Debate. Is it even worth it? There are many debates where one side had the facts, the other side went with their feelings, and it was still a round of “he-said-she-said-you’re-wrong-because-I’m-right.” The fundamental problem with any debate is the failure to define terms and to first agree upon what is and isn’t truth. Unless you set up ground rules, there can be no argument.
Here’s an example – If I were to enter a calculus competition I would first inquire what the judges stood by in terms of controversial math principles. However, if I failed to hear the terms, pandemonium would ensue. Imagine, my opponent believes the square root of 9 to be 3, but I believe it is 6. The judges would inform me very soon that my fundamental math principles are faulty, and there would be no competition.
Alright – but, suppose the competition had no judge. Suppose it was up to my opponent and I to convince the audience of our views. Neither of our math problems would come out the same, yet we would insist the other is wrong. The contest would consist of useless bantering, only serving to confuse both parties. How could they be so wrong?
As you can see, a contest without rules is no contest at all. And a debate without established premises will surely chase its own tail. Is it worth it?
People who are pro-choice generally believe a few principles that bring about their impassioned feelings. Here are a few I’ve heard: The government shouldn’t control someones body. Woman should be able to choose. We need abortion to save woman’s lives. You shouldn’t be allowed to impose your views about when life begins on another person.
Too be informed about any issue, you must retract yourself from it, and see things for what they are. What’s most important here? What is logical? Why do I believe what I believe? Am I being fair? Am I truly informed on this issue, or am I arguing emotionally?
Well, my business is the life of babies. I want to encourage people who value the unborn to keep loving mothers, and to be bold about making their voice heard, but to do that in a loving way. I don’t think arguing with pro-choicer’s is a particularly productive thing, for the reasons mentioned – our premises on truth are different. That being said, if I found myself (or you find yourself) in a situation where argument was necessary, then there are a view things to remember to help your opponent see the facts in an objective way:
You must establish accepted premises. Good argument is based on universal truth. i.e [We agree that] murdering human beings is wrong, President Lincoln is a human being, therefore murdering President Lincoln is wrong.
1) Establish that LIFE is the most valuable thing in the world: People value life. End of story. This doesn’t take much explaining. Human life truly is, universally, the most valuable thing in existence.
2) Establish that logical moral people don’t take risks with human life: Many, many, many laws are in place to protect human life. In fact, probably more laws about protecting human life than any other thing. Also, I gave an analogy in my previous post about a general bombing a city: No general is his right mind would order the destruction of a city with only 50% surety that all civilians had been evacuated – there is just too must risk of losing innocent life.
3) Establish that abortion is a risk because people don’t agree on it’s morality: Basically, it’s a divided issue. According to polling, approximately one half the USA say the unborn’s body is a human being, the other half say the unborn body is not a human being. Consider this sequence:
A body, as it would appear, is laying in a lawn. There is a judge. And two groups of people (we will name them groups 1 and 2). Group 1 is arguing that the body laying in the lawn is a human being, and they should be allowed to run into the lawn and save it. Group 2 believes the body is, in fact, not a human being – that it’s a diseased elk needing extermination. There is equal evidence on both sides. So, should the judge allow group 2 to shoot the body, or should the judge allow group 1 the opportunity to save it? All to say, the judge allowing group 2 to have their way is unarguably a risky decision.
With these three excepted truths, you can form a logical argument: It’s wrong to risk killing human life, abortion risks killing human life, therefore abortion is wrong.
(This is just one argument I have devised. Think about the issue rationally and create more arguments that follow logical order)
Disclaimer: [Abortion risks killing human life] – That is a statement made to create an agreed premise. Technically abortion risks human life, seeing that some people disagree. However, scientifically speaking, and by every objective definition of the idea, the unborn body is human life. Look for another article on that in the near future.
I hope you have found this informative. I’d love to hear your questions, comments, and concerns. Please remember – love those who oppose your views, as they are human beings too.