Rhetoric: (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display;bombast.
This is not the classical definition of rhetoric, but it is what the term usually means in common parlance. Classically, rhetoric is "the art of influencing the thought and conduct of an audience." Why bring this up, you may ask? Because ideas have consequences. And if our public discourse is needlessly bogged down by distracting connotations, we we end up talking or even yelling at one another rather than communicating with each other.
The Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life discussion is a case in point. This is not to say that using the right words or winning the argument (as in verbal fight) is the final point. The final point is one of grave consequence. It is to say that we should be mindful of our words and mindful of our audience. Lives hang in the balance, the lives of women, men, children, and families, the very basis of society.
With that in mind, I want to persuade the pro-choice individual to change your mind about abortion. And I have a very specific way of arguing that I hope will persuade you to change your thinking on this issue. There is only one question that must be answered concerning abortion:
Illustration:
Imagine you are standing at the sink doing the dishes and your young son or daughter walks up behind you and asks, "Can I kill this?" Before you even turn around, what is the first question that pops into your head? "What is it?" It makes all the difference if it is a spider, the neighbor's puppy, or the little kid from next door. So it is with abortion. We must first answer the question, "What is the unborn." If the unborn is not an innocent human being, then no justification for abortion is necessary. If the unborn is an innocent human being, then no justification for abortion is adequate.
Option 1: The unborn is not an innocent human being. If this is the case, then objecting to someone having an abortion is like objecting that someone had their appendix removed or tonsils taken out. Do with the unborn as you please.
Option 2: The unborn is an innocent human being. The unjustified taking of innocent human life is wrong. Abortion is the unjustified taking of innocent human life. Therefore, abortion is wrong. None of the reasons justifying abortion are adequate if it is the case that the unborn is an innocent human being.
So how can we answer this question? Some may object that abortion doesn't kill anything, that the unborn is merely a lump of tissue. But this is simply not true. The "tissue" is growing inside the woman. It's getting bigger. That's the problem. Abortion takes it out and kills it, stops it from growing. Abortion does kills something.
Some may object that the unborn is merely a part of the woman's body to do with as she pleases. This objection fails on scientific grounds. The unborn has a unique genetic signature from the point the egg and the sperm join. This DNA signature is unique to every human being. It is unique to every unborn. As such the unborn is a unique biological entity, distinct from the woman who carries it.
There are 4 ways the unborn (pre-natal) are said to differ from the born (post-natal): Size, Level of development, Environment, and Dependency. This is easily remembered by the acrostic S.L.E.D. Any one of them is adequate to demonstrate the humanity of the unborn. Even so, I will show that all 4 categories are inadequate to de-humanize the unborn and thus the unborn is an innocent human being.
Size. The unborn are much smaller than born human beings. I am smaller than Andre the Giant. Does this make me a non-human being? I was smaller as a child than I am now. Was I a non-human being when I was 2 years old? Are little people not really human beings just because they are smaller than others? Size is irrelevant to our humanity.
Level of development. The unborn are at a lower stage of development than the post born. A two year old is at a lower stage of development than a 7 year old. A teenager is at a lower stage of development than a young adult. Are they not human beings irregardless of their level of development? Level of development is irrelevant to our humanity.
Environment. The unborn are in a different environment than the born. I am not in the same location as you reading this. People living in Africa, or Tibet, or the International Space Station live in different environments. What does that have to do with them being human? Environment is irrelevant to our humanity.
Dependency. The unborn are dependent on the woman for survival. They are not viable on their own. Dialysis patients are dependent for survival. Scuba divers are dependent upon their compressed air. Most children are dependent on their parents for several years before they could actually survive on their own. My best friend has a pacemaker that keeps him alive. None of these post born individuals lose their value as human beings due to their dependency. Dependency is irrelevant to our humanity.
The answer to the question, "What is the unborn?" is that the unborn is a human being. Therefore, no justification for abortion is adequate.
Premises:
1. The unjustified taking of innocent human life is wrong.
2. The unborn are innocent human beings.
3. Abortion is the unjustified taking of innocent human life.
Conclusion:
Therefore, abortion is wrong.
If you are pro-choice, you must show that any of premises 1, 2, or 3 are false. This is not a rhetorical trick. It is a reasonable argument that warrants serious attention. In order to invalidate this argument, you must invalidate the reasons which make up the argument.
I'm not trying to beat you up for your point of view. I am trying to convince you that you hold an unsupportable viewpoint so that you will change your mind concerning abortion.
This is not the classical definition of rhetoric, but it is what the term usually means in common parlance. Classically, rhetoric is "the art of influencing the thought and conduct of an audience." Why bring this up, you may ask? Because ideas have consequences. And if our public discourse is needlessly bogged down by distracting connotations, we we end up talking or even yelling at one another rather than communicating with each other.
The Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life discussion is a case in point. This is not to say that using the right words or winning the argument (as in verbal fight) is the final point. The final point is one of grave consequence. It is to say that we should be mindful of our words and mindful of our audience. Lives hang in the balance, the lives of women, men, children, and families, the very basis of society.
With that in mind, I want to persuade the pro-choice individual to change your mind about abortion. And I have a very specific way of arguing that I hope will persuade you to change your thinking on this issue. There is only one question that must be answered concerning abortion:
"What is the unborn?"
Imagine you are standing at the sink doing the dishes and your young son or daughter walks up behind you and asks, "Can I kill this?" Before you even turn around, what is the first question that pops into your head? "What is it?" It makes all the difference if it is a spider, the neighbor's puppy, or the little kid from next door. So it is with abortion. We must first answer the question, "What is the unborn." If the unborn is not an innocent human being, then no justification for abortion is necessary. If the unborn is an innocent human being, then no justification for abortion is adequate.
Option 1: The unborn is not an innocent human being. If this is the case, then objecting to someone having an abortion is like objecting that someone had their appendix removed or tonsils taken out. Do with the unborn as you please.
Option 2: The unborn is an innocent human being. The unjustified taking of innocent human life is wrong. Abortion is the unjustified taking of innocent human life. Therefore, abortion is wrong. None of the reasons justifying abortion are adequate if it is the case that the unborn is an innocent human being.
So how can we answer this question? Some may object that abortion doesn't kill anything, that the unborn is merely a lump of tissue. But this is simply not true. The "tissue" is growing inside the woman. It's getting bigger. That's the problem. Abortion takes it out and kills it, stops it from growing. Abortion does kills something.
Some may object that the unborn is merely a part of the woman's body to do with as she pleases. This objection fails on scientific grounds. The unborn has a unique genetic signature from the point the egg and the sperm join. This DNA signature is unique to every human being. It is unique to every unborn. As such the unborn is a unique biological entity, distinct from the woman who carries it.
There are 4 ways the unborn (pre-natal) are said to differ from the born (post-natal): Size, Level of development, Environment, and Dependency. This is easily remembered by the acrostic S.L.E.D. Any one of them is adequate to demonstrate the humanity of the unborn. Even so, I will show that all 4 categories are inadequate to de-humanize the unborn and thus the unborn is an innocent human being.
Size. The unborn are much smaller than born human beings. I am smaller than Andre the Giant. Does this make me a non-human being? I was smaller as a child than I am now. Was I a non-human being when I was 2 years old? Are little people not really human beings just because they are smaller than others? Size is irrelevant to our humanity.
Level of development. The unborn are at a lower stage of development than the post born. A two year old is at a lower stage of development than a 7 year old. A teenager is at a lower stage of development than a young adult. Are they not human beings irregardless of their level of development? Level of development is irrelevant to our humanity.
Environment. The unborn are in a different environment than the born. I am not in the same location as you reading this. People living in Africa, or Tibet, or the International Space Station live in different environments. What does that have to do with them being human? Environment is irrelevant to our humanity.
Dependency. The unborn are dependent on the woman for survival. They are not viable on their own. Dialysis patients are dependent for survival. Scuba divers are dependent upon their compressed air. Most children are dependent on their parents for several years before they could actually survive on their own. My best friend has a pacemaker that keeps him alive. None of these post born individuals lose their value as human beings due to their dependency. Dependency is irrelevant to our humanity.
The answer to the question, "What is the unborn?" is that the unborn is a human being. Therefore, no justification for abortion is adequate.
Premises:
1. The unjustified taking of innocent human life is wrong.
2. The unborn are innocent human beings.
3. Abortion is the unjustified taking of innocent human life.
Conclusion:
Therefore, abortion is wrong.
If you are pro-choice, you must show that any of premises 1, 2, or 3 are false. This is not a rhetorical trick. It is a reasonable argument that warrants serious attention. In order to invalidate this argument, you must invalidate the reasons which make up the argument.
I'm not trying to beat you up for your point of view. I am trying to convince you that you hold an unsupportable viewpoint so that you will change your mind concerning abortion.
No comments:
Post a Comment