For this months article I thought that I'd go over an interesting refutation to those who think that it's ok for a woman to abort her unborn child. Now before we begin let me just say that if you have had an abortion please know that although yes abortion is murder this doesn't mean that God won't forgive you, because he will, if you come to him in repentance and place your trust in Jesus alone for salvation. With all that said let's get started.
"Comedian" Dave Chappelle starts his premise as he is not for or against abortion, it all depends on who he gets pregnant. This is an obvious hypocritical stance to which the audience laughs at it's absurdity.
He then goes on to say that if you have a D*** you need to shut the **** up on this one! The right to choose is the unequivocal right of women, and that she only needs to consult a physician before she exercises that right. He then says that is Fair. What the audience doesn't realize is that Chappelle is baiting them to support a position that he is getting ready to demolish.
He then goes on to say, and ladies to be fair to us, if the women decides to have the baby, the man shouldn't have to pay. That's fair. Wood elaborates that since the woman doesn't have to consult the man on whether to keep the baby or not then she bears the sole responsibility for her decision.
To those who raise the objection that it's not the same since the woman makes the decision while the baby is in the womb and the man may make his when the child is born. Please note that a man may make the decision to not support the baby while it's still in the womb. Chappelle argues that if woman have the right to kill their child then he has the right to at least abandon it.
The formula that we as pro-lifers can use from this line of argumentation is as follows:
Premise 1: If a woman has the right to kill her unborn child, then a man has the right to abandon his unborn child.
Premise 2: (many pro-choicers would take this stance) a man does not have the right to abandon his unborn child.
Conclusion: A woman doesn't have the right to kill her unborn child.
The logical form here is called Modus Tollens, the mode of denying.
1: If A, then B
2:Not B.
3:Not A.
How does Dave support Premise 1 "It's my money, my choice". An obvious spin-off of the mantra it's my body my choice, which is tough-ted as the pro-choicers # 1 slogan. The beauty of this line of argumentation is that pro-choicers cannot refute my money my choice aka premise 1 without self destructing, because it has the same moral principle as my body my choice. (saving that it's scientifically not her body that she is killing and that a baby could always get adopted if the father doesn't provide). So since they already believe premise 2 and have to grant premise 1, then it logically follows that premise 3 (a woman doesn't have the right to kill her baby) is correct.
David Wood doesn't suppose that Chappelle is actually for the dirt-bag position of men not taking care of their children because he ends with this "If I'm wrong, then perhaps we're wrong. Figure that... out for yourselves".
There are 2 ways of being consistent in this position either by being for #1 or for #2.
#1 Woman have the right to kill their babies, and men have the right to abandon them.
#2 Woman don't have that right, nor do the men have the right to abandon them.
There are also 2 inconsistent positions one can take.
#1 Men have the right to abandon their babies, but women can't abort them.
#2 Men can't abandon their babies, but women can abort them.
This all goes back around to when Chappelle made the comment it all depends who i get pregnant. The audience laughs because it's such an absurd claim, yet this is the same hypocritical stance of the 2 inconsistent positions stated above.
Reference: Acts 17 Apologetics youtube channel : Dave Chappelle Slams Abortion! (Sticks and Stones) Foul language Warning.
No comments:
Post a Comment