God Opposes Abortion
Debate Rounds (3)
Sure, the Bible and other religious works make various claims that can be interpreted as opposing abortion. But God didn't sit down and write any of those religious works. Humans did. And humans are known to be able to tell lies to benefit themselves.
If this Challenge is accepted, then, based on the title of this Debate, the Contender will be Pro and I will be Con. What evidence can Pro offer, besides the mere claims of various religious works, which were written by self-interested humans, that God opposes abortion?
I need to clarify my Debate position a bit. I am against the idea that God opposes abortion. But I am also against the idea that God is pro-abortion. That is, being Con to one notion does not automatically equate to being Pro of the opposite notion.
Personally, I think God is laughing at the stupid humans, perhaps literally rolling in the Heavenly Aisles, over the Abortion Debate. The topic doesn't matter to God at all, because abortion is about human bodies, not human souls.
"As I've indicated elsewhere, almost all the foundations anti-abortion arguments are badly flawed. One such foundation is the notion that God has a negative opinion of abortion."
I'm unaware of any serious pro-life apologist who uses the notion that God is against abortion as a foundational argument for their case. I don't know what arguments you've made against the pro-life position in the past, but I do know that the pro-life position is in fact very simple. As a pro-life supporter, I contend that it is wrong to kill human beings without proper justification. From a scientific perspective, unborn children are unmistakably human beings. Philosophically I contend that there is no morally relevant difference between a human being during pregnancy and a human being after birth. Therefore I conclude that it is morally wrong to intentionally kill an unborn child unless the reasons for doing so would be sufficient to justify killing a human being who has been born. Perhaps you disagree, but that is the pro-life case in a nutshell. I'm unsure why you find it necessary to debate this particular topic about whether or not God is against abortion.
"Sure, the Bible and other religious works make various claims that can be interpreted as opposing abortion. But God didn't sit down and write any of those religious works. Humans did. And humans are known to be able to tell lies to benefit themselves."
Frankly, this is a suicidal argument because it fails to meet its own criteria of validity. Essentially you are saying that because humans are capable of lying or making errors, we have no reason to believe anything that is written in religious texts. By the same token, however, you are a human being who is capable of lying and making errors. Therefore, I have no reason to believe what you have just said. Your argument just refuted itself.
Granted, people can tell lies and make interpretation errors, but you can't simply assume from the offset that they are going to do so. If you were correct in this assertion, we couldn't believe anything that anyone said or wrote down, including what you say or write down. If you are trying to claim that you know all religious texts stating that God is against abortion are the result of human lies and misinterpretation, then the burden of proof rests on you to defend this claim.
How do you know that every religious text (and there are quite a few) stating that God is against abortion is the result of human lies and misinterpretation? You have to give reasons as to why you think this is true. To merely assert it to be true is to beg the question.
"If this Challenge is accepted, then, based on the title of this Debate, the Contender will be Pro and I will be Con. What evidence can Pro offer, besides the mere claims of various religious works, which were written by self-interested humans, that God opposes abortion?"
Once again, this is a suicidal claim. All written works and arguments, religious or not, are written by self-interested humans. Using this logic, I have no reason to believe your claim that God does not oppose abortion.
In any case, here is why I believe God opposes abortion. Assuming God exits, he is the ultimate creator of the universe and the ultimate source of moral truth. It is self-evidently true that killing innocent human beings is morally wrong. Therefore, this notion is grounded in God himself, and God opposes human beings killing other innocent human beings. Scientifically and philosophically, the unborn are innocent human beings. Since God opposes the unjust killing of innocent human beings, God opposes abortion.
Granted I haven't argued for my position that the unborn are unmistakably innocent human beings, but that was not the purpose of this debate. Any readers interested in this case should check out www.caseforlife.com.
"I need to clarify my Debate position a bit. I am against the idea that God opposes abortion. But I am also against the idea that God is pro-abortion. That is, being Con to one notion does not automatically equate to being Pro of the opposite notion."
Perhaps that is true in some cases, but in the case of abortion there is simply no middle ground. If the unborn are not human beings, no justification for abortion is necessary; but if they are, no justification is adequate. Either God recognizes the unborn as human beings and thus opposes their unjust killing, or He does not, and he has absolutely no qualms with abortion. Neither of these positions are neutral.
I should hope that by now I have demonstrated that there is only one morally relevant question here, "What is the unborn?" How we answer that question is the only relevant information to whether abortion is moral or immoral and therefore whether God opposes it or not.
"Personally, I think God is laughing at the stupid humans, perhaps literally rolling in the Heavenly Aisles, over the Abortion Debate. The topic doesn't matter to God at all, because abortion is about human bodies, not human souls."
You are free to believe whatever you want, but I simply ask how you know this is true? Did God tell you this?
Also, if God is only concerned about human souls and not human bodies, God does not oppose murder in any form. A murderer kills only a person's body and not a person's soul. By your logic, God would therefore not oppose murder. Since this claim is largely counterintuitive, you cannot merely assert it. You must provide reasons for why I ought to believe that this is true. Until you do, you really haven't made an argument at all.
One of the very-common lies spouted by abortion opponents involves mis-use of the phrase "human being". I've dealt with this in two other Debates, so I won't go into the full details here, about that lie. But you can have the short version:
Consider an average human and an average rabbit. In casual conversation we might call the human a "human being", but we never call the rabbit a "rabbit being". Why? What does the human have that the rabbit doesn't, such that a rabbit is unworthy of the label "rabbit being" in casual conversation? Whatever it is, you will find that unborn humans don't have it, either. Therefore unborn humans, despite being perfectly human, don't qualify as "human beings", any more than do human white blood cells, and it is a lie, a mis-use of the language, to claim that they do so qualify.
Anyway, this Debate is not supposed to be about that topic.
Pro wrote: "Your argument just refuted itself." This is an error. In order to reach that conclusion, Pro had to accept as being True a particular part of what I previously wrote: "... humans are known to be able to tell lies ...". That is, if Pro can claim that I, a human, have lied, then Pro could equally claim that human writers of religious texts have also lied. Much like what I previously indicated. Therefore, regardless of whether or not I lied, it remains possible that writers of religious texts told lies. Because that possibility is based on something that both Pro and I are agreeing is True, that humans are able to tell lies.
Next, Pro wrote: "... you can't simply assume from the [outset] that they are going to [lie]." It it not necessary. All I have to do is identify some actual lies in religious texts, and this allows me to question the veracity of everything else in those texts. (Especially everything unsupported by independent data.)
For the Bible, the story of the Flood will suffice. It will even suffice for other religious texts that describe a world-wide flood. If you basically double the average depth of the world's oceans with rain-water, to cover all the land, then you will be soaking the land in salty water (half the normal ocean salinity). Now think about all the fresh-water plants on land, getting soaked in salty water for 40 days and nights --they are all going to die, of either drowning or salt-poisoning. (All species of fresh-water fish would die, too.) There won't be a live olive tree for Noah's dove to find! Then think about the salt-saturated soil in which the survivors are supposed to grow crops....
Most scholars are willing to accept the notion that all Flood stories are huge exaggerations of some much-smaller flood or floods. One candidate is:
htt.....ww.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html (Replace the dots with standard web-address characters.)
There are other candidates, such as tales of Atlantis. Nevertheless, an exaggeration is a type of lie, so....
The existence of one lie means that the writers of religious texts certainly had --and took advantage of-- at least one opportunity to lie. The particular lie about the Flood may be somewhat "innocent" --there have always been Questions such as, "Why am I finding sea-shells in these rocks way up here on the mountainside?" --and to offer a plausible lie is better than to admit ignorance, when the preachers claimed to be in regular communication with God, who is claimed to have all the answers.
I used the word "innocent" above because there is an overall category of "origin" tales found the world over, that adults use to quiet questioning children. If nothing else, the tales generally have entertainment value.
On the other hand, I also specified "somewhat" above, indicating that there can be more to the Flood story than just story-value. By specifying that God was punishing humanity for various sins, which preachers typically warn against, the preachers bolstered their own social position. "Obey us, or something else on that scale might happen!" So, the preachers had Motive to exaggerate the Flood story in that particular way, when it was written down!
Which brings me to the crux. If the preachers lied, claiming that God opposes abortion, what is the Motive for such a lie?
Well, there is a very obvious motive. The more people that the preachers can require to be born, the more people will exist in the culture, to donate tithes to the preachers. Quite simply, the preachers can get richer faster. And it is certainly Historical Fact that various religious centers have been extremely wealthy.
Pro wrote: "It is self-evidently true that killing innocent human beings is morally wrong." Whether self-evident or not, the statement doesn't apply to unborn humans. They are not innocent at all
(see htt.....ww.debate.org/debates/Abortion/163/ for details),
and they don't qualify, any more than do rabbits or human white blood cells, as worthy of the label "beings" in casual conversation.
Pro wrote: "... or He does not, and he has absolutely no qualms with abortion. Neither of these positions are neutral." This is a false interpretation of what I originally wrote: "... being Con to one notion does not automatically equate to being Pro of the opposite notion." As a specific example of what "Pro Abortion" can mean, consider the statement, "All pregnancies that result from rape should be aborted." Such a statement would absolutely be Pro Abortion. Meanwhile, the truly Neutral position doesn't care either way. And so my position is that God is not against abortion --but not for it, either.
Pro wrote: "... if God is only concerned about human souls and not human bodies, God does not oppose murder in any form." I suspected I needed to clarify what I previously wrote. Murder is about killing a body in which a soul resides. If you kill a non-human intelligent extraterrestrial alien being, you might be committing murder; if you kill a non-human non-"being" rabbit, you aren't.
There are good logical reasons to think that unborn humans don't have souls. Arguments to the contrary are merely claims, none of which have a solid foundation.
Also, note that there are major religions that make alternate claims, about souls and unborn humans. In Hinduism, for example, they talk about "reincarnation", and say souls only become associated with human bodies after birth.
If I had to choose between the different claims of different religions, I'd pick the one that makes the most logical sense. Which, as detailed in the above Debate, certainly isn't the Christian view! So, abortion need not qualify as "murder", nor give God cause to oppose it.
JayWhip forfeited this round.
There is a fundamental thing that Christian Religions "pushed" prior to that incident, which was the notion that practically all day-to-day events happened because God was behind the scenes, making them happen. And what was written in that other Debate by "Pro" simply shows that at least some Religious are still stupidly pushing that notion.
But the way a lightning rod worked proved that that was a false notion. The fact is, almost every macroscopic physical event occurs as a direct consequence of some prior macroscopic physical event. (I'm not specifying "all events" partly because we don't yet know everything about how the Universe works, and partly because we do know, at the nanoscopic level, that total randomness rules --and partly because I'm leaving open the possibility for God to tweak events, say in response to prayer, once in a while.)
One might say, "God need not concern Himself with the day-to-day operation of the Universe, because that is how the Universe was Made." Which makes perfect sense if you want people to believe God is smart, rather than moronically saddling Himself with quintillions of quintillions of boring physical events to cause to happen, over and over and over again, all across the Universe. Actually, things are set up such that God can, in essence, relax and enjoy the show, and the built-in randomness of Quantum Mechanics, at the foundation of the Universe, provides unpredictable variety.
Well, one of the logical consequences of such a description, of what we know about how the Universe works, is simply that God is not at all involved in human conceptions. They are purely physical events that happen as consequences of other purely physical events. And if conception events sometimes happen imperfectly--
Quote: "up to 50 percent of human conceptions fail to survive"
--it just doesn't matter to God at all, because it is part of the Universe Show.
If humans choose to make a big deal out of failed conceptions and miscarriages (and abortions), then that is humanity's stupidity and egotism and prejudice and selfishness being exposed, nothing else --which God can laugh at, of course.
JayWhip forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.