# Abortion....an argument I had with a Professor.



## B.J. (Jul 24, 2006)

I had to argue my position on whether or not abortion was wrong for a test grade last year in a Philosophy class on Morality and Ethics. It only had to be a page or so. Basically I just claimed that induction was the answer to the abortion debate. My professor had claimed that he had never heard a "good" argument from either camp, and he was still in the middle. The problem for him was that he claims there is no objective point in which one can define where life begins. Presummably life for him is at least evident at birth, but before that it is to slippery. So I said that life begins at conception, and that the "thing" which is now concieved is defined as human if the mother is human. He objected to my claim and asked how I know it is human. I said because in the past all concieved "things" in a human have been born and called human by any sain person. Never once has a concieved "thing" in a human womb been referred to by the doctor as "litter of puppies" or whatever. I added a silly illusration of a couple in for a check-up and the doctor walks in and says "Well, it looks like your having a hippo." No. This is absurd as I pointed out to him. Pregnancy presupposes the same species I proclaimed. So as the old cliche goes "if it ain't a baby, you ain't pregnant!" So my conclusion was if you are pregnant, and if you are human, than you have a human in your womb. If you are human and considered a life, than the human in your womb is considered a life. If it is wrong to kill (because you are a life or human) you then it is wrong to kill the life inside you because it is human. Thus, abortion is wrong by using the inductive principal. He rejected my argument and said that induction is fallicious doesnt give us certainty. I responded to him and said well science is based on induction so are you saying science is fallicious and doesnt give us certainty? Gotcha!

Anyway, looking back at my line of reasoning, which was intended to turn his worldview (atheism) on its head, I wonder if my argument follows. Any thoughts or corrections?
I realize that my conclusion of abortion being "wrong" is based on the premise that murder is wrong. That was a given going into the test I had to take.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jul 24, 2006)

Checkmate!

Though, you manifest a lot of the problems attendant to debating relativists. It is really not an exercise in logic and common-sense with them, but rhetoric. People that have no appreciation for the truth, won't be persuaded by the truth.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jul 24, 2006)

> I responded to him and said well science is based on induction so are you saying science is fallicious and doesnt give us certainty?



Best part by far!!


----------



## Vytautas (Jul 24, 2006)

I think this is your argument:

1.	Life begins at conception. 
2.	That the "thing" which is now conceived is defined as human if the mother is human.
3.	[from 2] If you are pregnant, and if you are human, than you have a human in your womb.
4.	[from 3 and 1] If you are human and considered a life, than the human in your womb is considered a life.
5.	If it is wrong to kill you then it is wrong to kill the life inside you because it is human. 
6.	Thus, abortion is wrong.

This argument does not rely on induction. You might object that the "œthing" is human must be proved by induction. However, a definition does not need to be proved by induction because it is true by definition. For example, a bachelor is un-married. Do you need to ask bachelors if they are married? Of course not because it is the way you define your term. Thus, induction is not needed in this particular case.


----------



## B.J. (Jul 24, 2006)

I guess the part I meant to be inductive was the reference to the "thing" in the womb not being anything other than human (for instance, a litter of puppies), because in the past inexperiences of childbearing we have yet to see anything other than a human manifest itself from the womb of a human mother. Thanks for formulating my muddled argument.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Jul 24, 2006)

The zygote is a member of the homo sapien species. It is a unique genetic being, and the prenatal being's parents are human. It is human. 1+1=2. There ya go. But of course we all know of so many human non-persons out there! 

[Edited on 7-25-2006 by caleb_woodrow]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jul 25, 2006)

I was thinking "induction" as in "inducing birth"  Which would follow also. You induce to deliver at anytime and whatever comes out will still be human. My sixth child had to be deliver, albeit dead, at an early date of almost 5mos. Though he was not fully developed, he was obviously human.


----------



## MW (Jul 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by B.J._
> I responded to him and said well science is based on induction so are you saying science is fallicious and doesnt give us certainty? Gotcha!



An induction in logic is not the same as an induction in science. In logic it only applies to the formal shape of the argument. In science it pertains to the classification of data to arrive at "probable" conclusions.

If B is a subset of A, by proving A you can establish B. That is OK.
If B is a subset of A, by proving B you do not establish A, because B might also be a subset of C.


----------



## SRoper (Jul 26, 2006)

Furthermore, it should not be confused with mathematical induction which is a valid form of proof.

x[1]
x[n+1]
therefore x[n], where n is a natural number

[Edited on 26-Jul-2006 by SRoper]


----------

