Debate on Abortion with an Atheist, with Use of Reductio ad Absurdum

  From a discussion thread on Facebook, about President Obama's support of partial-birth infanticide. My dialogue opponent, Tim Allen, is an atheist , according to his Facebook "About" page, and by his own statement in the exchange. His words will be in blue. 
It is important to understand precisely what the reductio ad absurdum technique in logic and dialogue is, in order to not misunderstand its nature and intention (as Tim did). If you're not familiar with it, I urge you to follow the link to the words above and read a short description of it (here's also a longer, technical explanation). Then you'll know what I was trying to do in this dialogue. I am not actually in favor of killing atheists!!! 
I use this ancient form of argumentation quite often in my apologetics; especially in disputing positions that I consider self-evidently absurd and or evil (as this position is, to extraordinary degrees in both respects). Unfortunately, it's usually misunderstood (because logic and ability to constructively dialogue and debate are mostly lost arts today), but it is a perfectly legitimate, sensible, and highly effective way to argue against a position.

I've also added the words of two other people that entered the discussion. Whether they are atheists or not, I don't know, but that is irrelevant to the points they were making. Their words will be in green and purple.
* * * * * 
Partial-birth abortion is performed on full-term babies. All that is necessary is for the baby to be delivered to the neck; then the scissors are used, and the child's brains sucked out. We call this "enlightened civilization" and "pro-choice." Lots of people think this is "okay." The bill passed the US Senate. Many Democrats (as usual) voted for it [and the usual liberal Republican RINOs, too], though some drew the line.

I'm not looking for a heated debate or anything, but for me personally, I think ending the life of a nearly-born baby is better than ruining the lives of an actually-born baby and his real life mother (and potentially harming the lives of many others). For me, abortion is a cost-benefit analysis about harming one versus harming many.

That's morally absurd. Murder can never be justified. Love demands that we strive for a better life for the born, and the right to life of the preborn. Only barbarian societies slaughter their own. Do we never learn? Was not the Holocaust sufficient to put an end to this mass slaughter and genocide? The fact that you are sitting here writing this is a self-evident argument against abortion. You were allowed to live. Life has a self-evident value and worth.

I disagree that it is morally absurd. Many, many lives have been ruined by unwanted pregnancies - including the lives of the children - and I think it is morally acceptable to sacrifice a non-person for the greater good of actual, living human beings.
Fair enough. I think atheism ruins the life of many. Therefore, I advocate killing all atheists, so these lives won't be ruined: for the greater good of actual, living human beings who aren't atheists. [reductio ad absurdum] <---- bracketed comment in original discussion.

Alright, my bad. I thought you wanted an actual conversation about this stuff. That's my fault for assuming. Have a good one.
You've never heard of reductio ad absurdum? Look it up. Part of logic and philosophy . . . This is indeed a very serious discussion: dead serious (or was, since you now depart it). So the dead serious discussion is now seriously dead . . .

I've heard of reductio ad absurdum. I've also heard of the straw man argument... 

Here is the reasoning (that you appear to have missed):

1. Many lives are ruined by unwanted pregnancies: of mothers and of the children born.

2. Therefore, in order to prevent these ruined lives, we ought to kill the children, in order to prevent what may, or likely (?) will occur.

By analogy:

1a. Many lives are ruined by atheism and its (from logical reduction) counsel of despair.

2a. (1 2) presupposes that events and persons who cause or have ruined lives should be eliminated for the good of all.

3a. Therefore, granting the truth of 1a, by analogy it is rational and for the good of society to kill atheists who promulgate the harmful philosophy / worldview.

I deny the truthfulness of proposition 1. People acting in an evil fashion cause misery (and have a free will choice to act otherwise): not the mere fact that a child is born.

You deny the truthfulness of proposition 1a. But the logic works the same in both instances. I am following your own logic and turning the tables on you. Your task is to show why 1a doesn't follow from your adopted premise 1.

But all of this went over your head and you responded with: "I thought you wanted an actual conversation about this stuff" and "I've also heard of the straw man argument."

Fine. You may not get it, but others will.
Just because a person doesn't agree with your argument doesn't mean they don't understand it or that they're too stupid to grasp your concepts. And, as an atheist myself, I can personally attest to the fact that I am not in "despair". Your level of condescension is ridiculous.
 
Why do you disagree? I didn't say you were personally in despair. I said that atheism was "(from logical reduction) [a] counsel of despair"). Just as atheists routinely claim that Christianity is by logical reduction, infantile, and blind, irrational faith . . .

I don't know anything about you, except that you are an atheist, and that you haven't yet grasped my current logic. Whether that is a general occurrence or not, of course I don't know. But I know it is true in this instance. Your replies prove that.

So I am challenging you, logically. I'm playing Socrates, as I have done for 35 years, since my Intro. to Philosophy class in college [with the illustrious Dr. Lawrence Lombard].

It's also routine (seen all the time) that a person who doesn't grasp the logic of a reductio ad absurdum, will feel that it is mere ridicule and condescension and personal disdain. Well, in a way it is that towards bad logic and conclusions, but not necessarily towards persons at all.

Well, any atheist who claims that Christianity is infantile is just as wrong as a Christian who claims atheism is "(from logical reduction) counsel of despair".

I haven't grasped your logic? Or I haven't agreed with it? That's the distinction that I think you need to make.

Atheists are actual human beings. Aborted fetuses are not. That's why the analogy you made falls apart. And when you start equating abortion with the Holocaust, you are intentionally using hyperbole to ridicule the other person's point. You can use whatever Latin term you learned 35 years ago in Intro to Philosophy to justify it, but in reality, that's just weak sauce.
I think the location is the more important piece than the ontological change. I should clarify: I think the location [i.e., birth] is the more important piece when determining personhood. Until the actual birth, they are still dependent on the mother to receive their oxygen and nutrients through the umbilical cord. Once the birth happens, they are able to breath and receive nutrients independently. I think that is a critical factor. If a mother is eight months pregnant and she dies, the baby will almost certainly die with her. If a baby is one month old and the mother dies, the baby will still live. . . . Feeding tubes and ventilators are artificial means of sustaining life, not a direct mother-to-fetus connection. Babies can't feed themselves or protect themselves, that's true. But their dependency at that point is not based on a direct, physiological attachment to the mother. I think its that direct, physiological connection that is a defining characteristic between a fetus and a human baby.

No problem. I don't think atheists are human beings, then. If you can define away a preborn child based on nonexistent reasoning and no basis whatsoever other than that they are small and hidden (and sometimes "unwanted"), then I can apply the same "reasoning" to other categories of persons; in this case, atheists. The analogy still holds. I use your premises all down the line and refute them by reductio.

You don't think small people are "human beings"; I come back and [in a similar manner, by reductio] arbitrarily claim that atheists aren't, because they lack the religious sense that the vast majority of mankind has always possessed. The Nazis defined Jews as "vermin" and disposable because they didn't like them. America in the 19th century did the same with Native Americans, and virtually towards African-Americans. too.

Today, little people just starting out their lives are the target of murder and disdain. Logically, if you apply this "reasoning" to them, it can easily be spread to other categories of people. So I used your own group, to (try to) bring the point home to you.

The viability argument is so medically and philosophically ridiculous that I hesitate to even rebut it. I'll simply note that the criteria of the beginning and end of life are the same. We determine that a person dies by cessation of brain waves and heartbeat. Heartbeat is present in a preborn human being at about 18 days; brain waves by six weeks or so. This all usually occurs before a woman even is aware that she is pregnant. All the DNA that is ever present throughout a person's life is in place at conception. By the latter criteria, humanity is present from the very beginning. But if we wish to go by either heartbeat or brain waves, then this child is a human being by 18 days or six weeks at the latest: early enough to preclude almost all abortions that take place.

Dave, I never once mentioned brain waves or a heartbeat, so I don't know who you're arguing with there.
I know you didn't So what? That has nothing to do with my response. It's another analogy that you missed (end-of-life criteria compared to beginning of life).


And I stopped reading your earlier response after the first paragraph when you claimed I had "nonexistent reasoning" and "no basis whatsoever".
Great; stop reading then. This exchange is not primarily for your benefit, anyway. You are beyond this particular reasoning at this time. The sad thing is that your "reasoning" leads directly to the continuance of genocide against preborn human beings. Your philosophy (or anti-philosophy) has very dire consequences. Thus it must be opposed, and sometimes strong language [directed against bad arguments, not persons] is completely justified in doing so. This is a very serious business; not just throwing around concepts for fun. It's lousy thinking that leads to evil consequences and yet more needless, preventable suffering for human beings.

But see, needless and preventable suffering is what I want to stop, too. Single mothers who want to go to school and have a career, but can't because they have a child at 16. Babies who are born to drug addicts or to mothers with HIV who have a very little chance of living a normal and healthy life. Women who are impregnated after being raped and do not want a permanent reminder of that traumatic event. All of that is needless, preventable suffering and abortion is an effective means of prevention. And yes, there are things like adoption and foster families that can help in those situations. And some babies in bad situations grow to be great people. But those are the exceptions, not the norms.

I don't think abortion is a "good thing". I would never encourage someone to use it as a toy or to use it as a form of birth control. But it is a "necessary evil", so to speak, because I would rather see a fetus aborted - a fetus who is still directly and physiologically connected to the mother, and cannot form complex thoughts about its own destruction - than to see actual human beings have their lives ruined, which in turn, will harm society at large. . . . I believe that a person becomes a person upon birth, when he or she is no longer directly and physiologically dependent upon the birth mother for oxygen and nutrients.
[Kala Vandeberg] Obama is not in favor of late term abortions. Where did the quote come from? By the way I am not saying that I am aligning myself with either side of the debate, I just want to ensure that we don't judge people on others' attributions to their actions.

He certainly is in favor of partial-birth abortion, or has historically been. He also voted for a bill that would allow the killing of children born as a result of botched abortions, as I already noted.  

Dave, what else was in that bill? What was the main "meat" of it? And people are allowed to change opinions, maybe he has softened on the issue?

Here is the record. Here's another article (Washington Post).

Dave, I cannot take these clips seriously without context.

Do whatever you like; this is all a matter of record. If you are curious enough, go do further research yourself. Obama gets 100% ratings from NARAL. That's why that web page documents everything. When sources are provided, people may look into them further if they want more context. So the opportunity is yours. It's well-known that Obama is the most pro-abort President in history.

I do not support abortion, but I am against anger- mongering against individuals because of misunderstanding. . . . there is always more to the story, often times- bills are bigger than an abortion issue included in it. It is important to know the entirety of the bill before jumping to judgement.

It's not misunderstanding. It's the record of his policies. He has voted for partial-birth abortion more than once. And that's what the photo describes. It is 100% accurate. No distortion. You just don't like it. Makes you squeamish, I guess. Did you vote for Obama, Kala? 

My position is that a fetus becomes a person when he or she is no longer directly and physiologically dependent on his or her birth mother. Therefore, examples like feeding tubes, people after car accidents, and mothering after birth do not count, since those are all either artificial or indirect. I don't really care what "pro-choice ethicists" say. This is my own opinion.

Dave's question, "did you vote for Obama?"is very revealing. It implies that, if she did vote for Obama, her criticism would be more or less valid. [I think he meant to say "invalid"]

No; it tells us what [some of] her biases are, and [possibly] partially why she feels passionately about the issue. It's a relevant consideration. If she didn't vote for Obama, on the other hand, it helps her case, because then she appears to be fair-minded and concerned for accurate presentation, even about someone she opposes (which I admire). Her argument stands or falls on its merits: not on whom she voted for. But if she did, she ought to be proud of the choice and defend it. Or say that it was a bad choice that she won't make again.

As usual, you don't understand why I asked the question, just like you have misinterpreted or not grasped (or even if so, have not directly replied to) my entire argument from beginning to end.

In any event, it does no good to split from the discussion if someone has a point they wish to proclaim and defend. I answered all her many questions. She decided to take a pass when I started asking her some.

[Nathan Howells] [initially expressed to page owner Jon] Don't post hyperbolic %$#& like this. How is this helpful in anyway [sic]? I voted for Barack Obama. I didn't vote for someone who thinks stabbing babies is legitimate medicine. 

[I responded to the second statement] That's exactly what he stood for, by supporting those bills and opposing the ones that would stop it. But you can put your head in the sand if you wish to. By voting for a person who holds such evil positions, you make the acts that result possible. You help promote them.

[again, to page owner Jon] Your characterization is dehumanizing and inciting. There is no room for dialogue when you post this %$#&. So seriously, stop posting it. There are better ways to discuss weighty matters, but I'm not sure there are worse.

I think it was an excellent discussion: not in and of itself, but for the purpose of demonstrating through logic and criticism that the atheist pro-abortion argument is entirely groundless and irrational, as well as immoral to its core. Tim is just as much a victim of such outrageous thinking as he is a promulgator of it.

The only difference is that he himself is not tortured and murdered. He can sit in his armchair and wax eloquent about such monstrosities, while the babies continue to be legally killed every day (3500 ). It's not abstract for them . . . it has very real consequences. 

Dave, you are an arrogant self righteous %$#&, but you can keep your head up your %$#& if you want to.

Is that your argument? Thanks for the demonstration. 

That was your argument. You are an absurd caricature of a member of the profetus movement. And if you weren't so utterly offensive, you'd be ridiculously humorous. Your condescension helps your image of genuinely loving and caring for all humanity.

The problem with people like Dave, and the reason that it is nearly impossible to have a civilized discussion on abortion (and other key issues), is that they think they have a monopoly on the truth and on morality. It is not enough for a person who disagrees with his opinion to merely be wrong in his eyes, but that person must be a fool who fails to grasp even the simplest concepts of the topic. Honest arguments that are given by the other side are dismissed as "illogical" and "entirely groundless", merely because they do not agree with his opinion.

Jon, Dan and others in this conversation disagree with my opinion on abortion. That's fine. I don't expect or need everybody to agree with my opinion on when life begins, when abortion is acceptable, etc. That's the beauty of this whole thing is that people can disagree on major topics and still be civil.

Unfortunately, Dave's not interested in having civil discussions. He's interested in trolling for hits from his friends (who already agree with him) and baiting those who oppose him into arguments, so he can demonstrate his academic superiority. To do this, he uses hyperbole and he uses pseudo-philosophical buzz words that sound impressive.

It's not a new strategy, but it is still sad all the same. 

"Your characterization is dehumanizing . . ." [italics and bolding added presently]

I note the extreme (and equally sad and pathetic) irony of a guy who votes for a guy who advocated partial-birth infanticide, using this particular term to describe the argument of someone else who objects to such voting and advocacy, in the context of a discussion with a pro-abort who thinks that the "fetus" does not become a "human being" until the moment he or she is born (umbilical cord cut). That's not "dehumanizing" but my pointing out how outrageous it is, is what is thought to be "dehumanizing".

Unbelievable . . .

Irony is a funny thing that way...
Note, folks, that it's all personal attack and smarmy psychoanalysis now. No effort to respond rationally at all . . . My criticisms, on the other hand, were directed solely towards bad arguments or unwillingness to interact with opposing arguments, not at persons, regarded as %&$#s, etc. (as my opponents are now doing). If they did spill over a little bit to persons, it was not my intention, and I apologize if so. My intention is always to attack bad reasoning and arguments. Unfortunately, people often take that personally. They can't separate their positions from themselves as persons: hold them abstractly during exchanges back and forth, if you will.

But name-calling is a fitting ending, proving my point in spades. Oftentimes when rational defense is not forthcoming, a person will stoop to mere personal attack. I am particularly despised (over against Jon and others) mostly because I dared to use the reductio ad absurdum. It makes lots of folks very angry. Nothing new at all. Socrates was killed because of that sort of argument and his generally provocative nature. I'm sure he was called just as many names as we see here. :-) 

And here's "victim mode". Textbook, I guess.

‎The problem with people like Dave, and the reason that it is nearly impossible to have a civilized discussion on abortion (and other key issues), is that they think they have a monopoly on the truth and on morality.

Is that so, Tim? Gee, I guess that is why I once did a well-received presentation group discussion in person at a group with 16 atheists and agnostics and myself as the lone Christian. None of this sort of nonsense was said about me. I got along fine with everyone (and we discussed abortion as well as contraception and many other issues). In fact, one of their number is talking at my house one week from today, and he was well-received last time he came, and we are friends.

I guess I can't engage in civil debate, as indicated by my posted 625 dialogues on my blog, with every sort of belief-system imaginable (atheists, vegetarians, feminists, pro-abortionists, homosexual advocates, Marxists, pacifists; all kinds of different religious groups). For the most part, it was perfectly civil, though there are folks (particularly anti-Catholic Protestants) with whom it was nearly impossible to have a rational discussion. Apart from that, I have discussions with all sorts of people.

With a few, and especially in cases of use of the reductio ad absurdum, acrimony and name-calling came from my opponents, and rational discussion ceased (as presently). But as to the proposition of whether I can engage in civil, constructive discussion or not [with those who differ from me], that is manifest in the record of multiple hundreds of posted dialogues: the most objective evidence I can think of for disproving such a charge.

You make the charge; I respond with quite relevant countering information: reason; not empty and flatulent rhetoric seeking to put a person down and judge his character and supposed inner dispositions. People can see in this very exchange that I haven't responded in kind with silly personal insults.


That's great to hear about your past successes. If that's true, then maybe I misjudged you overall.

But in this particular conversation, every response to me told me how I didn't understand and failed to grasp your philosophical arguments. That's not evidence and that's not relevant countering information. That's absolutely "empty and flatulent rhetoric seeking to put a person down and judge his character."

Except, I understood your arguments quite well. I disagreed and provided my own counterarguments. You disagreed and called implied that I was a fool (and a victim of outrageous thinking). So much with not responding in kind with silly personal insults.

Quite a jaded view of what has gone down here. I'm not gonna restate the facts of the exchange as I see them. Readers can read it and judge for themselves what happened. I think you have reasoned badly, misunderstood many things I wrote and argued, and have chosen to not respond to several important aspects of my argument.

Granted, you may understand some of it, but simply chose to not respond (suggested by your saying you ignored certain parts of my comments because something offended you). But in instances where you did, you clearly did not understand my line of reasoning, as I showed. I'm sorry if it is hurtful to you to point this out, but we all have to improve in certain areas. This is an opportunity for you to learn from the experience so as not to repeat it in argument next time (at least not when someone springs a reductio on you).

In any event, I'm the world's greatest expert on what the intention and nature of my own argument is, along with my interior dispositions: a thing both you and Nathan have so articulately (but absurdly and wrongly) speculated upon.

Man, you're condescending. Holy cow.

You said on your blog that I called you names. What names did I call you exactly?

Let's see:

The problem with people like Dave, and the reason that it is nearly impossible to have a civilized discussion on abortion (and other key issues), is that they think they have a monopoly on the truth and on morality.

Unfortunately, Dave's not interested in having civil discussions. He's interested in trolling for hits from his friends (who already agree with him) and baiting those who oppose him into arguments, so he can demonstrate his academic superiority. To do this, he uses hyperbole and he uses pseudo-philosophical buzz words that sound impressive.

"And here's "victim mode". Textbook, I guess.

Or do you consider that civil discussion and not name-calling (and judging of interior dispositions) at all?
Also, I didn't say it was just you. I wrote: "The dialogue (if it can even be properly called that) descended into rather colorful name-calling, by two of my opponents." Most of the worst insults came from Nathan, not you. He's so embarrassed by them that he wants me to remove them, even though they remain up here. Unless he has removed them by now . . .

I was pointing out your argument tactics, which is perfectly valid.

This is clearly untrue. Claiming that I think I "have a monopoly on the truth and on morality" is no comment on my argument because I never claimed such a thing. It is a projection onto me of some mythical attitude that is not there. Classic ad hominem . . . . It's the same as what Nathan said, in different terms: it amounts to saying I am an arrogant know-it-all jerk. Some people on my Facebook page said far worse about you than I ever did.

Self-awareness is a tricky thing, Dave. How you can time and again claim that someone doesn't understand you, simply because they disagree with you, and then tell me I can learn something from you? That's arrogance. Sorry, but there's simply no other rational way to look at that. 

Unfortunately, Dave's not interested in having civil discussions.

Again, this is no reflection of any argument I made, but a sweeping judgment of my imaginary motivation. I refuted it by giving the story of my in-person talk to 16 atheists and my 625 dialogues posted online. Even you softened a bit after reading that. But now you claim that this statement is merely in response to my arguments, which is sheer nonsense. 

You clearly had no desire for a civil discussion today. Clearly. You didn't even try. Your very first response was filled with the same types of insults that you are up in arms about on your blog and in your last comment. 


The rest of the paragraph cited above is just as bad, but readers surely see my point by now.

And here's "victim mode".

LOL Nice try. I was simply recounting how you were incapable of sustained on-topic rational discussion with me, and descended into mere insult. That's perfectly permissible in serious discussion because it is essentially pointing out a fallacy in the opponent's reasoning, which is absolutely relevant to how well he did in presenting his case. 

Again, you get to decide what is permissible or not in a serious discussion. Not to mention the fact that you're allowed to be insulting towards people you disagree with, but when someone comes back on you, you're suddenly persecuted and called names.

But you don't get that, and so go right to personal psychoanalysis and personal attack. I've seen this tactic many times in my 30 years of arguing theology and philosophy with countless folks. I can spot it a mile away.

Let's see. Personal attack from you. Victim mode. Argument from authority. Arrogance. You captured them all so succinctly in three sentences. Well done.



I agree that I was too forceful at first, in retrospect. It was bad tactically, and in terms of charity. Nevertheless, the logic I used remains perfectly valid and sound. The analogy I used (killing of atheists), though it is logically analogous to your treatment of the preborn, was too extreme of an example for me to expect it to work in dialogue. Pamela did much better in that respect, with her excellent reductio analogy of slavery.

That said, your further speculations that all this proves I am an arrogant ass who had no interest in discussion, doesn't follow at all. This is what you feel, in your disgust, but it's untrue. I always have interest in debate and dialogue. That's why I have done so much of it, as an apologist.

I have less than no interest, though, in name-calling and ad hominem diversionary tactics. They give good dialogue and intellectual inquiry a bad name.

I'm sure you're going to come back with some witty response, but frankly, I have no more patience for you and your willfully dishonest debate tactics. #blocked

Right. A most fitting ending to your psychoanalysis of me. Thanks! We could have actually come to some common ground in rational discussion: if not of the issue itself, then this meta-analysis of the discussion of it. But you chose to give up and add further insults, while claiming that it is all I did or want to do.

As always in my posted dialogues, I'm happy for folks to read both sides and make up their own minds on it; to be influenced or persuaded as they will.

I can't see Tim's comments now on this thread (any of 'em) since he has now blocked me. I don't know if they are still here or not, or if he will make more comments and insults that I now cannot respond to. I can always use one of my three sons' computers to find out, though, if I really care to see what transpires now. :-)

But I got them all up to this point before he blocked me, and they will be duly recorded on my blog as classic instances of ad hominem evasion. Tim forgot that they also come into my in-box. But I didn't even have to do that. I just hit the back-button [after he blocked me]. :-)

Gotta love these "hit-and-run" tactics. Don't reply to arguments; misunderstand and then refuse to accept that you did so, when the opponent says so, start insulting, deny that you ever did insult, project your shortcomings onto the other guy, take a final potshot, and then block the other person, so that they can't record [or reply to] the last potshot . . . LOL
* * *