Tag Archives: Argument

Free debating tips for pro-legalized abortionists

I probably shouldn’t help pro-legalized abortion advocates with their arguments, but our reasoning is so strong that I’m willing to aid them.  Plus, it will save us time in not having to refute so many bad arguments.

Here are some free tips.  Before you type another pro-legalized abortion argument:

  1. Ask yourself what the science textbooks affirm.  Science can be wrong, but it is so unanimous in this case that you should have strong scientific and logical arguments of your own if you are taking the opposite view — especially when the scientific argument is the opposite of the politically correct argument (I emphasized that in anticipation of the  “but you don’t believe in Darwinian evolution” claim).  If you don’t believe the fact of science that the unborn are distinct human beings then I’m not sure why you’d believe anything in science.  And it isn’t like these scientists are biased against abortion.  They probably favor it, but they have the intellectual integrity to state the obvious: A new human being is created at conception.  Therefore, skip any arguments insisting that the unborn aren’t human, are just a bunch of cells that become human later, etc.
  2. Ask yourself whether your argument would also justify killing unwanted humans outside the womb.  If so, you might want to try another angle.  This will eliminate the appeals to viability, dependency, awareness, etc. because infants and others wouldn’t meet some or all of those.  This is the “trot out the toddler” argument.
  3. Ask yourself if the argument addresses the same thing for the rights of human beings in the womb.  If not, you have assumed what you should be proving.  This will eliminate most of your arguments, such as delivering the baby could impact the mother’s economic status / education / career / romantic life / etc. Those reasons may add psychological / emotional complexity to the situation, but they don’t justify killing human beings outside the womb.  Therefore, they don’t justify killing human beings inside the womb.
  4. Remember that your “unborn humans are parasites!” argument makes you look foolish to the middle ground, it fails factually and logically on several levels and it puts you in the position of supporting the killing of fully delivered babies that are still connected to the mother via the umbilical cord (you might be in favor of that, but it isn’t the kind of thing that scores you points in front of undecided people).
  5. Don’t ever play the “most pregnancies end in miscarriage” card, because it fails mightily and contradicts your premise.  First, know that most people understand the difference between someone outside the womb being murdered versus dying of natural causes, and they also understand the difference between deliberate destruction inside the womb and a miscarriage.  Second, using your logic women should never have abortions because miscarriages would be so likely.  Why spend all that money on a risky medical procedure if it will likely happen anyway for free?
  6. Determine whether professional pro-abortionists have already conceded the points you are trying to make.  If so, you probably shouldn’t use those arguments. Here’s an example from one of the most radically pro-abortion people in the country (he even supports infanticide):

Peter Singer, contemporary philosopher and public abortion advocate, joins the chorus in his book, Practical Ethics. He writes: It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.

I hope this helps make your debates more productive!

A slippery slope or a cliff?

Stan’s piece on slippery slopes reminded me of the distinction between a slippery slope and a cliff.

When debating the oxymoronic “same sex marriage” (SSM) topic one of the typical secular arguments I use is that the same arguments could be used to justify polygamy, incestuous relationships, bestiality, etc.  The reason is that the pro-SSM arguments are typically that the parties are loving and committed and that the government should therefore recognize and affirm these relationships – even though by nature and design they don’t produce the next generation and they can never provide a mother and father to a child.

The other side often responds that these are “slippery slope” arguments, defined as:

A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken, without showing a causal connection between the advocated policy and the consequent policies. A popular example of the slippery slope fallacy is, “If we legalize marijuana, the next thing you know we’ll legalize heroin, LSD, and crack cocaine.” This slippery slope is a form of non sequitur, because no reason has been provided for why legalization of one thing leads to legalization of another. Tobacco and alcohol are currently legal, and yet other drugs have somehow remained illegal.

However, as the link notes, the slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy.  In the case of SSM, it is clear from the reasoning that it would apply to these other cases.  That is why I consider it a cliff instead of a slope.  Once SSM is legislated the same reasoning is immediately available to other groups.

The same thing occurs with the inevitability of SSM impacting religious freedoms and the child abuse of teaching 5 yr. olds how “natural” LGBTQX behavior is.

What is ironic is that the SSM proponents claim (or is it feign?) revulsion at polygamy, incestuous marriages, bestiality, and necrophilia.  Yet who are they to pull up the moral drawbridge?  Until recently almost all of society viewed GLBT behavior as immoral, and many still do.  Why is the pro-SSM crowd so judgmental of other preferences and “orientations?”  I would think that polygamists would have a much stronger case for governmental recognition and affirmation than gays, because at least they can provide a mother and a father to a child.

Here’s an overview of same-sex unions.