Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias passes away at 74, offered brilliant defenses of the pro-life position

By Dave Andrusko

Internationally renowned apologist Ravi Zacharias passed away May 19, at the age of 74. As Live Action News noted on that same day, “On the Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM) website, multiple authors have discussed the issue of abortion, and Zacharias himself spoke on this issue, seeing it as part of Christian apologetics”

After listening to him on the radio off and on for decades, I saw Rev. Zacharias in person several years ago at a talk he delivered at the Marine Base at Quantico, in Northern Virginia. As I remember, he delivered a short message, much preferring (as I’m told was his habit) to respond to questions from the audience. 

The abortion issue came up. I do not remember the specifics, only that Rev. Zacharias handled the query with intelligence, wit, and grace.

The transcript that follows appears at the end of the Live Action News post (drawn from a You Tube video). It perfectly illustrates how brilliant he was in drawing out the incoherence of the “pro-choice” worldview. 

In the video,  Rev. Zacharias talks about being on Ohio State University’s radio program, doing an open line program with astrophysicist, Dr. Hugh Ross. 

A woman phoned rather angrily… I know why she was upset… [and] she brought up the abortion issue. 

… I said, “Why are you for it?”

She said, “It is my moral right.”

I said, “Alright, then respond to me this way… Many times I stand on a university campus and somebody gives me an illustration like this: A plane is in midair, suddenly it crashes seemingly for no reason. It explodes, and strangely 10 people live, 70 people die. It’s an ‘act of God’ according to the proverbial usage. And people say to me, “What kind of a God is this? 70 die, 10 live. God is immoral in doing that.”

I said, “Now can you help solve this conundrum for me? If indeed that is an act of God, and 70 die and 10 live, and He made that choice for it to happen, you’re calling His choice immoral. When you have the opportunity to determine whether somebody lives within you or dies within you, you’re calling it your moral right… Can you explain this conundrum for me?”

There was silence…

… It’s a very treasured thing that this life is so sacred and so vulnerable. It is not the mother’s life. It is not the father’s life. Geneticists tell you that. From the moment of that conception, this was a brand new entity. I do not know of geneticists anywhere who have said this is not a life. This is a completely different entity. I think what the world has to answer is, what are we going to do if that is a life, and we are taking them up by the millions? What are we going to do if that is indeed a life, and we are destroying them by the millions? 

Now, somebody can then turn around and say, “Ravi, this is a pluralistic society. You have no right to impose your ethic on me.”

I accept that statement in 99 out of 100 times. Where I have the quandary is this: if indeed my responsibility in life is to guard the sanctity of another life, ought not I do my best to protect that life, too? As difficult as that is—and I know it’s a divisive statement—I will do everything in my power to talk to every human being about the sanctity of that life.