Dan is trying to argue against abortion by saying that it is murdering an unborn child.

     I do not think this is a good strategy.  Allow me to clarify.  I agree that abortion (except in certain rare circumstances) is murder.  But that is exactly what those opposed to abortion are trying to convince people of.  It does no good to start with that as a premise.  Those who are pro-abortion will simply say it’s not murder — just like those who are pro-“capital punishment” say it’s not murder.  It is better to start with things that are not in dispute.  It cannot be reasonably disputed that abortion involves killing.  Those who are pro-abortion will have their beliefs that it is somehow justified.  But only those who wish to silence the discussion in a dishonest manner will attempt to claim that there is no life to kill.  After all, we can admit that we kill roaches.  If someone has to pretend that abortion is not killing, he is as dishonest as any fundamentalist christian.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Dan is trying to argue against abortion by saying that it is murdering an unborn child.

  1. >>Dan is trying to argue against abortion by saying that it is murdering an unborn child.

    That is a false statement, but I guess you have to lie. Right?

    >>It is better to start with things that are not in dispute.

    Why? You sound like the used care salesman that wishes to point out how great the paint looks, even though the motor is blown and trans is shot. BTW, I start with how the motor runs on that model. Thanks for revealing your immoral “salesmanship”

    I clearly changed it, and labelled it, to [murder] in the syllogism from Francis J. Beckwith because that IS what it is.

    Murder is defined as “Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.”

    That perfectly describes what an abortion is. Go and look up “kill” and tell us what fits best.

    You might want to sugar coat that “medicine” but I don’t recommend that. Yes, truth is confrontational. The truth sometimes moves people to want to throw us off cliffs, but if we withhold the truth due to the reaction we might receive, then we are not teaching like our Lord.

    Do I say “you might go to a possibly unpleasant location” without Christ? Or use the term “Hell”? You might like me more if I sugar coated it but I don’t need, or care to have, you liking me to speak the truth to you.

    Popularity contests are for the wicked. I am sure you tried to impress the “popular kids” in school too, but is that really the better way to go? :7)

    Why are you trying to tell us it is better to be deceptive, then boldly proclaiming the truth? Never mind, you have to lie. We get it.

    BTW, thanks for murdering the point of my post. What? Too harsh? *pshaw

  2. I am sure it does not need to be pointed out that it is *used car salesman but I would hate for you to be confused as to what I say. Clarity, it’s a goal.

  3.      “That is a false statement, but I guess you have to lie. Right?”
         Readers may check out debunkingatheists.blogspot.com and decide for themselves whether my statement is true or false. He is quite specific about using the word “murder.”
         Dan asks why it is better to start with things that are not in dispute. I admit my audience for that statement does not include Dan as I was speaking to those who wish to convince others who do not already agree on their desired point that their point is correct. If you are trying to get someone from his current position to agreement with your belief, you have to start with facts that he accepts as facts. Those who desire an “us vs. them” mentality will not see any point.
         “Murder is defined as ‘Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.'”
         And abortion supporters will be quick to point out that (under today’s legal system) abortion is not unlawful. It is necessary to present a case for why it should be.
         “Why are you trying to tell us it is better to be deceptive, then boldly proclaiming the truth? Never mind, you have to lie. We get it.”
         I am saying no such thing. I do not advocate deception. (I am not a fundamentalist christian.) Nor did I suggest stopping at the point where we already agree. I use the mutual agreement as a starting point because the facts will lead from that starting point to the conclusion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s