That is to say, leaving aside whether his syllogism works and establishes that abortion is a benefit to the unborn, it’s inherently an invalid question to ask in the first place, from the standpoint of Christian ethics. No Christian could legitimately accept any conclusion that comes from reasoning that is founded on continuing to explore that which is clearly forbidden.

Btw, I’m half sure JGY is brettongarcia in another guise. They sure reason the same way.

Evangelical/fundamentalists sometimes think highly of their own supposed fidelity to both biblical truth and values (as opposed to sentiments borrowed from the surrounding culture), and to logical argumentation (as opposed to emotional reactions and dogmatic commitments to positions they cannot defend). Anyone interested in seeing what happens when these pretensions get put to the test will be interested in studying this thread. The peculiar attitude of certainty that all of the respondents seem to maintain (i.e., the attitude that the argument’s conclusion is certainly false) despite the lack of any argument that might ground this level of certainty is worth reflecting upon.

Not a “voyeur” exactly as presumably that involves some sort of pleasure in the viewing. This is more like motion sickness…

I’m turning off the channel. It just feels slimy watching JGY doing his lousy thing.

Well, I’ve already argued, a couple of times, that at least one of the premises of the original argument (Premise #13) is false. That makes the argument unsound. That means the argument doesn’t secure the conclusion.

And Mr. Gilson has argued that the argument is incoherent on its face. For example, we could paraphrase the conclusion as “Therefore, an action that is inherently harmful to the child’s interests (by eliminating all grounds for interests) is in the child’s best interests.”

I think these points have been brought out pretty well by now. So I suppose I’m checking out of the discussion; anything I have to say would just be a repetition of points already made. Best to all, cp

Mr. Gilson has specified neither why these premises are inadequate for that purpose, nor why these premises themselves constitute a “version of theism” contrary to evangelical belief.

I have indeed specified why your premises are inadequate to describe any relevant form of theism. Other than a mis-directed answer in #53, you ignored that specification (repeatedly), choosing instead to offer irrelevant “remedial” instruction on valid forms of argument. It’s ironic that now after all the correction you offer me on my supposed errors in argumentative form, you tell me the form I should followed was to specify some error in your version of theism—which is exactly what I did.

Now, do you have a counter-argument to that specification (I’ll let you find it for yourself, it should be easy enough)? If so, by all means tell us what it is. Or do you prefer just to rely on the power of repetition to convince yourself I have not supplied one?

Despite nearly everyone’s assertions that abortion is morally wrong/sinful/contrary to God’s will/etc., the argument itself does not claim anything to the contrary.

Sure. That’s because you stopped at #14 instead of the obvious conclusion #15, which for some reason you chose to leave hanging. For some reason you think you have the power to decree that the argument stops at #14, and “shame on you” to everyone who sees an implication following #14. I asked you this morning whether you think any moral implications follow from #14. I ask again: do you think your conclusion #14 implies anything at all with respect to the morality of abortion?

While I agree that this is an interesting question, it’s generally only of interest if it is in fact true that abortion is in the interest of the unborn.

Coy.

How any of these things questions about JGY are relevant to assessing the actual argument of #48 (i.e., whether the argument itself secures its conclusion) has never been explained.

Neither has it ever been explained why it is so shameful to discuss what may be implied beyond #14. You have only decreed it so.

TUAD: What do I feel like watching this? I won’t say, but it’s not pleasant.

Do you feel like a voyeur when watching JGY commit intellectual onanism?

Despite Mr. Gilson’s oft-repeated claim that the argument relies on a “version of theism” not acceptable in evangelical circles, he has shown nothing of the kind. The claim of the argument is that it secures its conclusion simply from the premises it explicitly lists–and Mr. Gilson has specified neither why these premises are inadequate for that purpose, nor why these premises themselves constitute a “version of theism” contrary to evangelical belief.

Despite nearly everyone’s assertions that abortion is morally wrong/sinful/contrary to God’s will/etc., the argument itself does not claim anything to the contrary. That is, for all the arguments says, assumes or asserts, abortion may still be morally wrong (and something we ought, at least in certain ways, to oppose), and perhaps even for the very reasons that Craig Payne himself helps to articulates:

Someone actually has to commit the action. If it is a wrongful action–even if wrongful based on “other reasons”–someone, then, is committing a sin. So Christians should oppose abortion regardless of the “in the best interests of the unborn” argument.

As I’ve pointed out:

Abortion in particular may be wrong because it involves murder, because it violates God’s commands, because it conflicts with God’s design for ourselves and other human beings.

Many people here, however, are eager to rush ahead, wondering what further things might be argued if abortion is in the interests of the unborn. While I agree that this is an interesting question, it’s generally only of interest if it is in fact true that abortion is in the interest of the unborn. Therefore, I encourage these people to focus on the argument for that more circumscribed conclusion first.

Other people perhaps want to use the method of reductio ad absurdum, using the premise that the abortion is morally wrong (or that it is not something we should promote, etc.) to show that any argument that contradicts this conclusion must be unsound. While that’s a fine method of argumentation, and I respect it, it requires a good deal of further argumentation: in particular, it requires a demonstration that the conclusion of argument #48 actually does entail these further claims that contradict the premise about the moral wrongness of abortion, or etc. Contrary to Mr. Gilson’s suggestion, it doesn’t suffice to merely point out that the interests of the unborn are “a moral consideration.” Surely they are a moral consideration, but the question is whether they are a decisive moral consideration in drawing these further conclusion about the moral wrongness of abortion, or etc. Mr. Payne seems to optimistic about this further project, maintaining the plausibility of the following premise:

“Christians should do, as much as possible, what is in others’ eternal interest.

On a straightforward interpretation, Payne’s premise here is highly dubious. It reminds us of the familiar “consequentialist” lines of thinking that presuppose that decisions about what we ought to do should/can be determined simply by what the consequences of these actions happen to be. This of course is a dubious idea (as has been explored in the vast philosophical literature that’s critical of consequentialism)–and it should be especially dubious for many evangelical Christians who have plenty of alternative standards by which to assess actions.

Finally, there are still other people that are simply interested in JGY’s personal motives for presenting this argument, and JGY’s personal beliefs regarding the larger questions surrounding abortion: Does JGY think abortion is immoral?; Does JGY think we should oppose it politically?; what darker motives might be motivating JGY to present such a troubling argument?, etc., etc. How any of these things questions about JGY are relevant to assessing the actual argument of #48 (i.e., whether the argument itself secures its conclusion) has never been explained. These people seem to want to change the subject–and understandably so, since they appear able neither to produce a sound objection to the argument nor to accept its conclusion!

As for the interest in the circumscribed conclusion itself, we can say the following. If the argument is sound, then:

(1) abortion is in the interest of the unborn.

(2) Since abortion is actually in the interest of its putative “victim,” it is unlike the other immoral acts on Appiah’s list. More than being simply a “victimless crime,” it actually works out to benefit its most direct “victim.”

(3) Pro-lifers are deluded whenever they represent themselves as acting on behalf of the unborn in their opposition to abortion.

(4) The fact that abortion is in the interest of the unborn may be of some value in comforting mothers who have had an abortion, or in comforting fathers who have lost a child in this way.

We could probably go on. But, as I say, these are things we can explore after we assess whether the argument of #48 actually secures the conclusion that abortion is in the interest of the unborn. For a focused, orderly discussion, more self-discipline on this point would be very helpful.

It appears that neo-natal technology will soon be able to tell us the sexual orientation of babies while their still in the womb. The technology’s maybe a decade or so away.

So I have a proposal.

1) We know that gays go to hell for committing gay sex.

2) We know that aborted babies go to heaven because they haven’t had a chance to sin.

3) Ergo, all gay babies should be aborted.

Does that work for everyone? JGY?

Dear Steve,

It seems unlikely that JGY would claim to be a Christian and an evangelical. On this First Things post The Atheist Gives Us Nothing JGY writes in the first comment:

“Is it possible that Eco is being reasonable in rejecting the Christian faith? Is there room in this life for well-informed, reasonable disagreement regarding the existence of God?”

Furthermore, down the list of comments, we are informed of the following: “That’s probably the main reason I love JGY. strident gay activists ftw.”

More importantly, given JGY’s continual discussion on another person’s best interest, then let’s discuss that it is in the best interest of JGY to repent of his sins, and to believe and actively trust Jesus Christ as his Savior and Lord. And if JGY is actively gay, then its also in his best interest to repent of his active gay sin, and to fully surrender himself to the Holy Spirit.

P.S. Thank you Steve Drake for your kind “Bingo!” comment.

P.P.S. Thank you Sean for your comments on the First Things post.