Pro-Life debate with Atheists, social rights?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rykuu
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rykuu

Guest
Well, I’ve gotten into the start of what may be an interesting debate XD This is with an apparent atheist who believes there is no sanctity in life, the reason we don’t kill each other on the streets is because of the social contract we all take once born (I don’t kill, I don’t get killed), and you aren’t entered into that contract until you’ve exited the womb and are fair game til then because you’re part of the mother’s body due to the lack of not being able to live outside the womb til then.

Thoughts?

If you want to voice your arguments as well, feel free to contribute to the source discussion here: youtube.com/watch?v=lXbCLdWZCeA&lc=z120d3c52xq2cp2eq233wfkrwtfdyt0ru04.1489180927430104 (I’m Shikibara on there)
 
You should have no problem with the debate. There is a wide array of arguments that you can marshal in your support. First of all, you need to get rid of this discussion of why we don’t kill each other. It is irrelevant, and kind of off the topic. Determine what he defines “life” to be, fix any problems with his definition, and show him that it is taking away life to abort a child.

There are also quite a few uncomfortable questions you can ask him, like why it is considered double homicide to kill a pregnant woman. Or, why those who are pregnant are commonly called “with child.” You really have quite a lot of options to chose from, have fun destroying him!
 
Rykuu said:
Well, I’ve gotten into the start of what may be an interesting debate XD This is with an apparent atheist who believes there is no sanctity in life, the reason we don’t kill each other on the streets is because of the social contract we all take once born (I don’t kill, I don’t get killed), and you aren’t entered into that contract until you’ve exited the womb and are fair game til then because you’re part of the mother’s body due to the lack of not being able to live outside the womb til then.

Thoughts?

If you want to voice your arguments as well, feel free to contribute to the source discussion here: youtube.com/watch?v=lXbCLdWZCeA&lc=z120d3c52xq2cp2eq233wfkrwtfdyt0ru04.1489180927430104 (I’m Shikibara on there)
Click to expand...
Its a silly argument. No baby enters into that contract. They don’t even know what killing is. A baby can survive outside it’s mother’s womb after a certain point - why don’t they enter the contract as soon as they are viable? Birth is an arbitrary point in time. How do you define the exact point of viability of a given foetus? You can’t. It varies per child and is highly dependent on the location if the child and medical advances in that area.
 
BornInMarch said:
I remember reading this one post on a secular pro-life website (one of many websites that oppose abortion for non-religious reasons).

blog.secularprolife.org/2014/06/the-imago-dei-or-why-should-secularists.html

The summary is that secularists who consider human life valuable/sacrosanct feel this way for a number of reasons, and that some don’t have a reason and just take it as a given.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link, I’ll read it tomorrow 🙂
Daniel_Lysinger said:
You should have no problem with the debate. There is a wide array of arguments that you can marshal in your support. First of all, you need to get rid of this discussion of why we don’t kill each other. It is irrelevant, and kind of off the topic. Determine what he defines “life” to be, fix any problems with his definition, and show him that it is taking away life to abort a child.

There are also quite a few uncomfortable questions you can ask him, like why it is considered double homicide to kill a pregnant woman. Or, why those who are pregnant are commonly called “with child.” You really have quite a lot of options to chose from, have fun destroying him!
Click to expand...
Very true, but I doubt he’s going to let it go just like that (down side of text conversations, the time it takes to get a reply). It’d take a number of replies to get past that issue, I would imagine. My sister and I are doing what we can to debate his “points”, as they are weakly formed and quite irrelevant and poorly founded. But ya, we’re having fun with this one~
ShrodingersCat said:
Its a silly argument. No baby enters into that contract. They don’t even know what killing is. A baby can survive outside it’s mother’s womb after a certain point - why don’t they enter the contract as soon as they are viable? Birth is an arbitrary point in time. How do you define the exact point of viability of a given foetus? You can’t. It varies per child and is highly dependent on the location if the child and medical advances in that area.
Click to expand...
Yes, it’s a very silly argument, and we’re doing our best to take it down with logic and natural law, but I’m feeling that he’s going to discredit natural law when we get to that point. So this truly feels like we’re dealing with some major ignorance on a level I’ve yet to see in my time of debates.

Don’t forget, if anyone wants to jump in, it’s free game here XD we won’t reject the help and (name removed by moderator)ut on the discussion.
 
I always like to chat about how a baby in the womb is not going to become a kitten or a puppy or a guppy. It’s a human child.

As we learn more and more, the humanity of the baby occurs to us to begin sooner and earlier.

The Knights of Columbus has donated more than 500 ultrasound machines. [more than 752 ultrasound machines][so far]

Knights of Columbus Ultrasound Initiative

kofc.org/en/members/programs/culture-of-life/ultrasound-initiative.html#/

And I love the TV commercial in which a baby in the womb is seen to become agitated when the father is observed to be eating a popular snack food.
 
Sounds like he’s touching on a skewed idea of Natural Law.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
I always like to chat about how a baby in the womb is not going to become a kitten or a puppy or a guppy. It’s a human child.

As we learn more and more, the humanity of the baby occurs to us to begin sooner and earlier.

The Knights of Columbus has donated more than 500 ultrasound machines. [more than 752 ultrasound machines][so far]

Knights of Columbus Ultrasound Initiative

kofc.org/en/members/programs/culture-of-life/ultrasound-initiative.html#/

And I love the TV commercial in which a baby in the womb is seen to become agitated when the father is observed to be eating a popular snack food.
Click to expand...
Mhmm, unfortunately with this person, it’s an issue of whether or not the unborn have rights, because he acknowledges that the baby is human, and is alive it seems, so the only way he can justify abortion is by denying the unborn rights, because you cannot trump the right to life with the right for comfort or anything else.

Also, is this the video to which you refer XD youtube.com/watch?v=ZNK1_Yop6oo
 
I have tried to argue my Pro-Life side against many atheists, it is almost impossible. This is because atheists can sit on the idea “who are you to impose your beliefs on others?”. As if that ends any argument. There is definitely a reason why we care, but relativism is such a popular belief now and it is almost impossible to argue against a true relativist. The best you can do is stay true to your beliefs and understand them. Debating is great and is important, but don’t think you can win against someone who sits on relativism. Not because relativism is true, it is easily proven to be completely untrue, but because at that point they aren’t open to truth. Can you argue social rights against these people? I don’t think so.

Read Trent Horn’s book, Pursuasive Pro-Life
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top