Instigator / Pro
4
1543
rating
7
debates
71.43%
won
Topic
#1667
Abortion should be legal
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 5 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
SkepticalOne
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two months
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1487
rating
7
debates
35.71%
won
Description
PGA (Peter) and I will take on the abortion debate. Neither of us will be arguing an absolute position and understand there must be room for nuance. Peter allows abortion when the mother's life is threatened by pregnancy. I accept Roe V Wade has laid out reasonable limits on abortion. I anticipate our main point of contention will be, not in the fringe, but, where abortion is most common. Ie. Most abortions occur at or before 13 weeks of pregnancy. I will argue this should be legal, and Peter will argue against it. Each debater will have their own burden to meet.
There will be no new arguments in the final round - only rebuttal and closing.
Round 1
I’d like to thank my opponent for his participation in this debate. While we may not agree on abortion, I think we can agree being able to openly talk about controversial issues can raise awareness and allow individuals to make informed decisions. Thanks, Peter.
Definitions
An abortion is a medical procedure to end a pregnancy. It uses medicine or surgery to remove the embryo or fetus and placenta from the uterus. The procedure is done by a licensed health care professional. [1]
Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. [2]
Women’s health
When comparing countries with the most restrictive laws (banned or allowed only when a woman’s life is endangered) with those with the least restrictive abortion laws, we find that there is virtually no difference in abortion frequency - 37 and 34 per 1,000 women, respectively. [3] So what effect does more restrictions on abortion yield? According to Guttmacher institute, “in 14 developing countries where unsafe abortion is prevalent, 40% of women who have an abortion develop complications that require medical attention”. [3] Additionally, Guttmacher finds that “Of all abortions, an estimated 55% are safe (i.e., done using a recommended method and by an appropriately trained provider); 31% are less safe (meet either method or provider criterion); and 14% are least safe (meet neither criterion). The more restrictive the legal setting, the higher the proportion of abortions that are least safe—ranging from less than 1% in the least-restrictive countries to 31% in the most-restrictive countries. [3] Furthermore, legal abortion encourages women to seek abortion earlier making the process safer. Before Roe V Wade (1970) 25% of abortions were done after 13 weeks, and afterwards (1980) 10% were done after 13 weeks. Additionally, more than 50% of abortions (1980) were done at 8 weeks or earlier. [4]
In summary, prohibition and restrictive laws do not appear to reduce the frequency of abortion overall, but they do decrease women’s health in a society by forcing women to reluctantly seek necessary medical treatment (at later stages when more complications can occur) without the oversight provided by government regulation. Undeniably, legal abortion avoids complications and deaths that would occur with heavy restriction and prohibition. In other words: Outlawing abortion endangers women while doing nothing to solve the perceived problem.
Human rights
“A pregnancy to a woman is perhaps one of the most determinative aspects of her life. It disrupts her body. It disrupts her education. It disrupts her employment. And it often disrupts her entire family life.” Sarah Weddington – Wade Attorney
Freedom, justice, and peace rests on fundamental human rights such as ‘freedom from slavery, freedom from torture, equality, and the right to life. Disallowing abortion violates every single one of these. If a woman does not consent to pregnancy and has no choice but to give birth, then she has become a slave to pregnancy. A woman being forced to give birth against her will is being subjected to torture. A woman being denied the same reproductive freedom as a man is receiving unequal treatment. This is a challenge to ‘right to life’ overall as liberty and bodily autonomy are being denied. Every person has the right to control their own body. When this is denied, human rights are being attacked. Abortion is necessary for women to reach their full potential, and severe restrictions stand in the way.
I expect we will see the S.L.E.D argument from my opponent. For those that are not familiar, S.LE.D. stands for size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. Essentially, the argument suggests that a being of smaller size, lesser development, different environment (location), or being dependent on another is no grounds for “discriminating” against the unborn and its “rights”. For the sake of argument, if I were to accept my opponent’s view that personhood begins at conception (which I adamantly do not), we would still disagree because there is no ‘right to use the body of another’. I cannot involve myself with anyone else’s body without their consent, and neither can any other person regardless of their size, level of development, environment, or degree of dependency. Essentially, the SLED argument argues for the unborn to have special rights no person has.
I will keep this round short and sweet and send this debate over to Peter. I look forward to seeing his arguments.
As Con/Contender, I would sincerely like to thank Skepticalone for initiating this debate, which allows me to defend what I consider a most critical moral issue, the unborn's fate.
Since the word character count is minimal, I will dispense with other preliminaries.
Before considering the legal aspect, please understand what we are debating in the matter and realize that not all laws are just.
1) What is the unborn?
Would Pro consider that the scientific evidence confirms it is a human being? In our last debate, he acknowledged this to be the case.
"Pro [me in this case] argues human life begins at conception to which I would agree." [1]
Scientifically, it is confirmed in many ways, such as by a human being's DNA structure, which differs from other species chromosomally (46 in most cases, except for defects). [2]
"Thus, each human cell contains a total of 46 chromosomes—22 pairs common to both males and females, plus two so-called sex chromosomes (X and Y in males, two Xs in females)." [3]
Verifiably, when two human beings produce offspring, the offspring is another human being.
So, unless Pro wishes to dispute the unborn is a human being, contrary to his previously stated position, we move to the next point.
2) Does it matter what we do with the unborn?
The stated question involves whether human beings have intrinsic value. Please, reader, pay attention to this point. Does Pro believe in equal treatment for all human beings? He does, [4] (R2) yet he makes an exception (personhood) that is hard to justify. Once some human beings are classed or grouped as more or less valuable than others, morality and inequality become an issue, as with the unborn. For many, it is recognized as a human being but classed as a non-person/not yet a person. The same classification of human beings as non-persons or sub-persons has led to oppression, devaluation, discrimination, and dehumanization by many. [5]
3) Personhood?
Can Pro confirm scientifically when human personhood begins? If not, the unborn should be granted the status of a person because of what human beings are, by nature - personal beings.
By not recognizing the unborn's right to personhood gives those who enact laws all kinds of liberties, the ability to do what they want with this 'non-person,' not yet person, or sub-person.
That question of personhood has become central in the abortion debate since 1973, Roe v. Wade, that caused a paradigm shift in our view of personhood. [6]
4) Establishing Unjust Societies - The Example of Nazi Germany
Facinghistory.org document steps the Nazis took in alienating particular groups from society (Jews, gypsies, gays, the deformed and handicapped, political and religious opposition, etc.). Human atrocities and the ill-treatment of human beings throughout the world, including abortion, follow some of the same steps. Those steps include discrimination, demonization, alienation, and dehumanization. In some cases, the final solution is the death of these groups through legislation.
In January 1933, Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany. In his first radio address, he gave his vision and promises for a classless society without class warfare [7]. Based on other ideas of his, this included purifying the racial/genetic structure of his nation. [8]
He asks a trial period of four years for the German people to judge his efforts to renew their economic prosperity, of which Hitler blamed the Jews as being partly responsible for their "economic and social problems." [9]
In mid-1929, there were approximately 20 million Germans out of work.
By 1933, there were about 6 million.
In late 1934, fudged statistical data further convinced the public of his success, supposedly reducing that unemployed number by half, which gained widespread support for the Nazi Party. [10] He also employed a large number of Germans in rebuilding the military complex, a "violation of the Treaty of Versailles." [10] [11 - p.333]
Another step in the progression of power was to eliminate political opposition. [12]
In March 1933, the Nazis passed a law, the "Malicious Practices Act," [12] which made it illegal to voice opposition to their government or leaders.
Three days later, Hitler passed the "Enabling Act." [13] This act gave Hitler the ability to label the opposition enemies of the state.
The same day, the "first concentration camp" was opened in Germany to house those who threatened the security of the state. [12]
By June 1933, Hitler banned the Social Democratic Party, leaving the Nazis as the sole party. [12]
By the end of the summer of 1933, there were over 100,000 "Communists, Social Democrats, union officials, and other 'radicals' imprisoned." [12]
To enact their policies, the Nazi Party employed intimidation by paramilitary groups, German youth, the SA (storm troopers) and SS.
In April 1933, the Nazis created the Gestapo.
Hitler understood propaganda, and the Nazi propaganda machine swayed public opinion and people's thoughts with negative images of the Jew. [14] The State uses biased materials and emotional appeal. Quickly, Hitler established the Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. [15] This agency overreached into all areas of public address, including the German press, the foreign media, newspapers, law, radio, film, theatre, music, literature, visual arts/posters/slogans, tourism, education, etc. [16]
Hitler, through education, indoctrinated the youth movement which played an essential part in turning the country to his way of thinking. The Hitler Youth, the Student League and the Pupils' League, the National Socialist Women's League, were examples. Hitler also used professional groups such as teachers, lawyers and doctors in this effort. Along with positive images and slogans to sway the population were also negative ones. Fear and terror was used as intimidation by the 'brownshirts' or Nazi youth, instigated against Jews and others. Incorporate this philosophy of intimidation with the antisemite feelings prevailing in Europe at the time set the course. [17] [18]
Prewar, Hitler and the Nazi Party enacted over 400 decrees and regulations of antisemitic legislation discriminating against Jews. [19]
1933-34, included "limited Jewish participation in German society." [19]
1935, the "Nuremberg Laws" [20]
1937-38, laws of segregation. [19]
These laws limited Jewish rights and treated them as non-citizens as of July 14, 1933. [21]
From January 31, 1933, to August 31, 1939, according to one historian, there were "1,448 laws, policies, and decrees designed to remove Jews from the country's political, economic, and cultural life.
In 1933 alone, 316 anti-Jewish measures were taken in Germany..." [22]
By labelling the Jews as racial enemies of the state (not conforming to the "Aryan race") with inferior genetic makeup, The Nazis started segregating them from the rest of society.
"If Germany did not act decisively against the Jews both at home and abroad, Hitler claimed, hordes of subhuman,[23] [24] uncivilized Slavs and Asiatics that the Jews could mobilize would sweep away the "Aryan" German race." [25]
They believed, through social Darwinism, "consistent with the law of nature" [25] and other philosophies, that it was their "obligation to subdue and even exterminate inferior" [25] races.
Thus began the eugenics program and extermination of the Jew and other "inferior" races. Some believe the "Final Solution" began in 1941 and lasted until 1945. [26]
5) The Dehumanizing of the Unborn
Planned Parenthood is somewhat instrumental in shaping today's views on abortion. Its founder, Margret Sanger, regularly used discriminatory and demonizing language against the unborn, people of colour, the poor, and weaker human beings. She used derogatory language (just like the Nazis) to change opinions on women's issues. She wanted "conservation of the race through birth control" and a "plan to stem the tide of production of the unfit and try to turn it in the right direction" [27] through eugenics, again, a view similar to Nazi Germany in weeding out the "unfit" as they saw them. She also espoused social Darwinian. Some human beings were inferior, for she wrote, "The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development,..." [28]
A copyrighted article comparing Nazi concentration camps to Planned Parenthood clinics lists similarities in its dehumanization practices and language used of the unborn. [29]
Building on Planned Parenthood, Roe v Wade has perhaps shaped opinion on abortion like no other law.
6) Inequality and Injustice
Law is concerned with equal justice/equality. Lack of those qualities has been the scourge of human history.
a) Basic Rights
The right to life is the most basic right all human beings should have or else some/any can be treated inhumanely.
b) Devaluing life
Devaluating human life denies basic human dignity and rights under the laws to some humans.
"intentional killing of some human beings would not be incompatible with dignity, for those human beings would have no dignity. Such views arbitrarily designate some members of the human family as unworthy of moral respect despite the fact that they are beings of the same kind as ourselves." [30]
c) Duty and Obligation
When engaging in sex, and an unborn is created, there should be a responsibility, an obligation, to protect it.
d) Bodily Rights
Our bodily rights should not harm the rights of others unless others are threatening to harm us.
e) Function v Substance
Which determines worth?
Round 2
Morality and Law
If my opponent hasn’t already, I suspect he will present a moral argument against abortion. However, we should keep in mind the resolution – “Abortion should be legal”. This is an important point, because law and morality are not interchangeable terms. Law is the “system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties”. [5] On the other hand, morality is particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society”. [6] We might tend to think laws come from moral convictions when we consider those against murder, rape, or theft, but there are also laws which run contrary to typical notions of morality such as those which legalized slavery [7] or advocated racial segregation [8]. The point here is that a moral argument for or against something is an insufficient reason to endorse legislation because morality is subjective. On the other hand, my arguments above make an objective practical and ideological case relevant to legislation for abortion in a society which values human health and rights.
That being said, I have no intention of conceding abortion as an immoral act. Every person has a moral right to control their own body. Every person has a moral right to defend their body (even if something or someone else might be harmed in that defense). Additionally, disallowing abortion has a negative impact on societal health and human rights. On balance, allowing abortion is morally preferable to abolition of it.
"..a great deal turns for women on whether abortion is or is not available.
If abortion rights are denied, then a constraint is imposed on women's freedom to act in a way that is of great importance to them, both for its own sake and for the sake of their achievement of equality;
and if the constraint is imposed on the ground that the foetus has a right to life from the moment of conception, then it is imposed on a ground that neither reason nor the rest of morality requires women to accept, or even to give any weight at all." - Judith Jarvis Thomson
Defense
1) Con has made claims on behalf of science and myself which are in error. Scientific consensus does not endorse Con’s scientific claims (it was concluded that biology alone is not able to determine the point at which personhood is established” [9]), and I do not accept personhood occurs at conception. It seems Con equates human and person, and doing so has created misapprehensions with his understanding of scientists and myself. In short, attaching human as an adjective says nothing of the legal status of what it modifies. For instance, cancer can be human cancer, but it doesn’t make sense to claim murder when someone dies from cancer ...because cancer is not a person. In the same way, attaching human to life does not equate that life to a person.
2), 3), & 6):
In the interest of conciseness (and conservation of time and characters), I will combine these categories as they rely on similar reasoning and do not overcome arguments laid out in round 1 for the same reason.
A concept of personhood which fails to account for (at a minimum) the capacity for consciousness is at best incomplete and at worst diminishing. Regardless, no matter how my opponent might personally define personhood he will need to apply rights consistently rather than argue special rights for a particular group at the expense of another's. The personhood Con advances sets up an impossible scenario where the basic rights of one group (women) are in conflict with another proposed group (the unborn). His apparent solution is to revoke rights from women so that new rights (applicable only to the unborn) may be extended. Given that rights are meant to be a shield, removing them so that an entire group can be effectively subjugated by dispensations of a new group is an attack on the rights of everyone. After all, if rights can be revoked for any individual or group for any reason whatsoever, then they lose their power.
My opponent builds his case on a simplistic understanding of what it means to be a human being (a person). His concern for the unborn sans consideration for the consent of the woman in whose body it resides is problematic. How can we talk of intrinsic value, equality, justice, basic rights, etc., where stripping rights from women and applying special rights to another group is implicitly being advocated? I submit - we cannot. Consent and bodily autonomy go hand-in-hand, and it is not possible to have one without the other. If a woman does not consent to using her biology for pregnancy then no one has the right to say otherwise.
There is one other point Peter raises I would like to address: duty and obligation. It seems Con believes sex creates a new person. While it is true conception is a possibility of sex, it is far from true that this is a given. In fact, one informal study found that it takes, on average, 78 sessions of sex before pregnancy occurs [10] - and this was among people specifically trying to get pregnant (so the number can be higher among those not trying). In spite of what my opponent may think, sex, more often that not, does not "create an unborn" and has many subjective purposes beyond procreation including pleasure, intimacy, connection, stress reduction, etc. None of which necessitate a duty or obligation to anything beyond those who have given their consent to share their bodies. Additionally, consent is conditional. If a person consents to an activity, they do not consent to enduring any unwanted outcomes that might come from it. We do not consider an STI resulting from consensual sex to be untreatable. We understand a sexually transmitted disease can (if left untreated) cause unwanted changes to the individual. We certainly do not consider consent to an activity sufficient reason disallow treatment when something more than intended was shared. The medical treatment of abortion is no different.
One other point, sex is not always consensual. I can't imagine my opponent would seriously entertain a 'duty or obligation' someone else forced upon his biology - and neither should anyone else. Theft of someone's body is a tragic event and disregard of their rights on top of it is unconscionable.
4) & 5)
In Section 4, it seems my opponent is suggesting that abortion is wrong because the Nazis endorsed it. There are two problems with this notion. 1) A position or view is not refuted by the fact that the Nazis shared it (association fallacy [11]). 2) If it were, then my opponent should be just as concerned with his argument as I. He is correct that the Nazis endorsed abortion (for non-Aryan women). However, the Nazis were also against abortion for Aryan women [11 page 90, paragraph 3] and even restricted contraceptives ([12] page 85 – paragraph 3). The Nazis endorsed both sides of the abortion debate as it furthered their agenda of hate. Suffice to say, it is not as simple as having a *correct view* by avoiding positions the Nazis held. Ultimately, my opponent has advanced an argument which, by his own reasoning, works against him.
In section 5, Con continues with this faulty line of reasoning except, instead of Nazis, he points to Margaret Sanger. Again, a position is not refuted because it is shared by someone with whom we disagree on other views. The merits (or detriments) of legal abortion are important to this discussion and a demonized person or group who may have supported abortion are an irrelevant non-sequitur.
That being said, my opponent’s sources for these two sections (7-29) should carry no weight in regards to source points.
***On that, I turn the debate back over to Peter. Belated Merry Christmas, my friend, and happy New Year to you and yours.
Best wishes for this New Year!
Thank you for another chance to expose flaws in the Pro-choice position!
R1
Pros two main arguments center on the woman's health and human rights. Concerning the latter, Pro has given his opinion but no logically compelling or conclusive facts that abortion is right and should be legal. However, with his one statement, there is agreement.
"Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status."
On this statement alone, Pro undermines his entire position since abortion does not treat all human beings equally under the law. Where are the unborn's rights?
P1. All human beings should be treated equally under the law.
P2. The unborn (speaking of the human unborn) is a human being.
C. The unborn should be treated equally under the law.
Premise 1 Justice is dependent on equal treatment under the law.
In my R1, Hitler's Germany was given as an example of an unjust society. Various groups were not treated fairly under the law. There are countless other examples of nations with unfair laws, such as slavery in America or Apartheid in South Africa.
"Historically, every single attempt to divide humanity into those who have rights and those who are expendable has proven to be a colossal mistake. Why think abortion is any different?" [1]
"The principle of respect for every human being is found not just in theological sources but also in the principles of the Stoics, the Hippocratic Oath, the philosophical ethics of Immanuel Kant, and the U.N. Declaration on Human Rights." [2]
The Declaration of Independence declares,
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." [3]
1) Fundamentally first is the right to life. It is the most basic of all human rights. The absence of its defence leads to barbary and unlivable conditions for those less desirable. Without that right to life, there is no existence, hence no freedom or pursuit of happiness.
2) Unalienable rights - If one human being is not equal, morally speaking, to another human being, then human beings are not intrinsically valuable. Granting this, why not kill the woman and her unborn together? What does it matter what one human being does to another? If the rights of the innocent are not protected, then there is no justice.
Unequally treatment by the law can set a precedent. A vast number of undesirable or devalued human beings can be discriminated against and dehumanized to death. (I.e., Roe v. Wade is cited as justification for abortion because the unborn human being is not recognized as a person under the law).
"In Roe v. Wade, the Court said that a fetus is not a person but "potential life," and thus does not have constitutional rights of its own." [4]
Surely the law should protect all human beings from unjust killing or devaluation?
"[T]he standard pro-choice position...divide humanity into those who matter and those who matter a little or not at all." [5]
"If unborn human beings don't have rights, though, then the criterion for having rights must be something other than being human—it must be something that unborn humans don't have." [9]
That last quote shows the inconsistency with the U.N. declaration cited above and in R1.
Premise 2 is a biological and scientific fact. It is also philosophically and logically verifiable. Pro has admitted in the past that the unborn is a human being. Almost every embryological text will identify the unborn from conception as a human being. [5]
The Conclusion follows from the major and minor premises as sound. The unborn is a human being, and it should be treated equally under the law (for the law to be just) with the same rights as every other human being.
"If the future experiences of the unborn count for nothing, then they don't count for the born either, and we lose one of the strongest reasons for avoiding our own death, and regretting the deaths of others." [5]
"Belvedere reproduces the argument this way:
1) What makes killing someone wrong is that doing so deprives her of a future of value.
2) When a fetus is killed, it suffers the same kind of loss.
Thus,
3) Abortion is immoral just as killing an adult or a child is immoral." [6]
***
1) All human beings should be equally valuable (Intrinsic worth) under the law.
2) The unborn (speaking of the human unborn) is a human being.
3) The unborn should be an equally valuable human being under the law.
Premise 1, supported by the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, declares all human beings have human rights. It is a statement of what should be, not necessarily what is the case. It is also logically coherent with justice.
Premise 2 is consistent with science. The life of a human being begins at conception. Its development does not stop at fertilization, or birth, or adolescence, but continues throughout its life. [7] (ch 1, p. 1)
The Conclusion then follows.
***
Woman's Health (and the Harm Done)
Health can be argued for the woman and the unborn. Remember what is aborted.
1. Compare abortion frequency stats before Roe v Wade with that after.
Number of Recorded abortions per year
1960 --> 292
1964 --> 823 (sexual revolution)
1973 --> 744,600 (Roe v Wade)
1981 --> 1,577,340 (highest number)
2011 --> 1,058,500 [8]
The abortion numbers escalated after Roe V Wade. It became a slaught of innocent human beings.
Robert Johnston Study (Estimating) Live Births and Abortions Reported
1926 --> (2,839,000) = (2)
1960 --> 4,257,850 = 292
1973 --> 3,136,965 = 744,610
1985 --> 3,760,561 = 1,588,550
2017 --> 3,853,472 = 427,111 [9]
Guttmacher Institute Reported/Estimated Abortions
1973 --> 744,600
1985 --> 1,588,600
2017 --> (850,200) [9]
Please look at the "Pregnancy-related mortality ratio per 100,000" chart since formating it is a problem. [10]
"CDC...confirmed that there were more than 3,400 pregnancy-related deaths over a five-year period in the United States." [11]
The estimated abortion deaths, same time period --> 3,156,876 - 5,335,590 [9]
Causes of pregnancy-related death in the United States percentages: 2011-2016
Hemorrhage - 11
Infection - 12.5
Amniotic fluid embolism - 5.6
Thrombotic pulmonary embolism - 9
Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy - 6.9
Anesthesia complications - 0.3
Cerebrovascular accident - 7.7
Cardiomyopathy - 11
Other cardiovascular condition - 15.7
Other noncardiovascular conditions - 13.9
The cause of death is unknown for 6.4% of all pregnancy-related deaths
2. What about the health and harm of the unborn? Abortion utterly neglects it. The harm to the unborn's health is irreparably, plus the prevention of these deaths is almost entirely possibly. Since Pro used an emotional appeal, consider the trial of the unborn that go "through lethal suction [12], dismemberment [13], crushing, or poisoning" [14]
The leading cause of death, in a Florida case study, was unwantedness/no reason.
The woman's physical health was threatened by the pregnancy .288% of the time.
The woman aborted for social or economic reasons 6.268% of the time.
92.330% No reason (elective) [15]
.288% for health reasons is a small number in comparison to the total aborted.
More human beings in the USA die from abortions each year than any other cause.
Heart disease is listed as the leading cause.
Deaths in 2017: 647,457 [16]
Compare that to abortion:
Estimate in 2017: 850,200 [9]
Pro believes it is okay for a woman to kill her unborn human offspring. As the father, would Pro feel it right for him to kill it too?
3. What about human equality concerns Pro? He focuses only on the woman's health; the adverse health effects to the unborn is fatal.
4. The woman's health is also adversely affected both physically (possible uterus or cervix damage, risk of hemorrhage, infection, and future pregnancy complications [12]), and psychologically in many cases. [17] Some controversial studies have linked abortion to breast cancer. [18]
R2
PRO:
"..., it seems my opponent is suggesting that abortion is wrong because the Nazis endorsed it."
No, that is not the point, and where was that said? The Nazis first discriminated against a class of people and then dehumanized and alienated them by their system of law. Pro-choice does the same.
PRO:
"1) A position or view is not refuted by the fact that the Nazis shared it (association fallacy [11])."
It is factual that the pro-choice movement employs language and indoctrination used by the Nazis to cheapen human life. Therefore it is not guilt by association.
William Brennan [19] charts nine "semantics of oppression" used by the Nazis describing the Jew also employed to the unwanted unborn, women, Native Americans, African American slaves. The derogatory name-calling list includes deficient human, non-human, animal, parasite [20], disease, inanimate objects, waste products, nonpersons.
Two debates, many devaluing terms
"Some collection of cells", "potentially non-viable embryo," "such a broad definition of human," [20] (R2 - Con), "an intruder," "abortion...a form of self-defence," "a group of cells," "it cannot be legitimately argued a fetus is a person (an individual human) while it exists as an extension of a person's body," "a potential person," (R2), "an extension of a woman’s body," "slavery," "Human rights apply to individual human beings and not parts of human beings. A fetus is part of a woman." [21]
Round 3
Thank you, Peter. I hope your New Years was memorable!
It seems my opponent and I are talking passed one another. He would like for the reader to accept a fertilized egg is a person. For reasons already mentioned, I do not consider this to be reasonable. More importantly, I consider the discussion on personhood to be beside the point. As I’ve said previously, even if we were to grant personhood as my opponent understands it, there is no right to use the body of another. In an attempt to better illustrate this point, I will draw on thought experiments by Judith Jarvis-Thomson (JJT).
People seeds
Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don't want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective; and a seed drifts in and takes root. [13]
In this, ‘people-seeds’ flying through the window represent conception and mesh screens represent contraception. While attempting to protect oneself from unwanted consequences, a person still finds they have people sprouting in their home. JJT asks would it be impermissible to rid a home of unwanted consequences from reasonable actions – especially given the precautions taken to avoid this outcome and the burdens they represent?
This scenario is analogous to the occurrence of a pregnancy in spite of contraceptives being employed. The pill has a failure rate of 7% - which means 7 out of every 100 women using only the pill will become pregnant every year. Condoms have an even higher rate of failure at 13% [14]. This is a very real concern - contraceptives are no guarantee against pregnancy. As mentioned previously, pregnancy disrupts body, education, employment, and family. Abortion allows a woman to maintain control of her life when countermeasures fail.
The Violinist
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you. [13]
In this scenario, a person’s biology has been co-opted against their will to bring someone else to full health. JJT argues the kidnapped individual has no obligation to the violinist. Yes, the world may be without a world-class violinist, but there is no duty to his life at the expense of another’s biology. There is no right to life that includes the use of another person’s body. For the same reason, abortion does not deny a fetus’ right to life – it merely deprives it of the non-consensual use of another’s body. This is analogous to conception as a result of rape.
Defense - R1 – Human rights
P1. All human beings should be treated equally under the law.
P2. The unborn (speaking of the human unborn) is a human being.
C. The unborn should be treated equally under the law.
**Premise 1 – I agree with the premise, although I take issue with some of Con’s defense of it. I will focus on those parts.
2) Unalienable rights: Unalienable means ‘irrevocable’ [15] not ‘equality’. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for equality and I, like Peter, accept this as a basic human right. However, I also hold that rights are not revocable and I’ve pointed out how the pro-life position seeks to revoke bodily autonomy from women so that a new group (the unborn) may use their body – whether they consent or not. That is the opposite of inalienable rights.
As for the rest – I have not challenged personhood as Con understands it and the perceived problems related to personhood are ultimately a distraction from challenges to the Pro-life position presented in this debate.
**Premise 2 – In round 2, I expounded how neither science, nor I, support Con’s understanding of personhood. This ultimately boils down to semantics. Attaching the adjective “human” to a noun like, say, “being” does not equate to personhood. I would be willing to entertain personhood beginning late in the pregnancy, but this does nothing to help my opponent since personhood of the unborn does not bestow a special right, but rather the same rights to every person.
**Conclusion – The conclusion does not follow from the premises - All human beings should be treated equally under the law and, whether the unborn is considered a person or not, there is no right to use the body of another without consent.
1) What makes killing someone wrong is that doing so deprives her of a future of value.
2) When a fetus is killed, it suffers the same kind of loss. Thus,
3) Abortion is immoral just as killing an adult or a child is immoral."
The first premise does not take into account instances where killing someone can be justified such as war or self-defense and the conclusion is faulty.
1) All human beings should be equally valuable (Intrinsic worth) under the law.
2) The unborn (speaking of the human unborn) is a human being.
3) The unborn should be an equally valuable human being under the law.
This syllogism suffers the same flaws as the first presented – so I won’t beat a dead horse. More importantly, the conclusion does not argue against abortion since there is no right to use the body of another. It is possible to respect the unborn as equally valuable AND acknowledge being equally valuable does not permit non-consensual use of another person's body. Being equally valuable means one has the same rights as every other person.
.
Defense –R1 - Women's Health
- I am willing to accept Con’s stats showing *legal* abortion increased after Roe V. Wade. This is not surprising or beneficial to my opponent’s case. As stated in round one, restrictive laws regarding abortion do not appear to reduce abortion overall. What they actually do is force more abortions to be unsafe. According to Guttmacher, “estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.” [16] The causes of pregnancy related death percentages are not surprising either. The percentages are in the context of legal abortion, and as my opponent seems to suggest, these are relatively low numbers. The stats he has provided would be part of 55% of safe abortions (worldwide) I mentioned in round one since abortion is legal (and safe) in the US. On the other hand, 93% of women of reproductive age in Africa live in countries with restrictive abortion laws, and Africa is the world region with the highest abortion related deaths - 9% of maternal deaths in Africa are from unsafe abortion. [20] A clearer demonstration of the harm illegal abortion attributes to can be had by comparing abortion related deaths in Eastern Asia (where abortion is largely unrestricted) to Sub Saharan Africa (where abortion is much more restricted). Eastern Asia has abortion related deaths at .8% whereas SSA is at 9.6% (as of this report in 2014). More than 10 times as many women die in SSA over Eastern Asia due to abortion - making abortion illegal makes it less safe, not less prevalent. [21 Table 1]2
- Con ask about the “health and harm” of the unborn. He might as well ask about the health and harm of self-defense. Is it unfortunate harm can come from protecting oneself? Yes, but the alternative is much worse: no right to do so. Also, the various surgical abortion procedures described are not the norm and might be required when a woman’s life is in danger – which Con himself allows for. This is another inadvertent ‘own-goal’ [17] (Nazi argumentation from rnd 1) and as Con admits himself - an emotional appeal. However, the typical abortion (occurring before 13 weeks) utilizes medication (not surgery) and Con’s emotional appeal has limited applicability (if any) to the notion that a person has a right not to be used by another.
- Equality means everyone has the same rights. Con is not advocating for everyone to have the same rights, but rather for the unborn alone to have a special right. This is not equality.
- The adverse health effects described by my opponent are not an argument against abortion any more than they are an argument against rights overall. Defense of one’s person and personal sovereignty (for example) comes with the potential for harm to the self and others, but this certainly doesn’t mean it is unwarranted. Also, I dispute some of the effects listed. For instances, surgical procedures, which typically happens later in the pregnancy and/or out of necessity (the mother’s life being in danger) do not come into play in most abortions. Additionally, abortion does not affect women’s mental health more than not having an abortion. [18] [19].
Round 2
Con denies he is employing the association fallacy, but I stand by my evaluation and related refutation. Even while denying the fallacy, we see a recommitment to it.
Thank you, Pro!
***
Pro did not grasp the significance of my arguments. He said we talk past each other. Let me clear up some of the misunderstandings.
Summary
My main arguments (that Pro largely ignores) are 1) what is the unborn, and 2) why does it matter? Unless Pro can prove that it is less than a human being [1] or less than a person and that human beings have no intrinsic value, he does not address the heart of the debate regarding abortion laws. Pro agrees it is a human being. Does it matter then that we kill innocent human beings? Pro suggests that killing one does not matter when it is unborn. Why not?
Human Rights
How does killing innocent human beings relate to legalized abortion? Is such a law unjust? This rule of law is unfair if justice exists. Justice relies on applying the law equally and impartiality. Can Pro experientially live with this view of not all human beings as intrinsically valuable? Pro is a human being. If someone decided his human life did not matter, would he think otherwise?
To illustrate this injustice, I pointed out with Nazi Germany that laws that discriminate against or dehumanize innocent human beings are not just laws. I believe Pro and pro-choice advocates fall into the pattern of minimalizing unborn human life, opposing and downgrading the most vulnerable amongst us. Just like the Nazis with the Jews, such laws prey unjustly on the powerless. Both cultures used language and laws, along with the media, educational institutions and propagation machinery to change people's thinking negatively towards targeted human beings.
Indoctrination: "[T]he process of influencing a person with ideas and attitudes (AKA brainwashing)...[I]t is getting someone to accept a "doctrine" as their own ideology...The purpose of propaganda is to indoctrinate someone with a viewpoint,..., and the intentions behind the indoctrination matter in terms of judging the morality of the indoctrination." [2]
Propaganda can be misinformation that often denies, trivializes, or distorts the obvious, the facts. Pro-choice has done the same with abortion. They have desensitized people to what is killed and why it matters in its devaluation of the unborn. Pro did not prove the unborn a non-person, he just asserted it. He says, "Attaching the adjective "human" to a noun like, say, "being" does not equate to personhood." In our previous debate, Pro defines a person,
Pro, how does adding the adjective change what the unborn is? It either is a human being, or it is not. A living human being is also an actual human being, not a potential human being like Pro has previously suggested. "Potential" degrades its worth. It makes it less than it is, as was done in Roe V Wade, the erroneous case that changed abortion practice and thinking.
"(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother." p. 164-165 [4]
Human beings, by nature, are personal beings. Can Pro demonstrate otherwise?
Substance V Function
A substance exists in itself, not as a part of something else. The difference is that function is acquired, but the substance is what the being is throughout its existence. You are the same person throughout your life. If you lose a leg, that does not make you a non-person or a different person. You are still you. An arm or leg (functionality) is not needed to be a person.
Misrepresenting My Stated Syllogism
Please notice what Pro did with Premise 2. He exchanged the word 'human' with 'person' and then reconstructed the case around personhood. Pro dehumanized and trivialized the unborn human being to something less than it is with language. The syllogism clearly spoke of human beings, which the unborn is. There was no mention of personhood. If he wants to argue it is not a person he must prove it, which his earlier link did not establish.
The crux is that Pro believes it is permissible to kill innocent human beings at least until they are deemed by law to be persons. How is it ever just to do so? Pro bases that on the woman having autonomy over her body. Does that argument work? "Bodily autonomy is important, but there are obvious limits to that autonomy when someone else's body is also involved." [5]
Bodily Autonomy
Pro focuses on the woman's bodily rights argument. He is using a minimalist ethic. He applies the term 'harm' to the woman yet fails to include the fatal injury done to the unborn nor consider the potential damage to the woman's body from abortions.
Pro: "A woman being forced to give birth against her will is being subjected to torture." [7 - R1]
That statement is emotive language, an appeal to pity, that paints a one-sided picture. Two can play that game. What about the torture of the unborn? [6]
Pro: "Every person has the right to control their own body. When this is denied, human rights are being attacked." [7 - R2]
That right does not include the right to kill an innocent human being except in self-defence. Again, the right of the unborn human being is forgotten. What of its rights?
Judith Jarvis-Thomson
Her Violinist arguments have been refuted many times.
1. The unborn is not a part of the woman's body but a separate being. Pro mistakenly has argued for that very premise in a past debate.
Pro: "...the line of distinction I am interested in is when human becomes person, and that occurs at birth. Before birth, a fetus is an extension of a woman's body, and as such, any rights it has are an extension of the mother's rights. After birth, a new individual human being exists in the world with rights of their own." [3 - R3]
Not true. The 'fetus' is another body, another being.
Pro: "...an extension of a woman's body, and cannot be considered a person until they are well and truly an individual human being." [3 - R4]
This is a fallacy of Affirming the Consequent, Appeal to Common Belief, and Begging the Question. The conclusion does not follow.
Pro: "He would like for the reader to accept a fertilized egg is a person." [7- R3]
Another misrepresentation. Once an egg is fertilized, it is no longer an egg; it becomes a distinct, separate individual human being. And unless Pro can prove that personhood does not start at conception/fertilization, the unborn should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Nowhere have I argued a fertilized egg is a person, nowhere. When an egg is fertilized it becomes a human being and stops being an egg.
"...[U]pon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before;...a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced." [8] [9]
Pro argues,
"I consider the discussion on personhood to be beside the point." [7 - R3]
Yet, Pro continually comes back to and rests much of his argument upon personhood, as does the legal case of Roe V Wade.
2. Sovereign bodily rights should not be absolute.
Pro: "Abortion allows humans rights to women equal to that of men."
Again, what he states gives a woman more rights than a man, not equal rights. Generally speaking, a man can exercise his right to use his body in causing the death of another only in self-defence. Pro believes the woman should be completely sovereign over her body. No one has absolute rights to kill an innocent human being on their property who has no intent on wrongdoing. [5 - ibid]
3. Abortion is more than withdrawing life support from the unborn, it is intentionally killing her own offspring, violating its right to life, thus the violin analogy is not parallel.
"[I]t is the intentional and active killing of that child, often by dismemberment. This killing violates the child's right to life (the right not to be intentionally killed) and right to bodily integrity." [5 - ibid]
4. The woman knew the possible biological consequences of sex. In most cases, she willingly engaged in the sexual act.
Pros arguments about the failure of condoms/devices or the average number of times it takes of having sex before pregnancy results (78) are non-sequiturs and irrelevant since the woman knows that engaging in sex always leaves open the possibility of pregnancy unless she or her partner is sterile. Abortion speaks after the fact of pregnancy, not before.
5. The unborn have a right not to have their bodies "fatally violated through abortion."
The woman is treating the unborn as less than it is, a human being, thus unjustly. The most basic human right is the right to life. That is where rights begin, with a new life. That is a natural right, not a legal right. It is included in the Declaration of Independence, the UN Declaration on Human Rights, as well as being common sense where justice is concerned.
6. The woman has a maternal obligation to protect her offspring, not destroy it.
The woman has more obligation to her own than to a stranger.
7. The woman has a moral obligation to protect her vulnerable offspring.
Who would be allowed to treat an abandoned baby as the woman is treating her own biological offspring? Not only this but people recognize there is something wrong with abortion legally. It does not treat every human being with equal rights to life and dignity, or as Pro previously (R2) said well, "human rights applied discriminately is an attack on human dignity."
8. The uterus is where the unborn lives, its temporary home, its natural environment for the duration of pregnancy.
Abortion advocates want to deny it is rightful home. It is in its necessary environment.
Round 4
Thank you so much, Con!
Round 3 Rebuttal and refutation
Human Rights
Con attempts to simplify the situation by equating my life with that of the unborn. However, I doubt Con would argue for my right to use the body of another person without their consent as he does for the unborn. In fact, I imagine he would understand my life being lost in a defensive act by my would-be subject if I were attempting to do such a thing. I ask that he be consistent.
In short, It is possible to accept the unborn is fully human, humans have inherent value, AND argue for abortion. Con is presenting a non-sequitur/ false dilemma suggesting otherwise. Thus far, he has made no attempt to account for how a fully human and inherently valuable woman can have her body used for purposes other than her own. A logically consistent view of rights accepts all people (even the unborn should we choose to view them as persons) have the same rights - and no one (not even the unborn) have a right to use the body of another without consent. It is not an absence of value that leads me to support equality, personal sovereignty, and human rights in general, but very much the opposite. Are we prepared to have our bodies forcibly used for another being? If not, we shouldn't expect others to do any different.
Judith Jarvis Thomson
Con has imported arguments from another debate in order to attack them rather than addressing arguments presented here. This tactic has been used elsewhere in this debate, but in response to this argument it was too blatant to disregard.
PGA explicitly states “sovereign bodily autonomy should not be absolute”. This is an extreme difference between our positions and a contradiction to his endorsement of inalienable rights. If human rights are conditional then they are undermined.
My interlocutor insinuates abortion is merely ‘killing an innocent on owned property’ and states “no one has the right to kill an innocent with no intent to do harm”. However, I very much see abortion as a form of self defense. An unwanted pregnancy can send a woman’s life in a direction from which she cannot recover. It will affect her body, her ability to earn a living, and ..her future. Additionally, Con himself allows abortion when a woman’s life is endangered – would this not be ‘killing an innocent with no intent to do harm’? The same applies to PGA's assertion that "The unborn have a right not to have their bodies "fatally violated through abortion". Ultimately, his words do not square with his own position. My opponent suffers more self-inflicted wounds.
In round 1 under the title "3) Personhood", Con argues the unborn should be granted the status of personhood because of what human beings are. Apparently, Con has changed his mind and now views equating human and person as a 'dehumanization and trivialization' of the unborn when I interpreted his arguments to match the subject of this debate which is the legality of abortion: one need be a person for human rights to be applicable. I’ve not seriously challenged his view of personhood though, so this is nothing more than a distraction.
Conclusion
Let us evaluate the debate thus far. I have presented arguments regarding women’s health, human rights, a moral argument, as well as thought experiments to provide (perhaps) a different perspective on pregnancy and abortion.
Women’s Health
In the women’s health argument I submitted ‘restricting abortion does nothing to reduce the frequency - it merely makes abortion less safe’. Con attempted to show (legal) abortion frequency increased after Roe V. Wade, but this had already been addressed in round 1 – rates of abortion in countries where it is highly restrictive are roughly the same as countries where it is not (37 of 1000;34 of 1000 respectively). This was further addressed in round 3 when the number of (illegal) abortions pre-Roe abortions were shown to be roughly the same or higher than post-Roe frequency of (legal) abortions.
Secondly, Con attempts to suggest abortion should be made illegal because of the “harm to the unborn”. I don’t consider this to be a particularly compelling argument since the measures Con proposes would do nothing to reduce harm to the unborn given the consistent frequency of abortion regardless of legality. That leaves us with only one solution which has a net reduction in harm: legalized abortion which reduces the harm to women. Ultimately, Con drops his defense on this front in round 3. Argument to Pro.
Human Rights
In this section, my argument was that disallowing abortion denies basic rights to women like equality. My opponent argues for human rights as well, namely, that the ‘unborn have the right to life’. I am not unsympathetic to his argument, but the situation is much more nuanced to stop there. First, there is the question of personhood, I mean, we don’t generally see folks arguing for the right to life for gametes. That is because they are sufficiently different from what is typically recognized as “human” that most everyone accepts gametes do not have rights even though they ARE human (“human beings” if you like). The line of demarcation my opponent presents for human rights seems more semantic than the substantive. What makes humans special isn’t our cells or our DNA (which is pretty much all there is at conception). However, rather than have a fruitless argument about personhood, I have chosen, for the sake of the argument, to imagine the unborn as people. Even doing this I find that my opponent’s view is incoherent. He argues for inalienable rights, and, at the same time, “bodily autonomy should not be absolute”. These two statements are contradictory. He argues for equality while arguing the unborn should have the right to use the body of another – a right everyone doesn’t have (nor should they). These notions are contradictory. The Pro side of the debate has been logically consistent. A person should have the same rights as every other person and abortion does not violate this notion. A man, woman, or fetus (even assuming personhood) cannot use the body of another without consent. On coherence alone, this argument should go to Pro.
Morality and Law
To be honest, I didn’t consider this argument to be very strong – it is a simplistic argument which pushes legal abortion as morally preferable to disallowing abortion because the latter causes more harm and less freedom to women. It is a very utilitarian outlook. Con did not directly address this argument. Later he suggested a woman has a moral obligation to “protect her vulnerable offspring”. Not to be overly pedantic, but to be an “offspring” one would need to spring-off! (ie. Be a separate and independent entity) Besides, he suggests harm to the fetus should be taken into account, but as stated above, Con did not provide an alternative which allowed for less harm to the fetus – only the same frequency of fetal harm combined with more harm for women. He later equated an abandoned baby to the unborn, but this analogy fails. The unborn draws it sustenance directly and exclusively from the body of another, whereas, a baby (abandoned or otherwise) need not. Suffice to say, this is an oversimplification and fails to account for the broader context of pregnancy. Argument to Pro.
People seeds
This thought experiment explored what should be done when reasonable measures to avoid pregnancy fail. Pro’s indirect response seems to be that there is no such thing as a reasonable measure (except presumably abstinence) because, in his mind, sex equates to pregnancy. Of course, this simply isn’t true as highlighted by the facts that:
1)unprotected sex on average yields conception every 78 attempts (far from sex and pregnancy being synonymous), and;
2)people have sex for many reasons other than reproduction (none of which abstinence could address).
The fact of the matter is that people are going to have sex because it satisfies many needs, the unexpected sometimes happens, and a woman is within her rights to forgo pregnancy and what it might do to her body and life. Of course, if she chooses to bring a child into the world – that’s her prerogative as well. That’s personal sovereignty. Ultimately, Con did not (at least not directly) address this argument. Argument to Pro.
Violinist argument
Con has imported arguments from another debate in order to attack them rather than addressing the argument presented here. The argument as stated does not suggest the violinist is part of the person’s body – only that the person’s biology has been co-opted against their will AND this creates no obligation on their part. The argument allows the personhood of both entities, and stresses the thrust of my case which is that there is no right to use the body of another without consent (regardless of personhood). This argument is completely unaddressed due to this misrepresentation. Argument to Pro.
Grammar and Spelling
I see no advantage going to either debater on this.
Final word
Given that this is my final word in this debate, I would like to ask my opponent not to provide anything new as that would be unfair to me. I'll rely on the reader and the judges to hold Con accountable. That being said, I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. It has been a thoroughly enjoyable experience, and on that, I will turn this over to him. May your words be true and your arguments strong!
Vote Pro!
Why Abortion Should Not be Legal
Fact 1: The unborn is a human being.
Pro did not challenge this fact, nor is it reasonable to do so scientifically.
Fact 2: Pro admits it is a human being, but he and abortion advocates lessen its value and status through disparaging language (see the last heading).
Fact 3: Killing innocent human beings is unjust. The unborn is an innocent human being.
Pro never outright disputed the status of its innocence or humanity but did so subtly with semantics.
Fact 4: The Nazis lessened the value and status of many groups of human beings living within Germany by their laws and propaganda, leading to the Holocaust.
A section of my R2 established that Nazi law and Nazi practices devalued and dehumanized particular groups within German society. Pro never disputed those facts, although he argued my comparative analogy between unwanted groups (Jews) and the unborn were unfound. Not true. In both cases, the language undercuts the humanity and personhood of the group(s) it isolates.
Fact 5: Abortion is a colossal human Holocaust unsurpassed by numbers killed to date in the history of the world (over 1.5 billion human beings legislated out of existence since 1980). [1]
Fact 6: Pro could not establish the unborn was not a personal being from conception. He granted it for the sake of this argument. His one supporting citation as evidence of non-personhood [2] was highly speculative, loaded with uncertain language,
"In 1973 the Supreme Court had refused to resolve the question,"
"...the scientific point of view...concluded that biology alone is not able to determine the point at which personhood is established,"
"scientists expressed their view,"
"Reasons for not defining the fetus as a person included the negative impact on providing medical services to the mother and the fetus,..."
"further explorations of the question are necessary."
Although Pro did not prove it was a non-person (his onus), he is okay with stripping it of any legal rights. I argued that from conception, the unborn is a person by its very nature from a philosophical as well as logical perspective. Pro failed to challenge my contentions adequately, even conceding for the sake of this debate that it is a person, yet treats it differently from other persons. In America, what other innocent people can you kill because you don't want them? Hence, Pro has a double standard unless its lack of personhood is proven.
Two Main Arguments - Health and Bodily Rights
a) Woman's Health
Pro was unable to establish that the woman's death rate from pregnancy, was lesser numerically, to the unborn death rate from abortion. Statistically, the death rate from abortion is far higher than the death rate for pregnancy complications. Pro says that "restricting abortion does nothing to reduce its frequency." Even if this were true (due to choosing an illegal abortion as the contributing factor of those deaths, not pregnancy), that does not make two wrongs a right. Even if illegal abortions contribute to just as many deaths as do legal abortions when did ever breaking the law or ignoring the most basic right to life for innocent human beings justify doing something wrong?
Pro never established but only claimed the moral right of abortion (for any reason), especially for bodily rights as being right. Morally, Pro pushed for human equality, citing the UN Declaration on Human Rights, at the same time undermining such rights with his stand on Pro-choice. He says we should treat all human beings equally then proceeds to argue the innocent unborn human are not equal. His position is a glaring deficiency and contradiction.
Only "a small proportion of women who have abortions do so because of health concerns or fetal anomalies, the large majority choose termination in response to an unintended pregnancy." [3]
"Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing." [4]
Again, the reasons are not usually health-related but unwantedness for a variety of factors. Sub Sahara Africa does not fare well in family planning. Abortion becomes a method of contraception there as well as in Asia, such as in Japan (89%). [5]
In the USA, the risk to maternal health is 2.8%; with fetal health, the risk is 3.3%. [6] Health reasons, other than for Pakistan and India play a tiny percentage in why women opt for abortions. [7]
The data available is considered inconclusive and unreliable in many countries. The primary health factor could be for psychological reasons - e.g. ostracization, guilt, shame. For fetal defects, the sex of the child factors into such evaluations in the pregnancy (the Chinese bias to want sons). Health concerns play a minor part in abortions.
b) Bodily Autonomy
Regarding bodily autonomy, Pro wanted to absolute the woman's bodily autonomy. He repeatedly argues that others should ask the woman's consent before using her body, rightly so, yet the unborn is unable to do this. What is more, by the woman consenting to sex, she understands the possibility of pregnancy occurring. With most cases of pregnancy, she agrees to sex. Rape related abortions count for about 1% of all abortions in the USA. [3]
The Violinist
Pros misapprehension here is that the innocent unborn is a stranger (the unborn shares a part of her DNA) who was forcibly attached to the woman's body. In most cases, the sexual union carried with it her consent with the possibility of pregnancy occurring and is a natural biological result of sexual union, not a forced one. Non-consensual sex or rape is the 1% exception to willing intercourse in the USA.
People Seeds
Pro mistakenly thinks that I equate sex to automatic pregnancy. My point is there is a moral responsibility involved with sex that happens with pregnancy. By consenting, there is a chance of forming a new life. I addressed his argument of the woman's bodily "sovereignty" under absolute rights. Nowhere should any person have absolute rights over their body to do with it whatever they like if it involves killing another innocent human being. Pro gives the woman greater rights than men.
Human Rights
Pro continually led me to believe he conceded the personhood argument, so I did not pursue it further, yet in R4, he again puts the onus on me. He has the burden to prove it is not a person of which he did not do.
As mentioned previously, human rights are the weakest part of his argument as explained in Facts # 2-6.
Morality and Law
Pro does not consider my moral or legal arguments to be "strong" for illegalizing abortion. Pro is wrong; he pushes legal abortion as "morally preferable" not as morally right. The harm done to the unborn is irrevocable. Pro does not recognize the "offspring" as a separate "independent entity," but has the illusion it is part of or and "extension" of the woman's body. Therefore he believes the woman can do with it as she pleases. His logic is faulty. If the unborn is part of or an extension of a pregnant woman, she would have four arms and legs, a separate, distinct DNA and blood system, and sometimes a penis. The unborn is its own entity, a different organism, directing its personal development internally. These are scientific facts that Pro conflates and confuses with false assertions. Granted, the unborn relies on the woman's womb and nutrients for its temporary home and food source. Perhaps Pro mistakenly thinks that the only analogy is one of sustenance, but it is one of moral right and wrong, per the heading.
Furthermore, Pro equates harm to the unborn in killing it as lesser harm that the woman endures in carrying it for nine months then perhaps putting it up for adoption. As for the charge that I equate the unborn and abandoned baby as equal, what does that mean? They are equal from a moral perspective, not a developmental perspective, just like a baby and a teen are somewhat different developmentally but no less a human being.
The Loaded Dehumanizing and Depersonalizing Language of Abortion
Although Pro and many Pro-choicers are most likely unaware, they used the same kind of dehumanizing language used by oppressive totalitarian authorities to marginalize opposing groups of society for their purposes. [8] By applying a different legal standard to such groups, Roe V Wade set a precedent for abortion. Roe V Wade questioned the personhood of the unborn, was wrong in its historical summation and used devaluing language to sway public opinion to change laws. Pro used suggestive, dehumanizing, and devaluing language during this debate, with terms like "potential life" or suggestions that the gamete is "sufficiently different from what is typically recognized as 'human'" to lessen what the unborn is.
He made misrepresenting, unscientific statements like "what makes humans special isn't our cells or DNA (which is pretty much all there is at conception)," but that DNA is what does make us unique for it directs the human organism to be what it is. The unborn is more than a collection of cells. At conception, the unborn is a separate, individual, unique human entity with everything it needs internally to direct its growth to its full potential. Like every other human entity or personal being, it needs an environment and nutrients ( that the woman supplies) to aid it in its development.
I thank Pro for willingly debating this important subject!
Fact 3: Killing innocent human beings is unjust. The unborn is an innocent human being.
Pro never outright disputed the status of its innocence or humanity but did so subtly with semantics.
Fact 4: The Nazis lessened the value and status of many groups of human beings living within Germany by their laws and propaganda, leading to the Holocaust.
A section of my R2 established that Nazi law and Nazi practices devalued and dehumanized particular groups within German society. Pro never disputed those facts, although he argued my comparative analogy between unwanted groups (Jews) and the unborn were unfound. Not true. In both cases, the language undercuts the humanity and personhood of the group(s) it isolates.
Fact 5: Abortion is a colossal human Holocaust unsurpassed by numbers killed to date in the history of the world (over 1.5 billion human beings legislated out of existence since 1980). [1]
Pro never demonstrated these unfactual. He turns a blind eye while he pushed for a woman's "right" to control her own body, regardless of the consequences which he trivializes in killing the unborn. Pro also misunderstands the difference between him using someone else's body without consent and the unborn's situation. They are not parallel (see Violinist).
Fact 6: Pro could not establish the unborn was not a personal being from conception. He granted it for the sake of this argument. His one supporting citation as evidence of non-personhood [2] was highly speculative, loaded with uncertain language,
"In 1973 the Supreme Court had refused to resolve the question,"
"...the scientific point of view...concluded that biology alone is not able to determine the point at which personhood is established,"
"scientists expressed their view,"
"Reasons for not defining the fetus as a person included the negative impact on providing medical services to the mother and the fetus,..."
"further explorations of the question are necessary."
Although Pro did not prove it was a non-person (his onus), he is okay with stripping it of any legal rights. I argued that from conception, the unborn is a person by its very nature from a philosophical as well as logical perspective. Pro failed to challenge my contentions adequately, even conceding for the sake of this debate that it is a person, yet treats it differently from other persons. In America, what other innocent people can you kill because you don't want them? Hence, Pro has a double standard unless its lack of personhood is proven.
Two Main Arguments - Health and Bodily Rights
a) Woman's Health
Pro was unable to establish that the woman's death rate from pregnancy, was lesser numerically, to the unborn death rate from abortion. Statistically, the death rate from abortion is far higher than the death rate for pregnancy complications. Pro says that "restricting abortion does nothing to reduce its frequency." Even if this were true (due to choosing an illegal abortion as the contributing factor of those deaths, not pregnancy), that does not make two wrongs a right. Even if illegal abortions contribute to just as many deaths as do legal abortions when did ever breaking the law or ignoring the most basic right to life for innocent human beings justify doing something wrong?
Pro never established but only claimed the moral right of abortion (for any reason), especially for bodily rights as being right. Morally, Pro pushed for human equality, citing the UN Declaration on Human Rights, at the same time undermining such rights with his stand on Pro-choice. He says we should treat all human beings equally then proceeds to argue the innocent unborn human are not equal. His position is a glaring deficiency and contradiction.
Only "a small proportion of women who have abortions do so because of health concerns or fetal anomalies, the large majority choose termination in response to an unintended pregnancy." [3]
"Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing." [4]
Again, the reasons are not usually health-related but unwantedness for a variety of factors. Sub Sahara Africa does not fare well in family planning. Abortion becomes a method of contraception there as well as in Asia, such as in Japan (89%). [5]
In the USA, the risk to maternal health is 2.8%; with fetal health, the risk is 3.3%. [6] Health reasons, other than for Pakistan and India play a tiny percentage in why women opt for abortions. [7]
The data available is considered inconclusive and unreliable in many countries. The primary health factor could be for psychological reasons - e.g. ostracization, guilt, shame. For fetal defects, the sex of the child factors into such evaluations in the pregnancy (the Chinese bias to want sons). Health concerns play a minor part in abortions.
b) Bodily Autonomy
Regarding bodily autonomy, Pro wanted to absolute the woman's bodily autonomy. He repeatedly argues that others should ask the woman's consent before using her body, rightly so, yet the unborn is unable to do this. What is more, by the woman consenting to sex, she understands the possibility of pregnancy occurring. With most cases of pregnancy, she agrees to sex. Rape related abortions count for about 1% of all abortions in the USA. [3]
The Violinist
Pros misapprehension here is that the innocent unborn is a stranger (the unborn shares a part of her DNA) who was forcibly attached to the woman's body. In most cases, the sexual union carried with it her consent with the possibility of pregnancy occurring and is a natural biological result of sexual union, not a forced one. Non-consensual sex or rape is the 1% exception to willing intercourse in the USA.
People Seeds
Pro mistakenly thinks that I equate sex to automatic pregnancy. My point is there is a moral responsibility involved with sex that happens with pregnancy. By consenting, there is a chance of forming a new life. I addressed his argument of the woman's bodily "sovereignty" under absolute rights. Nowhere should any person have absolute rights over their body to do with it whatever they like if it involves killing another innocent human being. Pro gives the woman greater rights than men.
Human Rights
Pro continually led me to believe he conceded the personhood argument, so I did not pursue it further, yet in R4, he again puts the onus on me. He has the burden to prove it is not a person of which he did not do.
As mentioned previously, human rights are the weakest part of his argument as explained in Facts # 2-6.
Morality and Law
Pro does not consider my moral or legal arguments to be "strong" for illegalizing abortion. Pro is wrong; he pushes legal abortion as "morally preferable" not as morally right. The harm done to the unborn is irrevocable. Pro does not recognize the "offspring" as a separate "independent entity," but has the illusion it is part of or and "extension" of the woman's body. Therefore he believes the woman can do with it as she pleases. His logic is faulty. If the unborn is part of or an extension of a pregnant woman, she would have four arms and legs, a separate, distinct DNA and blood system, and sometimes a penis. The unborn is its own entity, a different organism, directing its personal development internally. These are scientific facts that Pro conflates and confuses with false assertions. Granted, the unborn relies on the woman's womb and nutrients for its temporary home and food source. Perhaps Pro mistakenly thinks that the only analogy is one of sustenance, but it is one of moral right and wrong, per the heading.
Furthermore, Pro equates harm to the unborn in killing it as lesser harm that the woman endures in carrying it for nine months then perhaps putting it up for adoption. As for the charge that I equate the unborn and abandoned baby as equal, what does that mean? They are equal from a moral perspective, not a developmental perspective, just like a baby and a teen are somewhat different developmentally but no less a human being.
The Loaded Dehumanizing and Depersonalizing Language of Abortion
Although Pro and many Pro-choicers are most likely unaware, they used the same kind of dehumanizing language used by oppressive totalitarian authorities to marginalize opposing groups of society for their purposes. [8] By applying a different legal standard to such groups, Roe V Wade set a precedent for abortion. Roe V Wade questioned the personhood of the unborn, was wrong in its historical summation and used devaluing language to sway public opinion to change laws. Pro used suggestive, dehumanizing, and devaluing language during this debate, with terms like "potential life" or suggestions that the gamete is "sufficiently different from what is typically recognized as 'human'" to lessen what the unborn is.
He made misrepresenting, unscientific statements like "what makes humans special isn't our cells or DNA (which is pretty much all there is at conception)," but that DNA is what does make us unique for it directs the human organism to be what it is. The unborn is more than a collection of cells. At conception, the unborn is a separate, individual, unique human entity with everything it needs internally to direct its growth to its full potential. Like every other human entity or personal being, it needs an environment and nutrients ( that the woman supplies) to aid it in its development.
I thank Pro for willingly debating this important subject!
I am afraid it's way simpler haha
We have a new team member that finds the best content and publishes it in the social networks :)
I assumed it was automatically generated by some type of formula (possibly tied to how many comments this debate had), and posted to Facebook. How did it actually get made?
I am not sure I follow, what do you mean? What formula? ^_^
Not the biggest deal, but the formula used to generate the following could use a little refinement: https://www.facebook.com/debateartcom/posts/2612517185666023
I don't know if that is chosen by person or automated program. I lean toward the latter given the awful misquote attributed to me and the number of comments on this debate.
I wonder how that happened, SkepticalOne? (^8
Awesome! We made it to social media, Peter! 😁
Although - they need to quote me correctly!
Not sure what part of this whole thing generated this: https://www.facebook.com/debateartcom/posts/2612517185666023
"I stated a biblical truth"
You stated a theological view based on the opinions presented in the Bible. There is no objective way to verify this claim.
"I believe God is necessary to make sense of such things for such a God (the biblical One) has what is necessary for us to know - omniscience, immutability, and eternity"
You claim your belief as the basis of your epistemology, but in actuality you generally borrow from an epistemological view which does not require a god. I doubt you're closing your eyes when crossing a road or driving your car - that's because your senses inform you of the world around you - not gods.
Where your belief does come into play you get the wrong answers ...evolution, for instance. Granted these could be just your personal failings and a 'divine epistimology' is a true, but it's clear you have difficulty differentiating between divine knowledge and personal ignorance. Furthermore, you damage your claims of god as the basis of knowledge when you attribute your ignorance to 'His' knowledge.
That being said, I fully admit my own ignorance and try to correct it as I find it. However, my ignorance doesn't substantiate your claim anymore than your ignorance proves whatever epistemological view I might advocate.
SKONE: "You provided a logical fallacy (circular argument) in defense. That is not logical. I'm not trying to beat you up, but I don't think you've really examined your position all that closely."
I stated a biblical truth. I believed you knew that teaching. It was not something I made up out of the blue. This is the teaching of Scripture, that there is a foundation that is right and true and noble, per the Bible, but,
Psalm 11:3
If the foundations are destroyed, What can the righteous do?
If you destroy or attempt to destroy this foundation then what will you use to replace it? Please answer this question.
Matthew 7:24[ The Two Foundations ] “Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock.
Jesus taught two foundations, one solid and reliable, the other built on sinking sand.
Isaiah 28:16 Therefore thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed.
Matthew 21:42Jesus *said to them, “Did you never read in the Scriptures, ‘The stone which the builders rejected, This became the chief corner stone; This came about from the Lord, And it is marvelous in our eyes’?
The cornerstone was the first stone laid and a key to the structure of the building.
Ephesians 2:20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,
There is a time when no greater authority can be appealed to, thus when you appeal to authority is your authority circular too? "Science proves science." "Logic proves logic." Is that circular? In the case of God, a Being who knows all things, how could there be a greater authority of appeal? Eventually, all things point to God as the Originator or Creator of them.
What is your foundation of epistemology? Is it yourself, perhaps, or science, or reason (whose)?
Post 207: "Jesus/god as a foundation of epistemology? I view this as a bald assertion. Why should I consider your view to be correct? Fair warning: I will not find circular arguments compelling."
Jesus is the foundation of epistemology per such biblical statements as John 14:6; John 16:30; John 21:17; or Colossians 2:3. Whether you choose to accept this is another matter. You know the Bible says those things. I do not see fit to explain to you something you already understand. It is not only me saying that He is the foundation of our understanding. It is not just one biblical author who spoke of such things, and many such authors said they were eyewitnesses of His resurrection.
1 John 1-3 (NASB)
Introduction, The Incarnate Word
1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have SEEN with our eyes, what we have LOOKED AT and TOUCHED with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3 what we have SEEN and HEARD we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.
There are only a few possibilities for origins:
1. Creation.
2. Chance happenstance.
3. Eternal existence.
4. Illusion.
Perhaps you can think of more (name them), but which makes sense to you? That brings me back to a statement I make often. I believe God is necessary to make sense of such things for such a God (the biblical One) has what is necessary for us to know - omniscience, immutability, and eternity.
I would think comprehensive sex ed would be our first priority.
"The United States ranks first among developed nations in rates of teenage pregnancy, abortion, and sexually transmitted infections and diseases. Only 38 of America’s 50 states have sex education laws, and 30 of those curricula promote the ideal of abstinence until marriage. Only eight include all components of a comprehensive sex education."
https://scholars.org/contribution/why-sex-education-united-states-needs-update-and-how-do-it
You provided a logical fallacy (circular argument) in defense. That is not logical. I'm not trying to beat you up, but I don't think you've really examined your position all that closely.
SKONE: "I am not questioning Christianity specifically, but merely asking about an epistemological claim. Lashng out at me doesn't make your assertions true."
I have explained what my epistemology is based upon. I have explained it from a philosophical and logical perspective. I could have taken other aspects of proof but I based it upon your Post 207 query and charge.
Can't we just skyrocket funds to planned parenthood so they make better contraception and therefore eliminate abortions pretty much entirely?
I am not questioning Christianity specifically, but merely asking about an epistemological claim. Lashng out at me doesn't make your assertions true.
SKONE: "This tangent can be summarized as such:
Person A: How do you logically support belief X [Christianity]?
Person B [a Christian] attempts to avoid scrutiny of said belief [Christianity] by questioning person A [an atheist/agnostic] on assumed belief Y [atheism]. Additionally, Person B [a Christain] suggests a book [the Bible], [1] which (alone) states it's own importance, substantiates his belief.
[2] Even if Person A [an atheist/agnostic] cannot substantiate belief Y [atheism/agnosticism], it does not follow belief X [Christianity] of person B [a Christian] is substantiated. [3] Also, the book can be a claim or evidence - not both. [4] Finally, the summary above is overly generous. [5] PGA is not merely relying on the Bible to substantiate his views, [6] but *his interpretation* of the Bible. [7] PGA accuses me of dodging his questions, [8] but his questions are a dodge in and of themselves. I simply refuse to follow the feint.
Please remember where this tangent came from. SKONE said,
Post 207: "Jesus/god as a foundation of epistemology? I view this as a bald assertion. Why should I consider your view to be correct? Fair warning: I will not find circular arguments compelling."
[1] Again, I questioned Person A [an atheist] on his ultimate authority and on the consistency of such said authority in regards to the surety and necessity of knowing. I questioned how his relativism and subjectivism is the necessary standard in understanding epistemology in such areas as origins of the universe, life from non-life, morality, and existence. I'm trying to get to the basics of his claims about my beliefs and his own as to which is more reasonable - the core or foundational starting points to there coherency and correspondency. S I L E N C E
[2] If Person A [an atheist/agnostic] cannot substantiate his own belief is reasonable nor can he prove Person B's [the Christian] beliefs are not why should his charges be taken seriously? I have given reasons for my belief system as to knowledge is reasonable from where I start and what is NECESSARY, yet SKONE has not.
[3] The either-or fallacy/false dilemma. The "claim" comes from those who do not believe what the Bible states as an ultimate authority from which there is no greater. Thus, it becomes a test of belief systems as to reason and verification of authority and to what is necessary to know. Two contrary authorities are not both right. Are we created or are we here by chance happenstance? Which is more reasonable? The biblical evidence comes from both the internal and external consistency of what is stated that can be related to human history to a large extent but it drives way deeper in answering the question of why are we here and how did we get here? It also comes from a revelation of necessary Being of which neither SKONE nor myself are. From basic questions, worldviews are framed. Thus, the basics are what we need to examine as to the logic and sense in such belief systems.
[4] You framed it.
[5] SKONE said, "PGA is not merely relying on the Bible to substantiate his views" but from the Christian standpoint I am created in the image and likeness of God and I am using what he has given me (reason and logic) to understand His creation. My point has been that neither of us is neutral in our belief system and yet from Person A's [the atheist/agnostic] starting points, his foundational beliefs, how can he make sense of any of this in his subjectivity of origins, morality, life from non-life, and existence? He is trying to convince the reader that his position is "better" and more "reliable" to believe than my framework to which I scoff. Let us peel away the veneer to see what lies beneath the surface. Does SKONE's belief system have what is necessary for knowledge, or is he using my Christian framework?
[6] Regarding interpretation, I have asked SKONE if a language has meaning in context? If not, then how can we understand anything? If so, then there is a correct interpretation. If SKONE wishes to question me on my interpretation I have given him some verses that support my position regarding knowledge. I have also questions his starting points or foundations as to validity. Do his core presuppositions have what is necessary?
[7] Most definitely.
[8] They get to the heart of the issue. SKONE is asking me to validate how I can know Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. I have explained the biblical REVELATION has what is necessary to know. I have also said that SKONE does not have what is necessary. Why should I believe his personal opinion or where he derives it from unless he can show it is necessary for truth and knowledge. S I L E N C E
This tangent can be summarized as such:
Person A: How do you logically support belief X?
Person B attempts to avoid scrutiny of said belief by questioning person A on assumed belief Y. Additionally, Person B suggests a book, which (alone) states it's own importance, substantiates his belief.
Even if Person A cannot substantiate belief Y, it does not follow belief X of person B is substantiated. Also, the book can be a claim or evidence - not both. Finally, the summary above is overly generous. PGA is not merely relying on the Bible to substantiate his views, but *his interpretation* of the Bible. PGA accuses me of dodging his questions, but his questions are a dodge in and of themselves. I simply refuse to follow the feint.
Furthermore, you said you do not want to go down my rabbit holes (which I view as a simple dismissal of my points without a warrant). This still begs the question of if your knowledge is not comprehensive and all-encompassing and you can't point to any that meets this criterion that has been revealed to humanity, again, why should I have faith in your belief system as anything other than the blind leading the blind?
Again, you have not shown me why your worldview is consistent with the preconditions for knowledge. If you do not have a comprehensive knowledge of how all things are connected and holds together how can you have any certainty of the origins of the universe, life, morality, existence? Again, my worldview has the necessary preconditions - God, your does not.
Regarding morality, I have questioned your preconditions for morality in our first debate on abortion and I never saw your defence as plausible. I questioned your morality in regard to the law in this debate and I again never saw your defence as plausible but contradictory once again. It did not even meet the criterion of being self-evidently true. You argued for all humanity being equal then undermined the very concept of equality by not treating every human equally.
I would like to follow up on one of your statements to do with epistemology. Here it is:
SKONE: "If you don't want to talk about what you consider the basis of knowledge that's fine. I do find it ironic you suggest god is the basis of knowledge, but apparently can't say how you know that."
I find it ironic that you suggest God is not (and I speak of the Christian God).
What is your basis for knowledge? How can it be an absolute certainty?
What is the necessary precondition for your reasoning? Is it an omniscient being who has revealed themself? If not it is inconsistent. It begs the question of how it can be known to be the actual case if not. So point to this being. I question your subjective mind as the criteria for knowledge just as I question other subjective, relative human beings as the foundation for certainty of knowledge. I reason that your knowledge is not comprehensive and all-knowing, thus, it misses the mark. So, please explain why I can trust it? Mine, on the other hand, has what is necessary. Thus, it is internally consistent as the precondition for knowledge.
IOW's, I want to know why your authority is justifiable if it is not the absolute authority for reason and knowledge?
ME: "The biblical perspective is that knowledge is derived from God (e.g. I am the way, the truth, and the light). We, as human beings, are created in His image and likeness; thus, we are capable of knowing also provided we build upon a solid foundation."
SKONE: "So your explanation is simple as "my interpretation of the Bible". Why should we consider the Bible an authority in anything (besides "the Bible tells me so") or accept your interpretation of it? On the former, its circular, and on the latter, it's subjective."
I base my interpretation on many simply stated passages of Scripture. Would you like to dispute that, or are you merely saying that there is no correct interpretation of Scripture or no objective understanding of any sentence (i.e., words in context have no meaning)?
Regarding authority and reason, where does your ultimate authority derive from; for example, the standard in which truth is measured? There is no neutrality here. What standard do you commit to?
Now, what if the Bible (stated as God's word) is my ultimate authority? Why is your secular or religious authority "better?"
Is 'reason' your ultimate authority (circular and subjective - "My reason is that reason is necessary for understanding.")? Is it science (circular - "I believe in science because science gives sufficient reason for the truth.")?
SKONE: "And before you attempt to a Tu quoque fallacy (i.e. You too!!), I'm appealing to what can be observed by all rather than what I alone can 'witness'."
And you bet I'll question you along the lines in which you are examining me.
All can observe and examine the Bible. It claims knowledge of God is evident in it, but men suppress the truth of it.
KNOWLEDGE about God comes from it.
Romans 1:18-22
Unbelief and Its Consequences
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who SUPPRESS the TRUTH in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is KNOWN ABOUT God is EVIDENT WITHIN THEM; for God made it EVIDENT TO THEM. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been CLEARLY SEEN, being understood THROUGH WHAT HAS BEEN MADE, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became FUTILE IN THEIR SPECULATIONS, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Because of the unbeliever's suppression and rejection of God's knowledge the Word becomes foolish to them.
1 Corinthians 2:11-14 (NASB)
11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
ULTIMATE AUTHORITY is derived through our relationship with Jesus Christ.
Matthew 28:18 (NASB)
18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “ALL authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
Colossians 2:3b-4
resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
SKONE: "I didn't see the point of copy/paste of previous posts. Was there new information there?"
You side-stepped engaging with my questions very nicely!
"The biblical perspective is that knowledge is derived from God (eg. I am the way, the truth, and the light). We, as human beings are created in His image and likeness; thus we are capable of knowing also provided we build upon a solid foundation."
So your explanation is simple as "my interpretation of the Bible". Why should we consider the Bible an authority in anything (besides "the Bible tells me so") or accept your interpretation of it? On the former, its circular, and on the latter, it's subjective.
And before you attempt to a Tu quoque fallacy (ie. You too!!), I'm appealing to what can be observed by all rather than what I alone can 'witness'.
I didn't see the point of copy/paste of previous posts. Was there new information there?
The biblical perspective is that knowledge is derived from God (eg. I am the way, the truth, and the light). We, as human beings are created in His image and likeness; thus we are capable of knowing also provided we build upon a solid foundation.
Sorry, I missed this last part, but it is already answered.
YOU: "If you don't want to talk about what you consider the basis of knowledge that's fine. I do find it ironic you suggest god is the basis of knowledge, but apparently can't say how you know that."
The necessary basis for true knowledge is God. That is because, as I stated, He has the criterion of omniscience, eternality, and immutability - the final reference point and measure. Can we discover that knowledge without His written revelation? When we think His thoughts after Him - yes.
YOU: "False dichotomy. Even if we discount materialism, there is still any number of theistic and deistic possibilities." (Post 218)
ME: "Okay, since you are defending some competing religious claims, what are your other alternatives, not just generic but specific? If you can't list them then you are speaking from ignorance. Why should I believe you? I defend a specific God and concept of God, the biblical God and no other, as stated many times before. Let us compare worldviews. Two absolute gods or plurality of gods that contradict each other cannot both be true. Thus, what is your plurality of gods, if that is the case?
First, what is your god or gods if that/those god/gods is/are not personal?
Second, either God is a personal being or God is impersonal. Which is it? God or gods? It cannot be both.
Third, if God or gods is/are not a person/persons God/gods is/are a thing/things, not a being (i.e., pantheism). You can't have it both ways. Either God/gods is/are personal being/beings or God/gods is ascribed to a thing or things. Which is it? It can't be both.
Fourth, how has this/these god/gods been revealed to us? The Christian God reveals Himself in language and by what He has made.
Fifth, if your god/gods is not a personal being how does your god/gods have the ability to do anything and how does your god/gods sustain anything because if not a personal being/beings there is no intent?
Sixth, if your God/gods are beyond rationality and human experience then they are arbitrary non-sense.
Seventh, what are the preconditions for intelligibility and how does this come about and/or how is this possible without personhood?
Eighth, is your god/gods visible or invisible, empirical or nonempirical?" (Post 219)
YOU: "I'm not running down the rabbit holes, buddy. Either you can back the assertion I questioned, or you cant. You're dodging the question." (Post 222)
I am willing to demonstrate why the biblical God makes sense if you are willing to discuss these gods or god in relation to the biblical God as to the reasonableness of the different positions? Give me a couple of what you consider the most reasonable scenarios. How do they fit into the eight questions of Post 222? Better yet, give me some detail of your own position so I can contrast it with the biblical position.
SKONE: "I've pointed out there are more options than materialism and Jesus. It stands to reason that even if you are correct about materialism, you view is not winner by default...there are other options. Thus, changing the subject to what you believe my views to be doesnt answer the question."
You've asserted (just like I have to the contrary) there are more options but IF the Bible is true (and I state it that way because of your doubts) it states something exclusively - the biblical God is the one and only true God. Now, if you believe Jesus (the Trinity) is not the true God but there are many gods then list your god or gods so we can compare and contrast our beliefs. In this way, I can demonstrate to you why my belief is reasonable in comparison to your belief. That is the best I can do other than to state that knowledge or true justified belief would require a revelation from an ultimate, omniscient, unchanging Being since we are not that being.
If you don't want to talk about what you consider the basis of knowledge that's fine. I do find it ironic you suggest god is the basis of knowledge, but apparently can't say how you know that.
SKONE: "We're not on the same street! 😂"
That is for sure. (^8
YOU: "Jesus/god as a foundation of epistemology? I view this as a bald assertion. Why should I consider your view to be correct? Fair warning: I will not find circular arguments compelling." (Post 207)
YOU: "Let me clarify my question: why is belief in Jesus/god a valid epistemological foundation?" (Post 208)
ME: "The same can be applied to the opposite belief and foundation - matter, not personal being, as the foundation of epistemology.
Also, "Jesus is NOT the foundation of epistemology would also be a bald and bold assertion." Why should you consider your view to be correct?" (Response to Post 207)
"A system of beliefs requires verification. Christianity has many verifications that are reasonable to believe from its starting point." (NINE listed - Post 209 in response to Post 208)
ME: "The question is without God how do you tie it to personal beings as anything other than a mere preference? Then, how does preference make something "right?" (Post 210)
YOU: "I questioned your justifications for believing god is the basis for knowledge. You argued against materialism instead..." (Post 212)
ME: "Stating something (assertion) does not necessarily mean it cannot be evidenced, demonstrated, or proved." (Post 213)
YOU: "Can you justify your belief of 'god as the basis of knowledge'?" (Post 214)
ME: "See Post 209 for my justification and answer, for instance." (Post 215)
YOU: "1. You assumed I am a materialist. I do not hold that material is all there could be ...before you jump to another bad conclusion, I don't hold that there is more than material either. I consider myself to be an EMPIRICIST, so I will accept what can be demonstrated.
2. If materialism is faulty, it does not follow that your position is correct - especially in regards to a specific diety. If your goal is to show your view correct, you'll need to talk about *your* view." (Post 216)
ME: "Either materialism or a personal God. Which is it?
An empiricist falls short in many respects. He/she cannot demonstrate empiricism is all there is because he/she has to delve into the abstract and intangible such as the laws of logic to clarify anything. If you still think you are an empiricist then I challenge you to prove the laws of logic are empirical...
As for a specific deity, there can be only the One who fits the bill, since belief in gods is all contradictory in crucial ways; thus, they cannot all be true. When someone truly investigates the teachings of the Bible they can find the Christian position has amazing verifiability to it; I claim like no other, and I am open to discuss some of these ways and have done so in the past." (Post 217)
We're not on the same street! 😂
I've pointed out there are more options than materialism and Jesus. It stands to reason that even if you are correct about materialism, you view is not winner by default...there are other options. Thus, changing the subject to what you believe my views to be doesnt answer the question.
If you don't want to talk about what you consider the basis of knowledge that's fine. I do find it ironic you suggest god is the basis of knowledge, but apparently can't say how you know that.
Two-way street.
I'm not running down the rabbit holes, buddy. Either you can back the assertion I questioned, or you cant. You're dodging the question.
ME: "A position of which you say it is a bald assertion. I wasn't trying to prove my point. I was just stating what I believed until you identified it as a "bald" assertion. Belief in the biblical God is nothing of the kind. My belief is reasonable, not unreasonable, not irrational, not blind faith, although to some it can be."
SKONE: "No need to get defensive, bud. You were asked about a very specific claim (not your overall belief in god). You stated something to the effect that nothing could be known without god, and I asked why I should consider this to be correct. If you can't provide evidence (regarding *your* view - not materialism), then "bald assertion" would be correct, but maybe a little harsh judging from your reaction. Apologies."
No reason to apologize. The Apostle Peter said to be ready to give a defence to everyone who asks the disciple to give account. I understand you are testing or challenging my truth claims to which I in turn challenge you to prove the possibility of the contrary in making sense of a truth claim without first presupposing God. To do so you will have to get specific about your own belief system of thought to its sensibility.
ME: "The biblical position has what is necessary to make sense of origins, meaning, purpose, etc. It is reasonable to believe."
SKONE: "Another assertion."
Yes, but I am willing to demonstrate it. How have you challenged it? A comment box does not give much space needed to do so. I am stating again what I believe and if necessary I am willing to justify my CLAIMS if challenged.
I do not see the challenge accepted by you in explaining Post 209 or elsewhere. We are trying to make sense of existence and in the case of abortion why the pro-choice argument is morally "right."
ME: "An empiricist falls short in many respects. He/she cannot demonstrate empiricism is all there is because he/she has to delve into the abstract and intangible such as the laws of logic to clarify anything. If you still think you are an empiricist then I challenge you to prove the laws of logic are empirical."
SKONE: "I think maybe you don't understand what empiricism is. It is not that empiricism is all that exists - whatever that means. It is basically 'demonstrate it, and I will accept it.' It doesn't discount the abstract because 'it can't be physically shown' - that would be a very strict interpretation."
You are contradicting the definition of empiricism and confuse it with rationalism. Here it is:
Definition of empiricism
1a: a former school of medical practice founded on experience without the aid of science or theory
b: quackery, charlatanry
2a: the practice of relying on observation and experiment especially in the natural sciences
b: a tenet arrived at empirically
3: a theory that all knowledge originates in experience
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empiricism#other-words
2 and 3 apply here, especially 3.
"All knowledge originates in experience."
That is, the senses - seeing, touching, tasting, hearing, and smell.
"Empiricism is the theory that the origin of all knowledge is sense experience. It emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, and argues that the only knowledge humans can have is a posteriori (i.e. based on experience)."
https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_empiricism.html
"Empiricism, in philosophy, the view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced, or that all rationally acceptable beliefs or propositions are justifiable or knowable only through experience. This broad definition accords with the derivation of the term empiricism from the ancient Greek word empeiria, “experience.”"
https://www.britannica.com/topic/empiricism
How do you empirically verify things like the laws of logic through empiricism, since you state you are an empiricist?
POST 216: "I consider myself to be an empiricist, so I will accept what can be demonstrated." Demonstrate the laws of logic empirically.
ME: "Either materialism or a personal God. Which is it?"
SKONE: "False dichotomy. Even if we discount materialism, there is still any number of theistic and deistic possibilities."
Okay, since you are defending some competing religious claims, what are your other alternatives, not just generic but specific? If you can't list them then you are speaking from ignorance. Why should I believe you? I defend a specific God and concept of God, the biblical God and no other, as stated many times before. Let us compare worldviews. Two absolute gods or plurality of gods that contradict each other cannot both be true. Thus, what is your plurality of gods, if that is the case?
So, let's get specific. I'll borrow from some Bahnsen presuppositionalism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2s1PwuvDGuY&list=PLFCE0E452DB4851A4).
First, what is your god or gods if that/those god/gods is/are not personal?
Second, either God is a personal being or God is impersonal. Which is it? God or gods? It cannot be both.
Third, if God or gods is/are not a person/persons God/gods is/are a thing/things, not a being (i.e., pantheism). You can't have it both ways. Either God/gods is/are personal being/beings or God/gods is ascribed to a thing or things. Which is it? It can't be both.
Fourth, how has this/these god/gods been revealed to us? The Christian God reveals Himself in language and by what He has made.
Fifth, if your god/gods is not a personal being how does your god/gods have the ability to do anything and how does your god/gods sustain anything because if not a personal being/beings there is no intent?
Sixth, if your God/gods are beyond rationality and human experience then they are arbitrary non-sense.
Seventh, what are the preconditions for intelligibility and how does this come about and/or how is this possible without personhood?
Eighth, is your god/gods visible or invisible, empirical or nonempirical?
"Either materialism or a personal God. Which is it?"
False dichotomy. Even if we discount materialism, there is still any number of theistic and deistic possibilities.
"An empiricist falls short in many respects. He/she cannot demonstrate empiricism is all there is because he/she has to delve into the abstract and intangible such as the laws of logic to clarify anything. If you still think you are an empiricist then I challenge you to prove the laws of logic are empirical."
I think maybe you don't understand what empiricism is. It is not that empiricism is all that exists - whatever that means. It is basically 'demonstrate it, and I will accept it.' It doesn't discount the abstract because 'it can't be physically shown' - that would be a very strict interpretation.
"A position of which you say it is a bald assertion. I wasn't trying to prove my point. I was just stating what I believed until you identified it as a "bald" assertion. Belief in the biblical God is nothing of the kind. My belief is reasonable, not unreasonable, not irrational, not blind faith, although to some it can be."
No need to get defensive, bud. You were asked about a very specific claim (not your overall belief in god). You stated something to the effect that nothing could be known without god, and I asked why I should consider this to be correct. If you can't provide evidence (regarding *your* view - not materialism), then "bald assertion" would be correct, but maybe a little harsh judging from your reaction. Apologies.
"The biblical position has what is necessary to make sense of origins, meaning, purpose, etc. It is reasonable to believe."
Another assertion.
"As for a specific deity, there can be only the One who fits the bill, since belief in gods is all contradictory in crucial ways; thus, they cannot all be true. When someone truly investigates the teachings of the Bible they can find the Christian position has amazing verifiability to it; I claim like no other, and I am open to discuss some of these ways and have done so in the past."
It's ok to say you can't show god is the basis of knowledge, but it is your belief. (that seems to be the case). You don't need to explain your entire belief system - that's not what was asked.
SKONE: "I didn't assign a position to you - it is your stated position. I also gave you the opportunity to correct my understanding of your position: "Or is that not what you're saying?" You made two errors in your response."
A position of which you say it is a bald assertion. I wasn't trying to prove my point. I was just stating what I believed until you identified it as a "bald" assertion. Belief in the biblical God is nothing of the kind. My belief is reasonable, not unreasonable, not irrational, not blind faith, although to some it can be.
SKONE: "1. You assumed I am a materialist. I do not hold that material is all there could be ...before you jump to another bad conclusion, I don't hold that there is more than material either. I consider myself to be an empiricist, so I will accept what can be demonstrated."
Either materialism or a personal God. Which is it?
An empiricist falls short in many respects. He/she cannot demonstrate empiricism is all there is because he/she has to delve into the abstract and intangible such as the laws of logic to clarify anything. If you still think you are an empiricist then I challenge you to prove the laws of logic are empirical.
SKONE: "2. If materialism is faulty, it does not follow that your position is correct - especially in regards to a specific diety. If your goal is to show your view correct, you'll need to talk about *your* view."
The biblical position has what is necessary to make sense of origins, meaning, purpose, etc. It is reasonable to believe. A materialistic one does not. Just look into the core presuppositions of both and try to make sense of materialism. A position devoid of God that espouses abortion and woman's rights falls nicely into such a category, IMO. It borrows from relativism in foistering its ideas on the gullible, IMHO. (^8
As for a specific deity, there can be only the One who fits the bill, since belief in gods is all contradictory in crucial ways; thus, they cannot all be true. When someone truly investigates the teachings of the Bible they can find the Christian position has amazing verifiability to it; I claim like no other, and I am open to discuss some of these ways and have done so in the past.
I didn't assign a position to you - it is your stated position. I also gave you the opportunity to correct my understanding of your position: "Or is that not what you're saying?" You made two errors in your response.
1. You assumed I am a materialist. I do not hold that material is all there could be ...before you jump to another bad conclusion, I don't hold that there is more than material either. I consider myself to be an empiricist, so I will accept what can be demonstrated.
2. If materialism is faulty, it does not follow that your position is correct - especially in regards to a specific diety. If your goal is to show your view correct, you'll need to talk about *your* view.
SKONE: "Dad, I *should* ask Meredith to the prom.
Bob, we *should* paint the customer's car blue.
Mom, I *should* vacuum.
Here you are - explicit statements using *should* absent moral implication. My point stands."
ME: "I turned the tables on you and showed you that your charge can be equally applied to you"
SKONE: "No, you didn't. You assigned a position to me and then attacked it rather than answer a sincere question."
You assigned a 'bald assertion' to me in the following, so I showed you it can be framed either way, with my view or the contrary position.
Post 207: "Jesus/god as a foundation of epistemology? I view this as a bald assertion. Why should I consider your view to be correct?"
You said it was a bald assertion. (your statement)
Thus, I explained to you why I thought the assertion was reasonable from a philosophical standpoint. I did not touch on historical or archaeological evidence but I did on the aspects of scientism, explaining that these models of origins such as evolution and the universe are rife with problems.
Since you never delved into these issues further but continued with your own assertions there was no need to continue along these previously stated lines of reasoning and investigation. Your worldview is just as guilty. You continue to pass the buck to me neglecting the flaws of your own position. When you ask a question or make a statement I try to answer them to the best of my ability.
SKONE: "Can you justify your belief of 'god as the basis of knowledge'?"
See Post 209 for my justification and answer, for instance.
Dad, I *should* ask Meredith to the prom.
Bob, we *should* paint the customer's car blue.
Mom, I *should* vacuum.
Here you are - explicit statements using *should* absent moral implication. My point stands.
"I turned the tables on you and showed you that your charge can be equally applied to you"
No, you didn't. You assigned a position to me and then attacked it rather than answer a sincere question. Can you justify your belief of 'god as the basis of knowledge'?
SKONE: "Dad, *should* I ask Meredith to the prom?
Bob, *should* we paint the customer's car blue?
Mom, *should* I vacuum?
By your reasoning, these questions are tied to morality merely by *should* being in the question. You're leaving out the role context plays. The proposition was about legality not morality, and what's legal and what's moral are not the same set."
You are confusing two different senses in which the word or sentence is understood. I have noticed this occurrence before on this forum.
"Abortion SHOULD be legal" is expressing an obligation or MORAL ought to do something, under the penalty of the law, a moral imperative. Should in the sense you are using it in those three examples is in the form of a question, a query on whether to do something or not to do it. It is not an explicit statement when used the one way but most definitely is the other way. (Try again)
***
PGA: "Jesus is NOT the foundation of epistemology would also be a bald and bold assertion."
SKONE: "I never said this. I questioned your justifications for believing god is the basis for knowledge. You argued against materialism instead...I'm still waiting on my answer."
I turned the tables on you and showed you that your charge can be equally applied to you if you want to frame something this way. Either Jesus is the foundation for epistemology (i.e., God) or He is not. It can't be both and either way you want to state it falls into this fallacious trap. Stating something (assertion) does not necessarily mean it cannot be evidenced, demonstrated, or proved.
I can assert 2+2=4 or 2+2=5. As it happens, one of those two assertions would be true to what is the case.
PGA: Jesus is NOT the foundation of epistemology would also be a bald and bold assertion.
I never said this. I questioned your justifications for believing god is the basis for knowledge. You argued against materialism instead...I'm still waiting on my answer.
Dad, *should* I ask Meredith to the prom?
Bob, *should* we paint the customer's car blue?
Mom, *should* I vacuum?
By your reasoning, these questions are tied to morality merely by *should* being in the question. You're leaving out the role context plays. The proposition was about legality not morality, and what's legal and what's moral are not the same set.
These things do not tie directly into the topic at hand, but indirectly they are relevant because of your word/term "should." "Should" is tied to morality and morality is tied to personal beings. The question is without God how do you tie it to personal beings as anything other than a mere preference? Then, how does preference make something "right?"
SKONE: "Jesus/god as a foundation of epistemology? I view this as a bald assertion. Why should I consider your view to be correct? Fair warning: I will not find circular arguments compelling."
It works both ways. The same can be applied to the opposite belief and foundation - matter, not personal being, as the foundation of epistemology.
Also, "Jesus is NOT the foundation of epistemology would also be a bald and bold assertion." Why should you consider your view to be correct?
Your view of things is very sketchy.
A system of beliefs requires verification. Christianity has many verifications that are reasonable to believe from its starting point. Materialism does not because of its starting points. Thus, belief in Jesus is reasonable on the extreme unlikelihood or impossibility of the contrary. Here are just a few of materialism starting points off the top of my head:
1) It has no reason or logic because it is not mindful.
2) It does not have a basis for morality since there is no final or fixed reference point.
3) It cannot explain consciousness. Somehow conscious is derived from the non-conscious.
4) There is no 'why' involved.
5) It has no agency or intentionality. There is no reason for the uniformity of nature. Uniformity somehow is derived from chance happenstance. Thus, it does not make sense. How does something that lacks intent (mindfulness) sustain anything constantly?
6) The worldview presupposes all these things witnessed are possible from mindless matter (while using consciousness and mindfulness in their comprehension).
7) The explanation for evolution, as with origins of the universe, is by mindful beings in the present interpreting things from the past. Thus, to an extent, we have to imagine that the conditions in the past are similar or the same as the conditions in the past, and the present is the key to the past.
8) There is no reason anything exists. It just is.
9) Such a worldview has no hope.
So, you are welcome to it but I will say no thanks, I think it is foolish to base existence on such beliefs.
SKONE: "Let me clarify my question: why is belief in Jesus/god a valid epistemological foundation? ..Or is that not what you're saying?
Instigator"
Without belief in God, we live in a state of relativism and subjectivity. Our minds are finite and limited in what we can know and how we know it regarding purpose, meaning, and value, as well as the certainty of origins, even though there are lots of clues. Without God, we cannot make sense of these things from such a materialistic and impersonal basis. A belief in God has what is necessary to know what is certain. The Bible claims to be a revelation from and of God. Jesus claimed to be God and did what God did. The Scriptures have many reasonable proofs that confirm what is said is true. Thus, belief in Jesus is a reasonable and rational belief. It has what is necessary for rationality and logic. Materialism does not.
Let me clarify my question: why is belief in Jesus/god a valid epistemological foundation? ..Or is that not what you're saying?
Jesus/god as a foundation of epistemology? I view this as a bald assertion. Why should I consider your view to be correct? Fair warning: I will not find circular arguments compelling.
SKONE: "I want to believe as many true things (and as few false things) as possible. If that means the world is not all rainbows and butterflies, so be it."
PGA: Speaking of origins, how can you know it is true unless God is real and has revealed as much? Do you really think scientists can confirm the truth of origins with certainty? No, this world is not all rainbows and butterflies."
SKONE: "Were we speaking of origins? ...and how would our origin one way or another inhibit our ability to learn what is true? It seems like a non-sequitor to me."
It does go back to your starting presuppositions, where and how things originate. When you build on the wrong foundation your data gets skewed. An error here and there can magnify the complexity and error of thought. While you and I are very capable of thinking true things, when one builds their worldview on a rotten foundation then error compiles upon error and the whole thing is in danger of collapsing. Such is the case when the foundation gets shaken, as Jesus taught in Matthew 7:24-29. Once it collapses you can check the rubble and analyze its inadequate materials, sometimes things you don't notice while the structure still stands and you are living in it. At other times you know the material is not good but you cut costs and invest in weaker materials that cause the fateful collapse.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+7%3A24-29&version=NASB;NIV;ESV
SKONE: "I want to believe as many true things (and as few false things) as possible. If that means the world is not all rainbows and butterflies, so be it."
PGA: Speaking of origins, how can you know it is true unless God is real and has revealed as much? Do you really think scientists can confirm the truth of origins with certainty? No, this world is not all rainbows and butterflies."
Were we speaking of origins? ...and how would our origin one way or another inhibit our ability to learn what is true? It seems like a non-sequitor to me.
ME: "My belief can be demonstrated."
SKONE: "You[r] beliefs can be shown internally consistent. They cannot be demonstrated to be manifest in the world beyond. In fact, the world beyond argues against specific aspects of strict literalism."
Some aspects of the Bible are literal, others are figurative, others speak of the spiritual realm; some speak of this world and others speak of the world to come. Our world is physical in nature. The heavenly realm is a spiritual realm. The two realms are not the same, but I can rely on God's word in understand there is a difference.
***
ME: "Not only that, but you also want to be in that sea."
SKONE: "I want to believe as many true things (and as few false things) as possible. If that means the world is not all rainbows and butterflies, so be it."
Speaking of origins, how can you know it is true unless God is real and has revealed as much? Do you really think scientists can confirm the truth of origins with certainty? No, this world is not all rainbows and butterflies.
"Not only that, but you also want to be in that sea."
I want to believe as many true things (and as few false things) as possible. If that means the world is not all rainbows and butterflies, so be it.
"My belief can be demonstrated."
You beliefs can be shown internally consistent. They cannot be demonstrated to be manifest in the world beyond. In fact, the world beyond argues against specific aspects of strict literalism.
Not only that, but you also want to be in that sea.
ME: "The reason I don't discuss the subject much is that I do not like being ridiculed by those who are not open to considering their worldview is wrong. They are blind and deaf to God. They presuppose they know better from a subjective, relativistic framework. So, how can I argue with that? Their minds are already made up there is no God or any reasonable evidence for His existence (Hebrews 11:6), just as mine is set about God. The question is which is more reasonable? Do you really think it is yours?"
SKONE: "I don't intend to mock you, Peter. I consider us to be friends. Although, I cannot control what the audience says or does. If you'd rather not debate this subject, I understand."
***
No, it is not a question of whether I will debate. I will. It is a question of minds already are made up and so that bias is brought into the debate, any debate unless you are playing devil's advocate. Even then, I doubt the position is fairly argued or judged. There is no neutrality, which Jesus made very clear. He said to His disciples that they were either for Him or against Him. Jesus said that either you build your worldview on God - the solid rock - or your build it on the sand.
SKONE: "It seems you are irritated by close-mindedness in those who accept evolution while admitting your own close-mindedness to anything beyond your beliefs. Shouldn't you be open to changing your views if you expect your interlocutors to do the same?"
We are all limited in our knowledge of things, apart from God - a necessary being for knowing the truth of origins, of which you include macroevolution. We only see in part. What irritates me is that you think your belief, apart from God, is true yet mine is the one scoffed at. I have challenged you to demonstrate this as the case, not just believed to be so. I have argued many times with many people that they can't with certainty. I have also argued that God is necessary for certainty in such things. Without Him, we are in a sea of relativism with no ultimate purpose or meaning.