Abortion is a force for moral good.

The issue of abortion cannot be addressed without also addressing the worldviews at play here. My opponent's argument, like all arguments, relies on his presuppositions about reality. If our worldviews are not addressed, then bias (either way) is taken for granted or overlooked. While every personal worldview differs, for the sake of this debate, I will compare formal worldviews: the naturalist worldview and the biblical worldview. I will define these worldviews and perhaps my opponent will shed more light on how his personal worldview differs from the naturalist worldview, to which I have assigned him. Naturalist Worldview: Truth and reality are derived from nature and natural causes. Rejects all spiritual and supernatural explanations of the world and holds that science is the primary basis of what can be known. Biblical Worldview: Truth and reality are derived from God's revelation in the Holy Bible. Accepts spiritual and supernatural explanations of the world and holds that science is useful for knowing physical reality but that metaphysical reality can also be known. My argument can be summarized as follows: 1. There is no warrant for calling anything "good" in a naturalist worldview. 2. My opponent contradicts his worldview by virtue of applying moral value to abortion, making the biblical worldview superior. 3. In the biblical worldview, abortion is prohibited by God. 4. Disobeying God is evil, ergo; abortion is a force for evil. ---------- 1. There is no warrant for calling anything "good" in a naturalist worldview. In the naturalist worldview, morality is nothing more than convention and consensus. While the term "good" or "bad" is employed, it really is nothing more than "popular" or "unpopular." There are no scientific criteria of rightness, nor can one be derived. There is only law created and enforced by those in power. To say that abortion is a force for good is no different than saying abortion is a force for evolution, or a force for majority thinking, or a force for environmentalism. My opponent may very place value on evolution and environmentalism, but they remain his values. To use the term "good" implies that others ought to comply, but in a worldview composed entirely of moral opinion, his resolution is nothing more than advice. 2. My opponent contradicts his worldview by virtue of applying moral value to abortion, making the biblical worldview superior. So long as my opponent insists that others should accept, condone, or support abortion, he is taking an absolute moral position within a worldview that cannot warrant such absolutes. Any worldview that must deny its own premises in order to rationalize its position is irrational and inferior to any worldview that can remain internally consistent. The biblical worldview does not contradict its premises, since it presupposes absolute moral values. The biblical worldview can indeed call anything irrevocably right or wrong given its acceptance of absolute abstract entities, such as objective moral laws. Therefore, the biblical worldview is the proper worldview in which to assess the issue of abortion. 3. In the biblical worldview, abortion is prohibited by God. The bible doesn't deal with intentional abortion directly, but its evil can easily be inferred. Exodus 21:22-25 reads, "And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges demand of him. But if there is any injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." This is the longest use of the lex talionis, the law of retribution. The value of the unborn baby was so great that any injury to it or its mother were punishable by equal retribution. If the baby is born damaged, the perpetrator was similarly damaged. So the result of accidentally killing a woman's unborn baby (while in a fist fight I might add) was the perpetrator's death. This alone makes clear God's reverence for the developing child. Furthermore, in the biblical worldview, life is the highest good (Deuteronomy 30:19), shedding innocent blood is especially evil (Genesis 9:6, Exodus 23:7), and the unborn child is a person (Jeremiah 1:5). Abortion is a moral offense to God and therefore strictly prohibited. 4. Disobeying God is evil, ergo; abortion is a force for evil. In the biblical worldview, evil is defined not by consensus but by anything that is against the nature or commands of God. Abortion meets the criteria and is therefore not a force for good, but a force for evil. ---------- The abortion debate is, at its core, a debate about God. Without God, there is no case against it. With God, there is no case for it. Thus, bringing God into the debate is of absolute necessity. If I have incorrectly assessed my opponent's worldview, I ask him to clarify his view on epistemology and ethics. But until he can offer a system of ethics internally consistent within his worldview, then by merit of even engaging in this debate he has lost. Of course, by merit of me being his opponent, he will likely get 100+ votes within the first 24 hours :) Until then, I have shown though impossibility of the contrary that the biblical worldview is the appropriate framework in which to place moral value on abortion. Given that framework, abortion is a force for evil.