- Joined
- Jul 13, 2015
- Messages
- 14,955
- Location
- Somewhere Nice Not Nice
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
How about this argument?
Definition 1: A person becomes a person at conception: when a human sperm meets a human egg. NB, this is the crux of the entire debate.
Premise 2: The law of God as given to us in the Scriptures is the ultimate standard to which we must appeal in matters of ethics.
Definition 3: Murder is the unlawful (that is, opposed to God's law as given to us in the Scriptures; see Premise 2) premeditated killing of one person by another.
Premise 4: God's Law states that "You shall not murder."
Definition 5: Abortion is the deliberate (and therefore premeditated) termination of a human pregnancy, resulting in the killing of the embryo.
Premise 6: Human pregnancies can only result from a human sperm meeting a human egg.
Intermediate Conclusion 7: All human pregnancies are persons. (See Definition 1 and Premise 6.)
Definition 8: A capital crime is a violation of God's law that, in the Bible, required the punishment of death. Aside: in general, only God-appointed government officials may carry out this punishment of death.
Premise 9: All premeditated killing of one person by another that is lawful requires that the person to be killed either have commited a capital crime or be an aggressor in war.
Premise 10: No unborn persons can commit capital crimes or be aggressors in war.
Intermediate Conclusion 11: All premeditated killing of unborn persons (that is, all abortion) is unlawful. (See Premises 9 and 10).
Intermediate Conclusion 12: Abortion is murder. (See Definition 3 and Intermediate Conclusion 11).
Final Conclusion 13: Abortion is forbidden by God's law, and we should never do it. (See Definition 3, Premise 4, and Intermediate Conclusion 12).
As usual, if you disagree with the conclusion, then you must do one of three things:
1. Show me how a term I use is unclear or equivocal.
2. Show me that a definition or premise is false.
3. Show me that at least one reasoning step is fallacious.
Your Definition 1 effectively asserts, without reasoning, a premise which is at the heart of my uncertainty. My uncertainty stems from being uncertain of the exact point at which an entity along the zygote-embryo-foetus line becomes a person in its own right, and therefore whether personhood appears at conception, at implantation, or at some other time. This isn't so much an assertion that Definition 1 is false, merely an observation that it appears to make an assumption that is critical to the entire argument.
Where Definition 1 to read "A person becomes a person at implantation: when a fertilized egg implants into the mothers womb. NB, this is the crux of the entire debate" the status of abortifacient drugs and intrauterine devices would shift from being murder weapons to morally insignificant. Definition 1 could be tweaked in all sorts of ways to draw different conclusions, and the whole scope of the element of the discussion I personally haven't fully nailed down relates to exactly what form Definition 1 should take.
As an aside, Premise 9 covers specific situations but doesn't cover the possibility that continuing with a pregnancy would result in the untimely demise of the mother, most likely taking the unborn child with her. The child couldn't sensibly be considered to have committed a capital crime or been an aggressor in war (I'm not sure the source of this particular premise) but since their continued development would result in the mother it isn't entirely illogical to regard an abortion in this particular circumstance as an act of self-defense.
My post timestamped 11:34 yesterday was an attempt to get to something coherent and reasoned to slot into Definition 1 in your argument above.