Philosophical Argument against (most) Human Abortion

Introducing the Argument:

Below is a philosophical, deductive argument I have authored against most forms of human abortion.  Many strict abolitionists may be disappointed to find that this argument does not fully condemn human abortion in every possible instance, but I find that what I have presented is the most coherent, loving solution to all parties.  Regardless where you're coming from, I hope that you will find my conclusions presented in this argument well thought and convincing.

The Argument:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. All qualifiers for determining human personhood other than genetics are exclusive or subjective.

2. Any living organism that is genetically human must be considered ontologically human (i.e. a human being) and be recognized as having inherent, inalienable human rights.

3. A zygote and all subsequent stages of its development are living organisms that are genetically human and genetically independent from their mother.

4. Therefore, a zygote and all subsequent stages of its development are to be considered human beings with inherent, inalienable human rights.

5. The killing of a human being may only be objectively justified in the following instances:

5a. Self-defense or defending the life of another human being from acts of aggression.
5b. Acts of war for national defense.
5c. Mercy killing in which the sufferer, next of kin, or bystander (in that order) consents when all circumstantially feasible options to save the sufferer's life have failed.
5d. Moral dilemmas in which a choice must be made between saving one life by the death of another.

6. Unjustified killing is a violation of inherent, inalienable human rights.

7. Abortion is the killing of an unborn human being.

8. This follows from 3 and 4.

9. Therefore, with the exception of mercy killing and moral dilemmas, abortion is unjustified killing.

10. This follows from 5 and 7.

11. Therefore, with the exception of mercy killing and moral dilemmas, abortion is in blatant opposition of inherent, inalienable human rights.

12. This follows from 6 and 9.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the uninitiated, it should be noted that the way deductive arguments work is that if each premise (numbered statement) is found to be more true than false, then one must follow the argument to its natural conclusion and accept its truth claims (in this case, the claims of premises 4, 9, and 11).

So if there is a premise you find you take objection to, please note that in order for your objection to be coherent, you must provide a reason for denying that premise.  Wishful thinking or any kind of "nuh uh!" statement simply will not do.

If you find that you agree with the conclusions of this argument... welcome to the Pro-Life camp! : )

Common Objections: 

"Premise #1... other qualifiers than genetics are exclusive to what?  Who would we be excluding?"

Any other qualifiers (such as race, physical ability, viability, etc) all exclude living people groups.  But the main purpose of Premise #1 is to rule out "being born" as a qualifier to being human.  I believe that birth is a sociological device (subjective to perception) and speaks nothing of objective truth (the way things really are potentially).  The common phrase we use these days is "social construct".  Allow me to explain:

Our views on abortion are largely shaped by our cultural perceptions of the sacred and the profane.  By sacred I mean something that is set apart for you, that exists within your realm of ontological space (the clothes in your closet), and by profane I mean things that belong to no one or everyone and exist outside of your ontological space (clothing found on the street or in a store).

Something that is profane must go through a ritual "crossing of lines" before it is considered sacred.  When you see clothing in the store that you like, you must go through the ritual of monetary exchange, officiated by the sales representative, in order for that clothing to cross the line of "not yours" into "yours", from profane space into sacred space.  To solidify this abstract concept, think of how you would feel if someone accidentally dumped a drink on the same clothing in either state: on the clothing rack, you probably wouldn't care much; but after you purchased it, you'd most likely be upset.

All that to say, when a person is unborn, they are typically considered profane, outside of the realm of the "living" and in the realm of the "unborn".  They are outside of your ontological space.  To be considered sacred, the unborn child must cross the figurative line from the "unborn" to the "living" via the ritual of birth, thus entering your ontological space shared by other "living" humans.

Such line drawing is sociologically inevitable, but claiming that being "unborn" is a qualifier for denying personhood is clearly subjective.  Genetics however, are scientifically concrete and are the one thing that all "living" share in common.  Upon further examination, we find that it is also shared in common by the "unborn".

Thus, if we reduce our qualifiers to a minimum, the bare minimum necessary to exclude the least amount of "people", we find that the qualifier of genetics shatters the sociologically constructed lines of "unborn" and "living".

"Premise #2 is rather dubious.  Why should we consider something human simply because it is genetically so?"

As stated in my response to Premise #1's objection, I find there is no other alternative.  To claim as such is to be exclusive simply upon socially subjective merit.  We are dealing with absolutes here: objective realities and truths.  If you want to draw lines between the "unborn" and the "living" simply because you choose to, then dare I say I must deem you an classist, exclusivist bigot.

 

A Layman's Guide to Christian Apologetics

With the rise of militant skepticism and anti-theism, apologetics have never been needed more than they are now.  Unfortunately, from my observation, the idea of apologetics has been relatively criticized by the Evangelical community.  But in recent times with popular writers like Lee Strobel and films such as God is Not Dead, the realization for the importance of apologetics has really come to surface.

... So, you want to learn more about Christian apologetics?  Great!

I've been doing this whole apologetics thing now for a good six or seven years, and I must tell you up front that it is a lifestyle and a journey that never ends, much like our faith at large.  I will also tell you that if you think you are not smart enough for apologetics, you could not be more wrong.

Intelligence, articulation, and expertise are all skills that can be honed and refined like any other.  Some may have a genetic advantage over others, but it is something that anyone can build up and accomplish.

What is a required prerequisite however, is discipline.  It is hard work, it is not always fun, and it doesn't help if you hate reading (like I used to).  Perhaps even discipline is something you'll have to develop as you go, but I promise it get's easier the more you settle into the lifestyle of an apologist.

... So, you still want to be an apologist?  Then let's get started!

Below I am going to present a rather condensed guide of how you can effectively facilitate the start of your apologetics journey.  I'm going to start with some epistemic issues, talk a little bit about how to approach study, and the like.  Afterwards, I'll be presenting a list of materials to get you started.

Ready?

I. The Foundations of Thinking

A truth claim is a claim that something is objectively true.  Every opinion or statement is, at its core, a truth claim.  The primary truth claim of Christianity is that Jesus was crucified and resurrected bodily from the dead (and all that it entails: e.g. virgin birth, trinitarianism, etc).

Truth claims are analyzed in a variety of ways, all of which depend upon the laws of modal logic.  Modal logic encompasses the set of rules that determine what is coherent thought and what is fallacious, or incoherent.  In order to become an effective apologist (for anything), one must gain a mastery of modal logic.

A fallacy, as previously mentioned, is a flaw in the process of thinking.  To master modal logic, it is imperative that one be well acquainted with common logical fallacies to not only identify them in critical statements, but perhaps more importantly to ensure that one does not commit them personally.

Here is a list of common fallacies to help you take your first step in becoming an apologist.  Learn them well!

II. The Epistemology of Evidence and Opinions

Believers and skeptics must understand this principle when addressing truth claims: Nothing is 100% provable.

Well, not entirely.  There are only two things I know of that are 100% true:

1.  I am something that thinks ("cogito ergo sum").  I don't know if the physical world really exists or of other minds exist than my own, but I know that I am something that is capable of thought.

2.  Objective truth exists.  Take the statement, "Truth does not exist."  If it is true, then truth exists.  If it is false, truth exists.  Therefore, objective truth exists.

I call those two facts "absolute certainties".  Everything else (and I mean everything) is what I would call a "near certainty", and is something that must involve a presupposition of some kind in order to be believed.  For instance, we must presuppose that the physical world exists in order to study it.

Furthermore I'd like to discuss the idea of open-mindedness.  By open-mindedness I mean the principle of changing one's opinion if the evidence falls in favor of the contrasting opinion.  If you and your opponent are not willing to listen to each other with the possibility of changing your mind, the discussion is vain.  Good can still come from it (such as bystanders listening and deciding for themselves), but as far as winning over your opponent... you can forget it.  It is also very respectable to skeptics if you hold yourself to this standard.

In summation, when we are either making, criticizing, or defending truth claims, know that you will never prove or disprove something with "absolute certainty", and in order to prove anything your listener(s) must be open to the idea of changing their minds.  As an apologist, it is important to reiterate this to your opponents (honest or malicious) before entering discussions about evidence.

III. Expanding Your Vocabulary

Any specialized field of research has its own set of high-context words that must be understood in order to communicate properly.  If you see a word that you don't know, write it down and look up its definition later.  This will help you learn quickly.

It is also important in conversation to define your terms.  By this I mean, let people know what you mean by a certain word, and ask others what they mean by a certain word, even if it's one that you assume is commonly understood to mean one thing.  Often times people apply subjective definitions to words, and it's important to break down those linguistic walls in order to communicate properly.  Not doing so risks committing the fallacies of equivocation (taking a word or phrase to mean something else, e.g. "John saw a house fly") or a straw man (attacking a misrepresentation of someone's argument).

IV. Understand the Opposition

Understanding opposing positions is key to becoming an affective apologist.  Learn their common objections, learn the criticisms of those objections, and learn the objections to the criticisms of those objections.  The better prepared you are in all subjects, the more effective you will be.  Which brings me to our next point:

V. Building a General Foundation

Every Christian apologist should build a generalized foundation in at least the following subjects:

1. Modal Logic
2. Reliability of the New Testament
3. The Resurrection of Jesus
4. Christian Doctrine
5. Ancient Near-Eastern Sociology
6. Philosophy
7. Historiography
8. Other Religions
9. Social Issues

This is no doubt an intimidating list to the uninitiated, and in a sense, rightly so.  It is a lot of hard work.  But when you know the right authors to read and have apologists around you to help you, this process becomes quite enjoyable and enlightening.  Later I will provide a list of resources for these topics.

VI. Specialize in a Field

Once you've been working on building your general foundation, you will probably realize that there is at least one subject that you resonate with more than others.  It can be a general subject or a very specific one.  Myself for instance, I resonate greatly with ANE Sociology, Philosophy (namely moral and human-rights philosophy), and Social Issues (namely abortion and homosexual practice).  Thus, I have devoted the majority of my study to these fields now that my general foundation is stable.  This way I can help other apologists where I am stronger, and be helped by them where I am weaker.

You may already have a subject in mind.  That's good!  If not, don't worry.  I didn't have mine when I first started either.  But it will reveal itself through time and study.

VII. Know Who to Read

It's time to put down your Max Lucado and dig into some real scholarship! 

By scholarship I mean those who have dedicated their lives to specific fields, much like I mentioned above.  Scholars have expert, specialized knowledge in their relevant fields that most pastors, laity, and devotional authors simply do not have.

One thing that I admire about Lee Strobel is while he himself is not a scholar, he cites the work of scholars.  Citing a popular Christian speaker such as Billy Graham might glean some nugget of wisdom, but academically speaking would not be an expert source.  I hope I'm making that distinction clearly.

"So who do I read from then?"  I'm glad you asked!

Below I will provide a list of authors and some of their introductory and advanced works.  Follow this list and you'll be off to a great start.

Apologetics: Beginner Resources