Prochoice Abortion Versus Atheism

Would it be a foolish endeavor to tell those who make only emotionally based decisions, that they do, in fact, make emotionally based decisions? I should think so. If it is true that they only make emotionally based decisions, then they could not reflect on this fact intellectually, but just throw a temper tantrum and begin clawing and scratching.

So an article such as this, one might think, could actually be described as an act of stupidity. However, I believe that there is a very small minority who would consider this issue intellectually if prompted to do so, which is precisely what I propose.

I would submit that there is a philosophy that many stand firmly behind. I am persuaded its’ arguments are worthless, and that considering this issue intellectually will lead to the negation of this political stance. Of course, this is the pro-choice abortion stance. There are three issues that this article will cover: The logical inadequacy of pro-choice abortion, Atheism and pro-choice abortion, Theism And Pro-choice Abortion.

Prochoice Abortion Is Logically Inadequate
Such is most political issues that they would attract a sort of hivemind; that people will chant ‘got-ya’ talking points, despite that they do not really have any latitude behind them. One of the most frequent of these is the point that the right to choose is more important than the life of the unborn.

The problem with this statement seems obvious to me. Choice cannot be more important than life. It is contingent upon life. A part cannot be of greater value than the whole; a picket cannot be of greater value than the fence. Similarly, choice, a component of life, cannot be of greater value than life itself.

Moreover, even if we were to grant for charity that choice could somehow be of greater value than life, the question immediately arises: what about the choice of the unborn? The answer which pro-choice proponents typically offer is that it is unborn and therefore does not have any rights. But this is to be guilty of the self-excepting fallacy. That is to say that a line of logic is correct, universally, except in this particular instance (the one that is most convenient for the objector).

So choice is not more important than life, and if it were, it would still lead the pro-choice proponents down a path of logical fallacies.

Further, I am persuaded that there exists, a knock-down deductive argument in favor of the pro-life stance. Remember, in a deductive argument, if the premises are true, the conclusion follows necessarily.

1 – Human beings have intrinsic moral value.

When I say “intrinsic moral value,” I mean that in and of themselves, human beings have value. They are not merely means for which one could use to satisfy their ends. Rather, human beings are ends in themselves. This seems to me like a premise that, if to deny it, is to deny, in the words of Professor John Lennox, the felt reality of what this world is.

However, the pro-choice proponent could deny it if they were looking for a sort of academic refutation of the argument. But this would be detrimental to the pro-choice stance. For if human beings do not have intrinsic moral value, neither do the elements within their lives. If a human being is worthless, it would follow that the choices that they make, and the freedom to make these choices are also worthless.

So for the pro-choice proponent to deny premise one is really to cut their own throat.

2 – An embryo is a biological human being.

It seems to me that this premise is the only which allows for some possible escape route. But it is difficult to understand how anybody who is committed to modern science, and basic logic, could deny this premise.

For several years, it was taught that in the womb, babies went through the entire evolutionary process, and so an abortion was symmetrical just killing a one-celled amoeba or an ugly little fish. But with modern embryology, mothers can see images of their unborn. The creature inside is not a fish, but it contains the necessary components to form a biological human being.

In the words of Doctor William Lane Craig, it just seems incredible to think that a baby is not a human being just because it is geographically located inside the uterus instead of outside of it. It seems obvious to me that how we perceive something has no effect on its’ nature. Babies do not lose their intrinsic moral value, just because that value is inconvenient.

3 – Therefore, an embryo has intrinsic moral value.

Since the two premises are true, this conclusion follows logically. But there just is no intellectual reason that one would doubt either of the two premises.
.

In summary, I argue as follows:
1 – Human beings have intrinsic moral value.
2 – An embryo is a biological human being.
3 – Therefore, an embryo has intrinsic moral value.

Atheism And Prochoice Abortion
I think I would be justified in saying that most pro-choice proponents are atheists. Obviously one can believe whatever it is that emotionally fulfills them. But in this instance, I would be obtuse to neglect to indicate the explicit inconsistency between atheism and the pro-choice stance.

I will begin by outlining the argument from absolute morality.
1 – If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2 – Objective moral values do exist.
3 – Therefore, God exists.

I offer this excerpt from my article Good Without God?

When we say that rape, persecution, restriction of freedom, tyranny and oppression are wrong, what are we saying? What does it even mean? It is an appeal to one mans’ evolved set of ethics; an offspring of his tabula rasa; his nature and his nurture. But every man can derive intuitions from that, and they often conflict. If I deem something a moral abomination, and another man deems that same action morally indifferent, who is right? In the absence of a transcendent standard to appeal to, neither is truly right or wrong.

But on atheism and biological evolution, this is the definition of morality. Morals are an evolved and evolving tool for survival. If God does not exist, then there is no reason for man to appeal to morals as though they were a relevant tool for deciding their actions or condemning or judging others. Ours is just like that of the wolf pack, who will develop what appears to be ethical principles for the betterment and survival of the pack. We have adapted this herd morality, for survival, but any deeper meaning is a mirage.

Most atheists, I would say, do agree that absolute moral values do not exist; that it is all relative. The problem with this is that it is inconsistent with the pro-choice stance. For the pro-choice stance affirms that there are absolute moral values, and they are expressed in their right to choose.

In contrast, if there are no absolute moral values, then the woman might be accurate in saying that relative to her, she can do what she likes with her body. But I, as well, am accurate, in saying that I can persecute that right and even the women herself.

Remarkably, pro-choice proponents have told me that morality is relative, and as an offshoot of this fact, that I do not have the right to persecute their rights. This is blatantly inconsistent. If I do not have the right to persecute them, then absolute moral values do exist, and I am in violation of them. So if the pro-choice stance is accurate, it actually undermines atheism. But if atheism is accurate, it undermines the pro-choice stance.

If one is to accept the premise that atheism is true, that is symmetrical to rejecting the existence of absolute moral values. But that entails that one also forfeits any absolute moral rights that they had as a consequence of those values. Atheism and pro-choice abortion cannot sustain each other. The ideology which contains both of these views is completely self-destructive.

Theism And Prochoice Abortion
In contrast, if one believes that God does exist, then absolute moral values do exist, and one could be justified in appealing to absolute morality. Alas one would also have to add God to that moral framework.

If it is the case that God gives and takes life, then it is not for us to decide to give or take life. I would appeal to the Bible, which says that we should reap what we sow. I would appeal to the commandment that we shall not kill. I would say that such things override the call of convenience and personal desire.

Moreover, Jesus said this: “those who love their life will lose it.” When he said that, he was speaking of the elements within ones’ life that they love. If to demonstrate love for God, instead of love for life, complete surrender would have to follow. That would mean to surrender the convenience and desire that we have and instead, follow the will of God.

Conclusion
There really is no framework which allows for both intellectual honesty, emotional honesty, and the pro-choice abortion stance. Further, I think as we have seen there are powerful negations of the pro-choice abortion stance.