Abortion is a force for moral good.

My opponent does not understand what a worldview is, so let me define it for both his benefit and that of the readers: Worldview: a set of assumptions, held consciously or unconsciously, about the nature of reality. This includes a theory of epistemology amongst other things. The key word is assumptions. An assumption is an unproven truth claim. Everyone has a worldview. Everyone makes assumptions about what can or cannot be known and what can or cannot exist. For example, an axiom stating that only science can bring knowledge is a non-provable assumption as the assertion cannot be proven by scientific means. So, anyone adhering to this worldview will discount all evidence for the existence of God since science is incapable of proven the existence of metaphysical entities. My opponent has assumptions about reality though he may not wish to acknowledge them. So do I. And it's these axioms that I am challenging. My opponent mistakenly thinks I am appealing entirely to scripture, which is a half-truth. I appeal to scripture after showing how his presuppositions about reality cannot account for his moral stance on the issue. I attack his worldview, THEN I appeal to scripture, since the only worldview left standing in this debate is the biblical one. ---- 1. To defend his warrant for taking a moral position in the subject, my opponent appeals to utilitarian ethics, that a society with more happy people is better than a society with less happy people. To begin with, it is a poor convention for ethics, as it is only useful in assessing the rightness or wrongness of a past action. It is a poor model for prediction what is right or wrong for it cannot determine which action leads to the greater happiness. Second, it is a convention, and as such is subject to change. To take a hard position on an issue, such as abortion, using a convention that is not universally binding is irrational. My opponent still faces the philosophical dilemma that his worldview cannot account for his absolute position. My opponent challenges me to consider that the judgment used to discern that heaven is better than hell is the same judgment we use to discern a better society from a worse one. I can agree that the goal is to achieve--as much as is possible--heaven on earth. But in the biblical worldview, heaven is better than hell because God is in heaven. Therefore, we still have a dilemma as to what constitutes a better society. My opponent suggests maximized happiness and pleasure make for a better society wheres I suggest that God's presence makes society better. Since "better society" is subjective, it cannot alone be used to justify my opponent's absolute moral position on this matter. My contention, therefore, stands. My opponent has no rational warrant to call abortion a force for either good or evil. 2. My opponent clearly doesn't understand my contention, so I'll reiterate it. In my first contention, I show how taking an absolute moral stance on abortion contradicts the worldview. So, my second contention is that the biblical worldview is superior given that it suffers from no such internal contradiction. The rationally consistent worldview trumps the internally contradictory one, and thereby becomes--by process of elimination--the true worldview. Until my opponent is able to show how a naturalist worldview accounts for absolute ethics, the biblical worldview is the true worldview with which to debate the issue. Since the biblical worldview wins, its presuppositions--including its reliance on scripture--become a valid authority on the matter. 3. This is perhaps the only direct rebuttal to my arguments, and I'm glad to defend them. Regarding his Exodus 21 explanation, all he does is explain the letter of the law. Indeed, if there is no injury, then monetary restitution is paid. If there is an injury, then criminal punishment applies. This is exactly how I read the scripture, except, I also use this passage to understand the value God places on the unborn child. Accidentally killing a grown man, for example, does not automatically carry the death penalty. In fact, exile to a city of refuge was permitted (Numbers 35). Accidentally killing the unborn child however, carries immediate death penalty without alternative, so we can deduce that God places human worth (if not extra-human worth) to the unborn child. I then further supported this interpretation within the context of the other scripture. I showed that the Bible values life over death, condemns shedding of innocent blood, and that the unborn child is a person. When taking the whole Bible into consideration, it is difficult to make a case in favor of abortion. Regarding Leviticus 27, my opponent interprets out of context. The value applied to infants had to do with redeeming a consecrated person, not with human rights. History lesson: a Hebrew could devote himself or his children to God's service, at which point they went into the lifelong service of the sanctuary. If, however, someone chose to redeem a relative from that service, they paid the appropriate redemption value. Infants cost less to redeem because they represent less economic value when compared to a grown male. The proper social context is that everything centered on working and earning. A person that could earn more was worth more, just as a hired worker that is more efficient and productive today is worth higher wages. Using this passage to justify inequality amongst persons is poor scholarship. 4. My fourth contention is really the conclusion of premises 1, 2, and 3. So, if my premises hold, then abortion is evil. Since my opponent has not directly refuted my attacks on his worldview dilemma, I contend that my premises do hold and that the conclusion derived thereof stands. ---- If my opponent wishes to prove that abortion is objectively a force for good on the basis that society improves, he must objectively define what a better society is. I could just as easily say that a better society is one that obeys God, in which case, abortion is a force for evil. My opponent mentions a "better society" (though not always those exact words) roughly nine times in his round, and he hopes the reader will mindlessly agree with his assumption as to what a better society is. I challenge my opponent to define this better society in a way that is universally acknowledged. If he cannot, then his position on abortion is the same as his definition of a better society: arbitrary. NEGATED.