Abortion is a force for moral good.

Your task is to vote on the resolution, not an unsubstantiated interpretation of scripture based on poor scholarship. Though I would like to, I cannot use my limited space refuting his rhetoric other than to identify it as a straw man. --- My opponent views my argument as a gutsy attempt at winning by obfuscation when in fact the opposite is true. What my opponent fails to acknowledge is that this debate is a battle of worldviews. There is no neutral ground on the matter. In a naturalist worldview, my opponent is correct. Given the presuppositions that render God and spirit impossible, there is no case against abortion. It is the height of foolishness to argue against my opponent from within his axioms of truth. I do not obfuscate; I get to the core of the issue. Our conflicting worldviews must be resolved in order to make a final decision on the resolution. If naturalism is correct, then abortion is a force for good. If the biblical worldview is correct, then abortion is a force for evil. Worldview conflicts can only be resolved through transcendental argumentation, that is, by determining which worldview provides the necessary preconditions for logic, morality, and knowledge. This has been the focus of my debate, to show that given these two worldviews, the biblical worldview is superior in providing such preconditions. Specifically, I focused on naturalism's insufficient warrant for calling anything a force for good. My opponent himself engages in obfuscation when saying, "My contention isn't that abortion is a moral good, rather that abortion is a force for moral good. " Isn't a force for moral good, if it indeed results in moral good, ultimately a moral good? If so, then my opponent is speaking a tautology. If not, then my opponent believes that the end justifies the means. This is a poor platform to stand upon in such an important issue, and indicative of the moral inconsistencies inherit in his worldview. Let me again summarize my argument. Abortion is either right or wrong. Both worldviews can make this moral assessment, though they will ultimately come to different conclusions. However, moral obligation (expecting others to comply with a moral position) is irrational in a naturalist worldview in which morality is a convention. Even if my opponent only cares about the ends, e. g. a better society (whatever that is), his worldview should warrant why people should be obligation to want that society. He has not and cannot do this because it would require objective morality to do so. At best, he mentions Kantian ethics as a possibility, which is interesting given his Utilitarian approach in the previous round. I can hardly keep up with the goal posts. In this worldview battle, the biblical worldview better provides the necessary preconditions for moral obligation. There are many other worldviews, perhaps even one that might be argued to be better than the biblical worldview, but refuting all worldviews is not necessary in this debate. If I have shown that the biblical worldview is philosophically more defensible, then abortion is wrong. If I failed, then you must vote pro. Please refer to my previous arguments as to why the biblical worldview is superior. --- Let me defend my opponent's accusation that I malign empiricism as worthless. Empirical knowledge is not at all worthless. The problem I cited was that it cannot be considered the only avenue to knowledge. Philosophy for example is another means, one that my opponent thinks does not apply in this debate. He says I am using philosophy to cloud the issue. Consider the following axiom: >> Only empiricism brings knowledge. << This is a philosophical--not empirical--assertion. It is self refuting, because if it is true then it must be false. Ergo, it is false. This is the presupposition driving my opponent's acceptance of truth and knowledge, and he gets rather vehement when alternative methods are used. He has not tackled the philosophical integrity of my arguments save for one analogy, the Grimbolb analogy, which I will now refute. First, it's not an accurate representation of my argument. I am not making a because-I-say-so argument. I'm attacking the veracity of my opponent's presuppositions. Second, the Grimbolb worldview, if it can be called that, is arbitrary. Its theory of epistemology is that only what Grimbolb states can be known. Neither worldview in this debate has such an axiom. The biblical worldview axiom is that knowledge can come from empiricism, philosophy, and supernatural revelation. It also allows for the possibility of a supernatural reality to be known, which means that given sufficient evidence, resurrection, supernatural healing, and God can exist. Through means of empiricism, philosophy, anthropology, etc. , it is rational to accept its truth claims within this worldview. Its truth claims include an absolute moral code, by which we can determine the rightness or wrongness of actions such as abortion. In naturalism, supernatural reality is presuppositionally rejected. Under such assumptions, God and spirit can NEVER be proven. Even if a naturalist were to witness a supernatural event, it would be dismissed as empirically unexplainable now, but explainable in the future. That is to say, the naturalist has FAITH that everything has a natural explanation. This is how deep the worldview battle runs. --- As for my opponent's take on scripture, there is nothing more to say. All he has done is reiterate without substantiation his interpretation of scripture. He did nothing to refute the historical context and supporting scripture I cited. If I have convinced the reader to consider this matter according to scripture, then you may vote confidently against the resolution. --- In closing, I want to reiterate that my opponent has not offered an objective definition of a better society. He wants you take his vision for granted, just as he wants me to take it for granted. I refuse to accept his vision for society simply on good faith. He has cited increased happiness and security, and this seems convincingly sufficient. But what does a happier society look like? Certainly the citizens of The World State in Aldous Huxley's novel Brave New World were happy and secure. Does happiness need to include freedom? My opponent hopes his vague notion of "better society" will win this debate. As I stated before, without a solid definition, his argument falls to pieces since a premise based on opinion cannot lead to an objectively true conclusion. I am well aware of how unpopular it is to make this a philosophical debate, but I urge the readers to consider the philosophical veracity of my arguments. I have attacked his worldview and he has not offered refutation of my attacks. At best, he has simply discarded my entire argument as the ranting of a biblical believer. Perhaps, I could have responded in kind, discarding my opponent as a ranting atheist and let this debate be an opinion poll. I hope you see past his accusations and ad hominem attacks and judge my arguments on their philosophical merits. To once again summarize, the natural worldview is philosophically inferior to the biblical worldview, making it insufficient to argue the resolution. The bible condemns abortion as evil. Therefore, abortion is a force for evil. NEGATED. I thank my opponent for this rigorous debate. Though he thinks little of my arguments, I respect his debating skills and the challenge those skills imposed.