Why Most Abortion Arguments Are Incoherent

 

 

 

Abortion is a hot topic right now as Alabama recently passed an unprecedented bill that significantly impedes abortion and subjects abortion doctors to a potential 99 year prison sentence. Just yesterday (May 22, 2019) the Alabama House passed the “born alive” bill which requires doctors to try and save the life of a baby in the event of a “botched” abortion (as if there were such a thing as a “successful” abortion). Failure to provide the same level of care as would be afforded to a newborn baby could result in criminal felony charges and up to 20 years in prison.  7 other sates have passed similar bills and several others are attempting to pass further restrictions.

The debates on social media and even in the news rage on and are fueled by passion and (mostly) profound ignorance. Even those who are well intentioned and oppose abortion tend to put the cart before the horse when arguing with others about this and therefore fail to get at the root of the problem. Good intentions are no substitute for effective argumentation. We ought to “work smarter, not harder” as the saying goes. Where the vast majority of people go wrong is in their failure to address the presuppositions held by the opponent; in this case, the abortion supporter. I will be putting forth no new concept here, but only reintroducing a type of what is commonly referred to as a “presuppositional apologetic” concerning this abortion debate.

 

Right Conclusion; Wrong Reason

It is possible to come to the right conclusion for the wrong reason. It happens by the minute. This is why math teachers usually require that students show their work. This proves that they have reasoned through the problem and that they truly understand why they reached the conclusion they did. Unfortunately, most people forget to “show their work” when it comes to arguing against abortion. Even well meaning Christians simply drop the ball here. It is even possible to introduce proper logic at the wrong time. To borrow another math analogy, this is why “PEMDAS” exists. It is an order of operations which ensures that the right method is not used at the wrong time. For example, a simple problem such as: (3 + 6) × 2 , will net you the wrong answer if not done in the proper order. You might come up with 15 or 18 depending on the order you work out the problem. If the equation within the parentheses is not worked out first you will be wrong every time.

Almost always, when the abortion debate ensues it devolves into passionate irrationality by failing to set terms properly. Because the topic itself is inherently ethical, a failure to explore this aspect first will ultimate confuse the argument and inhibit true progress.
Though arguments about the science of life and the human heart-beat, etc. are important and have their place, we should always follow a proper order of operations if we are to make a comprehensive and coherent argument. What profit is there discussing aesthetics with a nihilist? First make sure there is an acceptance of terms.

 

Defining Morality

As the multiplication problem will be wrong if the parentheses and exponents are not solved first, so too will the abortion argument become incoherent if morality is not explored first. When someone supports abortion, despite what they might say, they are God-haters. There is no other option. Those who defend the murder of babies do so on the basis of the dictates of their own wicked hearts. There are many who claim to be “christians” who support “women’s rights” or whatever bogus narrative they happen to be parroting at that moment, but the support of abortion and the love of God are mutually exclusive concepts.

When someone objects to abortion bans or castigates you as a bigot or a misogynist for opposing abortion, your first question should always be something like: “Can you please tell me if you believe there is such a thing as objective moral values? And if so, where do they come from?”

More often than not, you will unfortunately have to explain the concept of objectivity to them which isn’t particularly surprising. When people devolve to a level of depravity scarcely seen even among wild animals, concepts such as “objectivity” become trying for them. Nevertheless, this is the place to begin.

You must first establish a framework whereby you can move about. No game can be played without rules and boundaries, nor can one debate without a proper framework or understanding of terms.
A man approached Jesus and said, “Good master, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus’ response? “Why do you call me good….?” This is precisely the approach that should be adopted when engaging with people in this or any conversation. This flushes out the beliefs that are simply assumed but never reasoned through.

The fact is, most people have not really reasoned through what they believe and truly don’t know why they believe what they believe. For most (especially the tablet-pacified millennial crowd) they are simply regurgitating what some hip, coffee-shop-revolutionary muttered while donning a Che Guevara t-shirt as they sat together “ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth.” (2 Timothy 3:7) When you begin to question them, you will see how quickly their assertiveness dissipates and how little thought they have truly put into their arguments.

 

 

Possible Answers

Once you have asked, “Can you please tell me if you believe there is such a thing as objective moral values?” they might say they don’t know. If they don’t know whether morals are binding on all people and from where those morals come, then the conversation becomes pointless immediately. If they don’t know whether there are objective morals then they couldn’t possibly know whether anyone was “wrong” about anything since even the concept of “wrong” becomes nebulous in their framework. Tell them that their lack of knowledge about this crucial first element renders anything said afterward as presumptuous and incoherent. Ask them to first decide what they know about morality before making judgments in that realm.

If they respond with, “No, there is no such thing as objective moral values. My truth is mine. Your truth is yours.” then your task is made even simpler. Men better than myself have put forth dozens of arguments concerning this mode of thinking. If being unsure of objectivity in moral or ethical cases grants us a set of incoherent terms, then certainly to flat-out deny objective moral values exist is to aggravate confusion. Truth be told, this is exactly where most people find themselves. When it is asserted that there is no such thing as objective moral values then all truth becomes relative and therefore subjective. This means that morality is based on the preference of any given individual at any given moment. There is absolutely no basis on this line of thinking to say that anything is objectively wrong. What someone really means by this is that they simply don’t like it. Morality becomes a matter of desire or preference when there is no objective grounding.

If they respond by saying they believe that objective moral values do exist, then they need to explain where these objective morals come from. To what or rather, to whom are they appealing? But the inevitable question comes, “What exactly constitutes something as objective?”

 

No God? No Morals

In his novel “The Brothers Karamazov,” Russian novelist/philosopher, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, wrote, “If God does not exist, everything is permitted.”
Whether or not Dostoevsky himself was an astute philosopher or a committed believer, the fact remains that this assertion is true. No God? No objective morality. It’s that simple.

Morals do not exist apart from a decree. And decrees do not exist apart from “decree-ers”. The difference is this. When a man decrees something, it is the opinion of one man and another man might very well decree the exact opposite. This is our everyday life. We can see that the mere decree of any man is up for debate and subject to legitimate challenge, for what makes one man to differ from another apart from, perhaps, titles that were bestowed upon him which are themselves the inventions of other men? In this sense, “morality” soon become majority opinion, which at times can be good but can also be devastating. Universal truth cannot and should not be measured by mass appeal. If so, then the earth was actually flat at one time (BUT IT WASN’T… objectively… Sorry, Flat-Earthers). If one man contradicts another man, then who is right? Nobody knows, nor can they for the men judging men are men themselves, and therefore if there is to be any “objective” moral standard it must come from outside of man. If there is to be a morality binding upon all men, then it must come from someone who is superior to man not his equal. It cannot be “something” for “things” do not make decrees, but only beings. Therefore this “Someone” must be greater than man inasmuch as He is the Creator of men.

If there are actions that are truly wrong and binding upon every man, the moral standard must exist on the basis of a decree from a Being that is completely outside of man and superior to him, namely, God. You simply cannot make sense of morality in an objective way apart from positing the existence of God and providing evidence of His moral decrees (Bible).

We know that things like gravity and mathematical principles are objective realities and binding on all humans whether we like them or not. But like morality, these things are not invented by men but merely discovered. Isaac Newton no more “invented” the Laws of Motion than Galileo “invented” Jupiter. These men discovered what already was. It was not their prerogative to toy with reality, but rather to acknowledge it in truth. Morals are not to be invented by men but rather discovered in the same way the laws of physics are discovered. Both the laws of physics and laws of morality have the same Creator. The only difference is that morality is not some arbitrary set of principles the God “creates” but they actually stem from His very nature. Deviancy from the character of God is what makes something “wrong” or “sinful”. This topic alone is one on which a doctoral dissertation could be written, so we’ll summarize. Suffice it to say that truth in any form is never invented but only discovered by men. There has never been a point of universal truth that was invented. Jupiter exists; laws of motion exist and objective moral values exist, and we as mankind merely discover these realities. Ignorance of a certain reality is one thing, but failure to acknowledge reality when shown is a form of psychosis. Can you see where I’m going with this?

 

The Delusion Of Abortion Supporters

Whether they are unsure or they outright deny that objective moral values exist, those who support abortion while affirming either of these positions are at best confused and at worst, suffering from a form of insanity which is to be disconnected from reality. Truth is merely a reflection of reality, so when one fails to acknowledge truth, they fail to acknowledge reality.

If they affirm that there is such a thing as objective morality but they fail to acknowledge the existence of God, it is proof that they don’t really understand the concept of objectivity concerning morals. Personal taste and societal preference are not what constitute “objectivity” when it comes to morality.

You may hear arguments such as:
“What about rape and incest? Should a little girl who had no choice in the matter be forced to carry a child?”
Take the same question to the questioner:
“Should a little girl (or boy) who had no choice in the matter be forced to die?”
You see, abortion supporters love to invoke “choice” but that is never afforded to the baby. These innocent victims have no choice. Their argument basically says that innocent people should be slaughtered so as not to inconvenience us and to spare others from the trauma of horrible event. They also say that the victim itself should be “spared” from a life that will be filled with pain and suffering, especially if the family is poor, etc.
Let’s examine this a bit further.

We can apply this line of thinking to the young girl who is a rape victim as well. This is the utter insanity of the abortion supporter. According to their logic, the young rape victim should be subjected to the death penalty because she is innocent and will have a life of pain and trauma as a result. She will also be an “inconvenience” on the rest of society because she will suffer psychological trauma. Using the same arguments in favor of killing babies inside the womb, the abortion supporter unwittingly advocates for the death of child rape victims.

Not surprisingly this is a very Muslim line of thinking as many victims of rape are stoned to death in Muslim countries. The insanity of the abortion supporter is the same insanity of Islam which murders victims of crimes on a consistent basis. The leftist degenerates who support abortion almost always champion Islam while reveling in their profound ignorance of all things Koranic.
Islam is making inroads into U.S. politics via leftist politicians as both intersect at the crossroad of Insanity St. and Unfathomable Ave.

 

 

A brief note on Islam:
Those who speak about “radical Muslims” prove the effectiveness of propaganda to the exclusion of critical thinking. Here is the definition of “RADICAL”: (especially of change or action) relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something. Those Muslims who do the atrocious things often attributed to the “radicals” are simply following the dictates of their Koran. There is nothing “radical” about simple obedience to unambiguous precepts. This simply makes them true Muslims. Ironically it is the so-called “peaceful Muslims” who are radical as they must deliberately ignore what the Koran plainly states in order to be peaceful and so “[affect] the fundamental nature” of Islam, making them fake Muslims.
The same is true of the Catholic church as it pertains to Christianity. When the expression of a belief is fundamentally different than the claimed source of that belief e.g. (The Bible or the Koran), the expression is false.

 

Final Thought

The abortion debate is incoherent without establishing the basis for moral argumentation to begin with. Examining whether or not the opponent has any rational foundation for their moral beliefs is crucial to setting the parameters of rational discussion and undermining the argument from the onset. If they fail to find the objective nail on which to hang the landscape of their morality, the wall will remain blank. Before arguing the timing of the first heartbeat, check to see if there is the pulse of reason in your opponents argument. If not (and there never is), you will be dealing with an ironically lifeless argument from the one who seeks to destroy life.

The bottom line here is that god-haters have no rational foundation for the “morals” they appeal to, nor can they. Yet, ironically, they have a “moral” that is strikingly in accord with the dictates of the false “god” of the Koran. I bid you find the right God to establish your morals upon.

No other God lived as a Man, died, and was raised to life again. No other God after His death was seen as alive by literally hundreds of people. No other God after He died and rose from the dead suddenly had a group of formerly shaken followers instilled with boldness to the extent that they were willing to die the death of martyrs on the basis of being eyewitnesses to these happenings. The historically falsifiable and yet provable Jesus of Nazareth who died and was raised from the dead (according to the Bible) is the only representative of God we can and should hang our collective hats upon. He alone gives life, as the very Author of it. And since it was His to give, it is not ours to take.