

Unfortunately her position is both logically and philosophically untenable.

Logically speaking is it hard to reconcile the belief that abortion is wrong, that it is murder, while also claiming to be pro-choice. This is a logical fallacy. We have far too many politicians that hold this same position and have not lifted a finger to save a single unborn child. Why? Because simply claiming to be something is worthless without the actions to back it up. In other words, claiming to oppose abortion without actually doing something to stop it – whether voting for pro-life lawmakers or supporting pro-life legislation – is worthless; and meaningless.

But this is an equally philosophically untenable position for the simple fact that Lisa draws a concrete parallel between her religious convictions and her opposition to abortion. In her mind, it seems, she is only against abortion – in name only – because of her religious convictions and therefore she could not imagine placing those beliefs on anyone else. And it’s for this reason that she is comfortable saying she is both pro-choice and against abortion.

The problem here is that it gives no credibility to anyone that is against abortion for non-religious reasons. The conclusion can be drawn from Lisa’s statement that without religious convictions it doesn’t make sense to be anything but pro-choice. So every non-religious person – such as pro-life atheists (yes, they do exist) – are undermined.

Furthermore, Lisa’s statements remove the inherent dignity and worth of every human being. If the only valid reason to be pro-life is religious convictions then abortion for all others becomes morally acceptable. The non-religious can now say “since I have no religious convictions to stop me from having an abortion, I will. And I will support it.” And since Lisa is not willing to put her beliefs on anyone else, she won’t lift a finger to stop the abortion. This position removes the inherent worth of every human being based on the singular fact that they are a human being; and opens the door for approving abortion for anyone without religious convictions.

This is, in my opinion, one of the strangest, most indefensible positions I think I’ve ever come across. Watch the video for yourself and see if it strikes you odd (the abortion conversation starts at the 8:00 minute mark).

I have a feeling that Lisa may be alone in her thinking among the Robertson clan. Then again, I’ve not run across anyone else claiming this position.

If the video doesn’t appear automatically, please refresh your browser.