The Instigator
Tatarize
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
KRFournier
Con (against)
Winning
64 Points

Abortion is a force for moral good.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,514 times Debate No: 6667
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (12)

 

Tatarize

Pro

Not only should abortion be legal but it should be recognized as a force for human good. The termination of unwanted pregnancies is not only morally permissible but has rendered great benefits on society (See Freakonomics, Chapter 4, Where Have All The Criminals Gone). The lack of unwanted children can only serve to reduce suffering all around and raise the overall societal health. Further, allowing abortion to be an acceptable choice provides invaluable freedom, choice, and opportunities to generations of women who would otherwise have their lives potentially ruined.

With growing overpopulation and the massive consequences such overpopulation causes, it should be pointed out that fewer humans mean fewer problems. There is no moral value for an unthinking blob of cells and the choice of the woman, in this regard, is paramount. The moral detractors of abortion are all superfluous whereas the social and moral benefits are easily quantified.
KRFournier

Con

The issue of abortion cannot be addressed without also addressing the worldviews at play here. My opponent's argument, like all arguments, relies on his presuppositions about reality. If our worldviews are not addressed, then bias (either way) is taken for granted or overlooked. While every personal worldview differs, for the sake of this debate, I will compare formal worldviews: the naturalist worldview and the biblical worldview. I will define these worldviews and perhaps my opponent will shed more light on how his personal worldview differs from the naturalist worldview, to which I have assigned him.

Naturalist Worldview: Truth and reality are derived from nature and natural causes. Rejects all spiritual and supernatural explanations of the world and holds that science is the primary basis of what can be known.

Biblical Worldview: Truth and reality are derived from God's revelation in the Holy Bible. Accepts spiritual and supernatural explanations of the world and holds that science is useful for knowing physical reality but that metaphysical reality can also be known.

My argument can be summarized as follows:

1. There is no warrant for calling anything "good" in a naturalist worldview.
2. My opponent contradicts his worldview by virtue of applying moral value to abortion, making the biblical worldview superior.
3. In the biblical worldview, abortion is prohibited by God.
4. Disobeying God is evil, ergo; abortion is a force for evil.

----------

1. There is no warrant for calling anything "good" in a naturalist worldview.

In the naturalist worldview, morality is nothing more than convention and consensus. While the term "good" or "bad" is employed, it really is nothing more than "popular" or "unpopular." There are no scientific criteria of rightness, nor can one be derived. There is only law created and enforced by those in power. To say that abortion is a force for good is no different than saying abortion is a force for evolution, or a force for majority thinking, or a force for environmentalism. My opponent may very place value on evolution and environmentalism, but they remain his values. To use the term "good" implies that others ought to comply, but in a worldview composed entirely of moral opinion, his resolution is nothing more than advice.

2. My opponent contradicts his worldview by virtue of applying moral value to abortion, making the biblical worldview superior.

So long as my opponent insists that others should accept, condone, or support abortion, he is taking an absolute moral position within a worldview that cannot warrant such absolutes. Any worldview that must deny its own premises in order to rationalize its position is irrational and inferior to any worldview that can remain internally consistent. The biblical worldview does not contradict its premises, since it presupposes absolute moral values. The biblical worldview can indeed call anything irrevocably right or wrong given its acceptance of absolute abstract entities, such as objective moral laws. Therefore, the biblical worldview is the proper worldview in which to assess the issue of abortion.

3. In the biblical worldview, abortion is prohibited by God.

The bible doesn't deal with intentional abortion directly, but its evil can easily be inferred. Exodus 21:22-25 reads, "And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges demand of him. But if there is any injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." This is the longest use of the lex talionis, the law of retribution. The value of the unborn baby was so great that any injury to it or its mother were punishable by equal retribution. If the baby is born damaged, the perpetrator was similarly damaged. So the result of accidentally killing a woman's unborn baby (while in a fist fight I might add) was the perpetrator's death. This alone makes clear God's reverence for the developing child.

Furthermore, in the biblical worldview, life is the highest good (Deuteronomy 30:19), shedding innocent blood is especially evil (Genesis 9:6, Exodus 23:7), and the unborn child is a person (Jeremiah 1:5). Abortion is a moral offense to God and therefore strictly prohibited.

4. Disobeying God is evil, ergo; abortion is a force for evil.

In the biblical worldview, evil is defined not by consensus but by anything that is against the nature or commands of God. Abortion meets the criteria and is therefore not a force for good, but a force for evil.

----------

The abortion debate is, at its core, a debate about God. Without God, there is no case against it. With God, there is no case for it. Thus, bringing God into the debate is of absolute necessity. If I have incorrectly assessed my opponent's worldview, I ask him to clarify his view on epistemology and ethics. But until he can offer a system of ethics internally consistent within his worldview, then by merit of even engaging in this debate he has lost.

Of course, by merit of me being his opponent, he will likely get 100+ votes within the first 24 hours :)

Until then, I have shown though impossibility of the contrary that the biblical worldview is the appropriate framework in which to place moral value on abortion. Given that framework, abortion is a force for evil.
Debate Round No. 1
Tatarize

Pro

Young poor teenage single mothers can be spared an astounding amount of hardship and heart ache and dangers that go with carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. Society is spared a good number of poor and unwanted children who, more than other demographics, grow up to be criminals. The relief and option of either keeping or terminating a pregnancy is itself another moral good. The benefits to women and society are measurable and demonstratively on the positive side.

My opponent wishes us to consider, rather than demonstrative improvements in society, measuring the good of something by looking at the modern religious interpretation of bronze aged texts filled with unproven claims about magical beings and all powerful creators Gods, talking snakes, magic trees, and false histories. I'm sorry, but no.

There's a clear way to measure the force for good that something has, you can measure how well off everybody was before and how well off everybody is after accounting for all the other variables. Taking that measurement finds this a better society. Furthermore, my opponent neglected to note that the Bible is, beyond fiction, not even against abortions.

----

1. There is every reason to call something good when it leaves a society a better place than it found it. There is every reason to consider the quality and happiness of individuals within a society a moral good. We can measure such things and render a clear and unambiguous result. My opponent necessarily implies that a more holy society is a more good society. Are we are all better off in every measurable ways since the dark ages? Is it worse now that the church no longer has roving death squads.

To know that people do not want to be murdered, suffices to suggest that murdering people is not conducive to the happiness of everybody. To know that starving people want food, sick people want to be well, hurt people want to be healed, and innocent people want to be safe, suffices to allow us to make moral choices as to what we should do to help them in these ways. Their desires are human and our actions towards the greater good are good actions.

I contend that this is exactly the same judgment used to suggest religious good. My opponent claims we should do what God wants us to do, so that we should go to heaven. This only holds if heaven is a good place to spend eternity, heaven actually exists, and doing what he suggests lets us go there. Why should we want to go to heaven without such judgments?

What if hell is a better place? Hell is more conducive to fun and enjoyment and excitement and heaven is simply dreadfully boring? Then shouldn't we want to go to hell? Why does claiming that heaven is paradise and filled with constant bliss and hell is fire and constant torture compel us at all? What if God said that heaven was fire and constant torture and hell was constant bliss and peace. Should we still want to go? If what is moral is what is dictated by God, then we should have no motivation to go to a blissful hell anymore than we should for a tortured heaven. We should be unable to judge the merits of either.

Similarly, we are judging what type of society we want to live in. Do we want to live in a happier, healthier, better off society or not? If you can judge heaven over hell, you can make this same moral determination of happier society over more troubled and tortured.

Further, his supposition that without divine command there is no moral judgment is wrong. In fact, considering his God could just as easily dictate raping, genocide, and slavery (and does several times in the Bible) as moral goods. My opponent is suggesting that morality is subjective to the will of God, which has no evidence to such a being exists. We are outsourcing our morality away from our own will and to a nebulous construction of the babbling of bronzed aged primitives.

-

2. My opponent secondly argues, what can only be construed as silly. Since I argue that there is moral value and worth for abortion, I am wrong. Why am I wrong? Because he says so. I am wrong because he does not agree with me. And because I am wrong, he is right.

If you want a better society, and if abortion makes a society better, then you ought to to have a society which allows for abortion.

-

3. Third, he argues that the Bible prohibits abortion; it does not.

Please read the very passage he presented carefully. It does not refer to the induced miscarriage caused by the scuffle, rather it refers to the injury that follows.

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life." -- Exodus 21:22-23

- If men are fighting and a woman is hurt and suffers a miscarriage.
If there is no injury, then the man must pay the woman's husband for his loss of property.
If there is injury, then the law of retribution applies.

We must then understand that simply causing a miscarriage is a civil offense resulting in a fine to be paid to the loser of property, the woman's husband. Whereas if there is death in the fight then the criminal punishments apply. The woman's husband get's to ask for some cash to make up for his losses. That's all.

Other places in the Bible give similar accounting. When told by God how to count up the value of various people the following values were placed on children:

"And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver." -- Leviticus 27:6

Anything younger than 1 month was worthless. There is nothing directly concerning abortion, but judging from context would simply be a property matter and if the husband consented it wouldn't be any issue at all.

-

4. Finally, he argues that disobeying God is evil and thus abortion is a force for evil. Considering the lack of Biblical proclamation against it it, this is hard to accept even within the context he offers it. Further, the debate topic is whether or not it is a moral good. He seems to be arguing that even though it benefits society in measurable ways it isn't good because some book of mythology says something he reads wrongly. That simply won't do.

---

Is saving a billion lives a moral good? The green revolution did exactly that largely via the hybridization of plants. However the Bible is, unlike on abortion, clearly opposed to that.

Lev 19:19 "Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee."

Am I to also understand that Noble Prize Winner Norman Borlaug is a force for evil having saved more lives than anybody in the history of the planet, and improved the lives and quality of life of most people on the planet?

In order for Con's argument to even be remotely consistent, I'd like to ask that he first clearly say that there is no way for me to judge the saving of a billion lives as good. And that, Dr. Borlaug's actions are a force for evil.

---

We are discussing what is good for society, not what is approved by your mythology. Claiming that everybody is wrong because you have a book that says so, comes completely out of left field. Your God doesn't exist. Your book is just a stupid book. Helping people and saving people and preventing harm is good. I can determine that slavery is morally repugnant without regard to a silly book, moreso considering that it condones it. In order to accept your worldview, you should first establish God exists. Proving the existence of God is a necessary step in accepting your argument is valid.
KRFournier

Con

My opponent does not understand what a worldview is, so let me define it for both his benefit and that of the readers:

Worldview: a set of assumptions, held consciously or unconsciously, about the nature of reality. This includes a theory of epistemology amongst other things.

The key word is assumptions. An assumption is an unproven truth claim. Everyone has a worldview. Everyone makes assumptions about what can or cannot be known and what can or cannot exist. For example, an axiom stating that only science can bring knowledge is a non-provable assumption as the assertion cannot be proven by scientific means. So, anyone adhering to this worldview will discount all evidence for the existence of God since science is incapable of proven the existence of metaphysical entities. My opponent has assumptions about reality though he may not wish to acknowledge them. So do I. And it's these axioms that I am challenging.

My opponent mistakenly thinks I am appealing entirely to scripture, which is a half-truth. I appeal to scripture after showing how his presuppositions about reality cannot account for his moral stance on the issue. I attack his worldview, THEN I appeal to scripture, since the only worldview left standing in this debate is the biblical one.

----

1. To defend his warrant for taking a moral position in the subject, my opponent appeals to utilitarian ethics, that a society with more happy people is better than a society with less happy people. To begin with, it is a poor convention for ethics, as it is only useful in assessing the rightness or wrongness of a past action. It is a poor model for prediction what is right or wrong for it cannot determine which action leads to the greater happiness. Second, it is a convention, and as such is subject to change. To take a hard position on an issue, such as abortion, using a convention that is not universally binding is irrational. My opponent still faces the philosophical dilemma that his worldview cannot account for his absolute position.

My opponent challenges me to consider that the judgment used to discern that heaven is better than hell is the same judgment we use to discern a better society from a worse one. I can agree that the goal is to achieve--as much as is possible--heaven on earth. But in the biblical worldview, heaven is better than hell because God is in heaven. Therefore, we still have a dilemma as to what constitutes a better society. My opponent suggests maximized happiness and pleasure make for a better society wheres I suggest that God's presence makes society better. Since "better society" is subjective, it cannot alone be used to justify my opponent's absolute moral position on this matter. My contention, therefore, stands. My opponent has no rational warrant to call abortion a force for either good or evil.

2. My opponent clearly doesn't understand my contention, so I'll reiterate it. In my first contention, I show how taking an absolute moral stance on abortion contradicts the worldview. So, my second contention is that the biblical worldview is superior given that it suffers from no such internal contradiction. The rationally consistent worldview trumps the internally contradictory one, and thereby becomes--by process of elimination--the true worldview. Until my opponent is able to show how a naturalist worldview accounts for absolute ethics, the biblical worldview is the true worldview with which to debate the issue. Since the biblical worldview wins, its presuppositions--including its reliance on scripture--become a valid authority on the matter.

3. This is perhaps the only direct rebuttal to my arguments, and I'm glad to defend them. Regarding his Exodus 21 explanation, all he does is explain the letter of the law. Indeed, if there is no injury, then monetary restitution is paid. If there is an injury, then criminal punishment applies. This is exactly how I read the scripture, except, I also use this passage to understand the value God places on the unborn child. Accidentally killing a grown man, for example, does not automatically carry the death penalty. In fact, exile to a city of refuge was permitted (Numbers 35). Accidentally killing the unborn child however, carries immediate death penalty without alternative, so we can deduce that God places human worth (if not extra-human worth) to the unborn child. I then further supported this interpretation within the context of the other scripture. I showed that the Bible values life over death, condemns shedding of innocent blood, and that the unborn child is a person. When taking the whole Bible into consideration, it is difficult to make a case in favor of abortion.

Regarding Leviticus 27, my opponent interprets out of context. The value applied to infants had to do with redeeming a consecrated person, not with human rights. History lesson: a Hebrew could devote himself or his children to God's service, at which point they went into the lifelong service of the sanctuary. If, however, someone chose to redeem a relative from that service, they paid the appropriate redemption value. Infants cost less to redeem because they represent less economic value when compared to a grown male. The proper social context is that everything centered on working and earning. A person that could earn more was worth more, just as a hired worker that is more efficient and productive today is worth higher wages. Using this passage to justify inequality amongst persons is poor scholarship.

4. My fourth contention is really the conclusion of premises 1, 2, and 3. So, if my premises hold, then abortion is evil. Since my opponent has not directly refuted my attacks on his worldview dilemma, I contend that my premises do hold and that the conclusion derived thereof stands.

----

If my opponent wishes to prove that abortion is objectively a force for good on the basis that society improves, he must objectively define what a better society is. I could just as easily say that a better society is one that obeys God, in which case, abortion is a force for evil. My opponent mentions a "better society" (though not always those exact words) roughly nine times in his round, and he hopes the reader will mindlessly agree with his assumption as to what a better society is. I challenge my opponent to define this better society in a way that is universally acknowledged. If he cannot, then his position on abortion is the same as his definition of a better society: arbitrary.

NEGATED.
Debate Round No. 2
Tatarize

Pro

If you think organized gang rape is morally better than saving a billion lives, vote for my opponent. -- I know there's more of a burden here, but I don't want the vote of anybody leaning towards the moral superiority of gang rape.

I'm not pulling this out of a hat. He argues that God and the Bible is the only way of telling right from wrong. Number 31:7-18 describes God ordering Moses to make sure all the men are dead but of the virgin girls be sure to keep them for some raping. Leviticus 19:19 prohibits the mixing of seeds which renders unholy the hybridization of plants which allowed for the Green Revolution and staved off the starvation of India and Africa, saving a billion lives. -- If you believe his argument than you must accept that organized gang rape is more good, holy, and desirable than making the world a better place.

--

My opponents argument is thus:

1) I'm talking about moral absolutes.
2) I'm not allowed to do that.
3) That's contradictory.
4) Therefore, I'm wrong and he's right.
5) The Bible says abortion is wrong.
6) Abortion is wrong.

The problems with the argument are that 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 are all false, and the argument does not follow. I'm not talking about moral absolutes, I'm talking about being a force for moral good. I'm talking about creating a better society. If I wanted to discuss moral absolutes there's every reason to suppose that Kantian universal maxim or various moral theories can and do allow us to consider the betterment of society as objective in the universalized sense. Talking of such things would not be remotely contradictory, there's every reasons to have absolutes without God. In fact, there's every reason to believe things become subjective and contradictory with the introduction of God. And, even if I were wrong, there's no way of concluding he's therefore right. The entire argument is premised on a false dichotomy. Worst of all, the Bible doesn't actually say anything against abortion!

This debate was suppose to be about abortion not my opponent's odd view of the world. It was a gutsy argument to make. My opponent doesn't care if abortions provide more peace of mind, relief, and societal health down the road by preventing unwanted children by terminating unwanted pregnancies. I didn't ask for objective truth, just that abortion is a force for good. I'm not talking about morals given from on-high or absolutes. I'm saying that within the nitty-gritty of societies, like ours since the 1970s, things are better because of abortion, while those like El Salvador where if a woman comes in showing signs of perhaps having an procedure done she is handcuffed to the bed and treated like a crime scene. To this day some women have been enduring decades of prison for not wanting to be beaten to death for being raped or worse. Societies without the option of terminating an unwanted pregnancy are barbaric. Those with the option are less so. The act of terminating unwanted pregnancy also spares our streets unwanted children and unwanted crime and the exasperation of poverty.

Rather than hear arguments on these grounds, we are treated to a long and tiresome tirade the happiness of people is a pointless metric of a good society. He contends this on the ground that some dusty book says so... when ironically it doesn't. You can save a billion lives and double the human lifespan through a few key improvements but if the compiled texts of some bronze-aged tribe can be construed to suggest that 'sky-father who likes the smell of burnt goat' isn't pleased, then even the best society be damned (literally).

--

He also maligns empiricism as worthless. The best source of true knowledge is not simply an assumption, rather it's a time tested idea. I can name thousands of mysteries solved by careful and reasoned analysis of the evidence. Can you name one which was solved via faith sans evidence?

If we want a better society. If we want a society that is happier. If we want a safer society. If we want to live in a world where we are less likely to be hurt, raped, murdered, killed, and more likely to be loved, respected, honored, and live productive lives, then we should do these things. One of those things is to allow abortion to be a viable choice in society.

What if God were in hell? The only way to be near God and receive eternal torture and be near God was to do what the Bible says not to? Should we want to be damnable and suffer torture forever to be near God in hell? What metric are you using to make the choice to be closer to God? Do you not want to to blissfully happy in a godless heaven? Or would you rather suffer torture forever in a godful heaven? How can you even consider these questions without your own metric for determining what you should want? If you want a better society, couldn't you apply the same metric?

--

The real problem I have with my opponents arguments is that of obfuscation. Let us mire ourselves in philosophical banter in order to avoid the question of whether abortion actually makes the world a better place. Is everybody better off? Rather than arguing the point my opponent simply tried to make a silly and false presupposition argument and magic his opinion into fact, the bible into the ultimate arbiter, and the Bible into opposing something it actually doesn't.

I'm not taking an absolutist approach. Certainly the world would be better off if every pregnancy was a planned pregnancy by individuals who are loving and have the resources and fortitude needed to care for a child. My contention isn't that abortion is a moral good, rather that abortion is a force for moral good. When you take the good and the bad, society is better off with abortion than without abortion. That abortion isn't just a fluke in the right to privacy, but it actually makes society a better place to live.

My opponent can create his false dichotomies and suggest that there's a standoff between my view of the world and the Biblical view and dub my view contradictory and thus the Bible an instant authority. I haven't heard anything so silly in a good long while; it's patently absurd. But, it's sadly all he has. He only came here to pitch his very poor argument. Observe.

Grimbolb the magic goblin of the universe has said that abortion is a force for moral good. You're using some subjective, translated book that doesn't even say what you say it says, to claim that your subjective will is moral truth. You're contradictory notions are thus wrong as you could claim anything and aren't objective at all but really subjective. Grimbolb is the only choice! Abortion is a force for moral good! I win! -- That's how silly his argument is!

Anybody who accepts his argument, must equally accept that one on the basis of logic alone.

--

As for the Bible,

In Exodus, the miscarriage of the child is assumed, the injury refers to the woman. If it's just the loss of the unborn then it's a fine. If the woman ends up dying then it's eye for an eye. It is straight forward. The Bible gives no moral or criminal weight to the pregnancy except as the woman's husband's property.

Further, Leviticus is pretty clear as to the value of individuals and those less than 1 month are not worth anything. This would be due to their likeliness to die. Most pregnancies and infants do not result in people. If they live, they become useful and have a value, prior to that they did not.

--

My opponent has offered no substantive arguments on the topic at hand. He offered obfuscation whereas I knocked down his arguments, pulled them apart, and offered the proper claims the topic demands.
KRFournier

Con

To start, I ask the readers to disregard my opponent's first two paragraphs of the first round. Your task is to vote on the resolution, not an unsubstantiated interpretation of scripture based on poor scholarship. Though I would like to, I cannot use my limited space refuting his rhetoric other than to identify it as a straw man.

---

My opponent views my argument as a gutsy attempt at winning by obfuscation when in fact the opposite is true. What my opponent fails to acknowledge is that this debate is a battle of worldviews. There is no neutral ground on the matter. In a naturalist worldview, my opponent is correct. Given the presuppositions that render God and spirit impossible, there is no case against abortion. It is the height of foolishness to argue against my opponent from within his axioms of truth. I do not obfuscate; I get to the core of the issue.

Our conflicting worldviews must be resolved in order to make a final decision on the resolution. If naturalism is correct, then abortion is a force for good. If the biblical worldview is correct, then abortion is a force for evil. Worldview conflicts can only be resolved through transcendental argumentation, that is, by determining which worldview provides the necessary preconditions for logic, morality, and knowledge. This has been the focus of my debate, to show that given these two worldviews, the biblical worldview is superior in providing such preconditions. Specifically, I focused on naturalism's insufficient warrant for calling anything a force for good.

My opponent himself engages in obfuscation when saying, "My contention isn't that abortion is a moral good, rather that abortion is a force for moral good." Isn't a force for moral good, if it indeed results in moral good, ultimately a moral good? If so, then my opponent is speaking a tautology. If not, then my opponent believes that the end justifies the means. This is a poor platform to stand upon in such an important issue, and indicative of the moral inconsistencies inherit in his worldview.

Let me again summarize my argument. Abortion is either right or wrong. Both worldviews can make this moral assessment, though they will ultimately come to different conclusions. However, moral obligation (expecting others to comply with a moral position) is irrational in a naturalist worldview in which morality is a convention. Even if my opponent only cares about the ends, e.g. a better society (whatever that is), his worldview should warrant why people should be obligation to want that society. He has not and cannot do this because it would require objective morality to do so. At best, he mentions Kantian ethics as a possibility, which is interesting given his Utilitarian approach in the previous round. I can hardly keep up with the goal posts.

In this worldview battle, the biblical worldview better provides the necessary preconditions for moral obligation. There are many other worldviews, perhaps even one that might be argued to be better than the biblical worldview, but refuting all worldviews is not necessary in this debate. If I have shown that the biblical worldview is philosophically more defensible, then abortion is wrong. If I failed, then you must vote pro. Please refer to my previous arguments as to why the biblical worldview is superior.

---

Let me defend my opponent's accusation that I malign empiricism as worthless. Empirical knowledge is not at all worthless. The problem I cited was that it cannot be considered the only avenue to knowledge. Philosophy for example is another means, one that my opponent thinks does not apply in this debate. He says I am using philosophy to cloud the issue. Consider the following axiom:

>> Only empiricism brings knowledge. <<

This is a philosophical--not empirical--assertion. It is self refuting, because if it is true then it must be false. Ergo, it is false. This is the presupposition driving my opponent's acceptance of truth and knowledge, and he gets rather vehement when alternative methods are used. He has not tackled the philosophical integrity of my arguments save for one analogy, the Grimbolb analogy, which I will now refute.

First, it's not an accurate representation of my argument. I am not making a because-I-say-so argument. I'm attacking the veracity of my opponent's presuppositions. Second, the Grimbolb worldview, if it can be called that, is arbitrary. Its theory of epistemology is that only what Grimbolb states can be known. Neither worldview in this debate has such an axiom. The biblical worldview axiom is that knowledge can come from empiricism, philosophy, and supernatural revelation. It also allows for the possibility of a supernatural reality to be known, which means that given sufficient evidence, resurrection, supernatural healing, and God can exist. Through means of empiricism, philosophy, anthropology, etc., it is rational to accept its truth claims within this worldview. Its truth claims include an absolute moral code, by which we can determine the rightness or wrongness of actions such as abortion.

In naturalism, supernatural reality is presuppositionally rejected. Under such assumptions, God and spirit can NEVER be proven. Even if a naturalist were to witness a supernatural event, it would be dismissed as empirically unexplainable now, but explainable in the future. That is to say, the naturalist has FAITH that everything has a natural explanation. This is how deep the worldview battle runs.

---

As for my opponent's take on scripture, there is nothing more to say. All he has done is reiterate without substantiation his interpretation of scripture. He did nothing to refute the historical context and supporting scripture I cited. If I have convinced the reader to consider this matter according to scripture, then you may vote confidently against the resolution.

---

In closing, I want to reiterate that my opponent has not offered an objective definition of a better society. He wants you take his vision for granted, just as he wants me to take it for granted. I refuse to accept his vision for society simply on good faith. He has cited increased happiness and security, and this seems convincingly sufficient. But what does a happier society look like? Certainly the citizens of The World State in Aldous Huxley's novel Brave New World were happy and secure. Does happiness need to include freedom? My opponent hopes his vague notion of "better society" will win this debate. As I stated before, without a solid definition, his argument falls to pieces since a premise based on opinion cannot lead to an objectively true conclusion.

I am well aware of how unpopular it is to make this a philosophical debate, but I urge the readers to consider the philosophical veracity of my arguments. I have attacked his worldview and he has not offered refutation of my attacks. At best, he has simply discarded my entire argument as the ranting of a biblical believer. Perhaps, I could have responded in kind, discarding my opponent as a ranting atheist and let this debate be an opinion poll. I hope you see past his accusations and ad hominem attacks and judge my arguments on their philosophical merits.

To once again summarize, the natural worldview is philosophically inferior to the biblical worldview, making it insufficient to argue the resolution. The bible condemns abortion as evil. Therefore, abortion is a force for evil.

NEGATED.

I thank my opponent for this rigorous debate. Though he thinks little of my arguments, I respect his debating skills and the challenge those skills imposed.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
InquireTruth:

Yes, there is no purpose to life. Point being?
Posted by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
Ever hear of slutty used teenage girl syndrome?

It's terrible, and rampant.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
You have skeptic pwnidiots syndrome.
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
"Ever hear of post-abortion stress syndrome?"

I hear of made up syndromes all the time. :) This being clearly one of them. Best predictor of mental state after an abortion is the mental state prior.

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org...
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
True. I also complement it as far better than KRF mustered.

Pointing out the selective sampling and the guilting of people into a syndrome characterized by guilt is something I reserve for times when I care. Anybody who actually sites abortionfacts.com as a reputable source is clearly as far gone as anybody citing conservapedia or answers in genesis. -- It isn't my inability to respond to such claims, it is simply intellectual triage.
Posted by TheRaven 8 years ago
TheRaven
Interesting that you don't actually REFUTE what I say, you just say that its crap and say its pathetic.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Post-abortion stress syndrome is utter crap, and you're crazy if you think that the rest of those "points" are even remotely valid. Oh, supporting abortion, you must condone outright murder then. *sigh*

Sadly that would have made for a far better debate than KRF mustered. Would have been nice to see any points that good (even though they are pathetic).
Posted by TheRaven 8 years ago
TheRaven
"Young poor teenage single mothers can be spared an astounding amount of hardship and heart ache and dangers that go with carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. Society is spared a good number of poor and unwanted children who, more than other demographics, grow up to be criminals."

Ever hear of post-abortion stress syndrome? http://www.abortionfacts.com...
Many of these "poor teenage mothers" who made the conscious decision to have sex knowing that there may be consequences often feel trauma after they realize that they had the opportunity to have a child and killed it.

Also, that second point of logic is simply horrifying. You are basically stating that if society doesn't want it, kill it. What about orphan girls in China? They live alone in the streets, should we kill them? What about the orphanage down the block where that young boy lives without parents. No one wants him, so you say we should kill him.
Also, african american's who live in certain communities are likely to grow up to be criminals, so by your logic, we should kill them too.
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
I am not asking an imaginary deity anything. Now Maya, if He were imaginary, why in the world would I ask him anything?

You, O masterful seer of knowledge, please share your wisdom: what is the point of life? If indeed there is no point to life, and we are the product of unguided natural and purposeless processes, is it so wrong to call it pointless? Yet you, the oracle of all wisdom, have erred. You assume that human beings can assign worth to themselves, but this is tautology. I can no more say I am valuable and BE valuable than I can say I am president of the United States and actually BE president. It is precisely what I said - fools gold. Though there is an appearance of value and worth - beyond it all, beyond the weak and subjective ascriptions of human value, there is nothing. No point, no reason, no value, no worth. If you so easily denounce my God as imaginary, it seems that even the wisest of fools should understand that anthrocentrism and human value is imaginary too. So without God we are assigned to futility - the fact that you apparently cannot accept this only serves to show that not all great things are fairy tale. O and what a great God he must be!
Posted by Maya9 8 years ago
Maya9
To say that something is pointless simply because its purpose is not predetermined by a deity or cosmic force is foolishness of epic proportions. Humans have a concept of value and of purpose. We are therefore able to assign value and purpose. If we assign purpose to our own lives, they are no longer purposeless. Life is only pointless if you want it that way. Stop asking an imaginary deity to make all your judgements for you.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
TatarizeKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by The_Booner 8 years ago
The_Booner
TatarizeKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by resolutionsmasher 8 years ago
resolutionsmasher
TatarizeKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Alex 8 years ago
Alex
TatarizeKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by stormchaser221 8 years ago
stormchaser221
TatarizeKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
TatarizeKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Chestertonian 8 years ago
Chestertonian
TatarizeKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
TatarizeKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by TheRaven 8 years ago
TheRaven
TatarizeKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
TatarizeKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03