This essay is an original work by Stabby the Misanthrope.
It does not necessarily reflect the views expressed in Rational Wiki's Mission Statement, but we welcome discussion of a broad range of ideas. Perhaps he is holding a sign that reads the same thing, in an obnoxious, all-capitals font.
"Arguments Against" uses biblical, medical, legal, and philosophical arguments to convince us that abortion is immoral and unethical.
His first subclaim is that the Bible supports a pro-life ideology, an argument from authority. The entire basis for the Bible as a source of authority is the tautology “The Bible is true because God says so; he says so in the Bible.” This does not hold up rhetorically, and completely disregards biblical criticism, an entire branch of scholarship predicated on the fact that the Bible is the work of humans (and hence not divine or particularly useful as a moral guide).
Another essay, cumbersomely entitled “Abortion: Is it Possible to be both “Pro-life” and “Pro-choice”?
or The Question of Abortion: A Search for Answers”, by Ann Druyan and Carl Sagan, seeks a middle ground between the extremes of pro-life and pro-choice.(They won’t be, as I’ve stated earlier.) Anderson further restricts his audience by citing biblical arguments against abortion, alienating any non-Christians less than a paragraph in.In case any non-Christians stayed through the remainder of the text, he disregards them again in the essay’s final line: “The Bible and logic are on the side of the Christian who wants to stand for the sanctity of human life.” The likely audience for “Arguments Against Abortion” is biblical literalist Christians who already firmly lean towards the pro-life side, and desire to better educate themselves about pro-life arguments.He then uses the medical definitions for death to define life, in order to demonstrate that an embryo is indeed alive.Most significantly, he cites the onset of brainwave functions (at about 40 days into gestation) as proof that a fetus is fully human.This unique approach widens its potential audience to include all but the most diehard polemics from either side.This contrasts with Anderson’s approach, who, in the arrogance so often held by writers with strict religious constraints, assumes the opposing side is actually interested in hearing his arguments.Anderson’s second claim is that medical science supports a pro-life position.In his essay, he argues that because an embryo is genetically distinct from the mother at the moment of conception, it is an individual, and morally cannot be terminated by the mother.The next set of arguments in “Arguments Against” is legal.Anderson claims that the 1973 landmark Supreme Court case Roe v.