Whenever I argue a position I tried to use proper categories. These would be like terms that are commonly used by either the side I take or by all parties involved. This would be necessary since I want to ensure clarity and understanding concerning the arguments that are made. The critic today is one who seems to agree with me that abortions are wrong, and I think, although we never got into it, that he is a Christian. However, he wished to change the word in the discussion of the prolife/prochoice debate from personhood, which has intrinsic value, to "human being" wishing to make this discussion about biology rather than the intrinsic worth of self-identity.
His claim is that he is appealing to "Semantics" to make his argument, and tries to accuse me of muffling the conversation up. He thinks he is giving into proper communication, when, in fact, he's doing the opposite. For him, I am using the word "critic" or "skeptic" under the categorical heading loosely, only to refer to his criticisms regarding the proper terms used in this discussion. His name is "Rick", and his words will be in red, while mine will be in black. I will offer my overall conclusion (which will be in blue) at the end of our conversation recap. What follows is that conversation we had as I commented on a Prolife/Prochoice video of a fellow Christian apologist who opposes abortions, and his replies and comments to me and my responses to him.
Me: That was good [me responding to the Prolife/Prochoice video response to an abortion advocate]. In other words, the woman's analogy is a false analogy fallacy (a fallacy in logic whereby one makes a false comparison). Also, despite what the woman said, biologists dispute what constitutes a proper definition of "life" but all agree that life begins at conception. This would also be a red herring because the issue is not when life begins, which is indisputable, but if the fetus is a person, and rather the right to life extends to that fetus, because he/she also is considered a person who has an unalienable right (a God-given right that cannot be taken away) to life. All scientists would, at least, agree that life begins at conception, and that life is human (taking into account that it took human cells and DNA to create the fetus). Haeckel's "embryonic" or "biogenic law" was disproven as fakes over a hundred years ago, but were used by abortion clinics to support the idea that the fetus wasn't human, but this is false. The fetus is human, and living, at the moment of conception. This is beyond dispute. Awesome video. Blessings!
Rick [replying to my initial post on YouTube]: Greg has stated in the past that ‘person’ isn’t a good word choice. First, it’s a legal term and therefore subject to arbitrary definition by politicians. Second, it implies sentience. That criterion would remove protection during at least the first few months of gestation and possibly long after birth, depending on the whims of the psychology Establishment. So the better term is ‘human being’.
Me: No, person, although heavily disputed, is the the proper term used in prolife/prochoice debates. The issue is over personhood. I don't know who "Greg" is, but that's an appeal to authority, and most abortion advocates, themselves, would place personhood, at least, before birth. Also, Greg is wrong about personhood. If it was based upon legal status, then, since recently in the past week they had overturned Roe VS Wade at the Supreme court level, and made it possible for states to ban abortions at the state level. Also, because of trigger laws that were already in place, half the country has already banned abortions. Would you still argue that personhood is based upon legal status? Since legal decisions change with time, it would be self-conflicting for personhood to be a given legal term, rather something that is just intrinsically true. It would no longer be something absolute. Furthermore, I would argue that the term "human being" and personhood is often used synonymously in the prolife/prochoice debate, so it does not matter which term you use. At any rate, the reason that personhood of the unborn is so disputed in these discussions is because the abortion advocates are trying to justify abortions, and prolife advocates are trying to show that personhood begins at conception, therefore making an abortion the same as murder. I would argue that the term "person" is a philosophical term, but not a biological nor legal status. It has more to do with a state of being than it has to do with biological development or because the law grants it as such. However, all of the things I have on this discussion uses the term "persons" to describe the issues that are involved, so I am not sure why you think this term is irrelevant to this debate. Thank for the reply. Blessings!
Rick: I think you misunderstand several points. I mentioned Greg only as the source. If I were arguing from authority, I would merely have made the claim without explanation. Red Pen Logic is an outreach of Stand To Reason (STR). STR is led by Greg Koukl. His books and podcasts should be Apologetics 101 for every apologist because they teach as much about how to think and counter arguments as they do about the arguments. I apologize. I was wrong to assume you’d make the connection. My point was not that ‘person’ is a strictly legal or psychology term. I’m fine with it, myself. My point was that the usage is a barrier to convincing pro-aborts. They will use the reasons I cited to reject your claims. One goal of semantics is to present information in ways that the audience understands. (The other goal is to understand what people mean by what they say.) If the people you wish to influence are going to reject our arguments because of the terms we use, we are not doing our job as apologists.
Me: I don't think I misunderstood what you are arguing, although I am glad you don't take the position yourself, but I only misunderstood your motivation by which you are arguing your position. The "explanation" you gave was Greg's opinion, which is why it was an appeal to authority. Greg is welcomed to what he thinks, but when you present his thoughts without evidence it is an appeal to authority because it gives no bases for why Greg's thoughts on the matter should be taken as true. What you were ultimately claiming is that Greg's thoughts about the use of the term "person" in the prolife/prochoice debates, and in the process, assumes its infallibility. I don't know this Greg person, but if he is connected to apologetics and knows about philosophy, I'm not so sure that he would argued the same way.
I am subscribed to Red Pen Logic, but this doesn't mean I agree with everything he believes. Christian apologists disagree with each other all of the time. I agree we should communicate our position with clarity, but this does not mean we should embrace the other person's presuppositions. Also, if someone is involved in this discussion then they would be familiar with the issue of personhood. This is heavily discussed in this debate. The fact that people dispute the very thing that is being disputed is no cause for a change in language, especially if the person understands the issues involved. What they reject is that personhood starts at conception, and I reject their claim of the opposite. Should they adopt my language to convince me? We don't win debates and discussions by embracing the views of the other side. That's not a victory. You accomplished this by demonstrating that a person begins at conception. If they want to argue differently, they would have to demonstrate accordingly. Their reasons for rejecting this is flawed, which is my whole point. Since we live in a free country they are welcomed to cite a bad argument if they want to, but it is not going to change the situation any. At the end of the day it's still a bad argument.
Semantics is good for clarifying positions, but one must be careful to not appeal to it in the form of an argument. Why would a pro-abortion advocate reject our position because of the use of the term person? They don't dispute the definition as much as they dispute at what point this term can be applied. You seem to want to use their language, which is based upon their presuppositions of what they think is true, to convince them that the opposite is right, because they reject the concept, as we state it to be, exist as such. I don't agree with this method (see Proverbs 26:4 & 5). Rather, I believe in stating issues as they are, use relevant points and evidence, as well as good reasoning, to support my conclusions. We are going to dispute the nature of personhood because that is, ultimately, the essence of this debate with them, but this does not mean I should changed the issue that is being discussed to their flawed reasoning. I want to reason correctly, and I hope you do to. Thanks for clarifying some points. Blessings!
Rick: As I said, I cited Greg Koukl as a source, not an authority. My intent is relevant and outweighs your definition. I may have succeeded too well in being concise, but I did present evidence rather than merely making a claim. I’m sorry you can’t see it from my point of view (a skill you learn by studying semantics). Semantics is a tool, not a standard to which one appeals. It is a tool that one uses when following the #1 rule of persuasion: Consider your audience. It is the study of the meanings behind words — not in the dictionary or in your own mind, but in the mind of your audience. An apologist is a communicator, and communication will fail if his audience stumbles over his word choices. In electronics, such sequences and their meanings are called protocols. If a sender does not comply with the receiver’s protocols, communication will fail. How do you like it when people change the subject on you? The word “person” is fine when discussing personhood. When discussing another subject, such as what gives humans intrinsic value, the word introduces a second debate. When you’re rounding up worms to put them back in one can, it’s a tactical error to open up a second. I strongly recommend Greg Koukl’s book, Tactics. It addresses a gap that no other author addresses in apologetics. It’s strange to me that someone would claim the pseudonym of Apologetics 101 and not be familiar with his ministry.
Me: I'm not sure why you think Greg Koukl, as you called him, is so essential to Apologetics that one has to know who he is like he's the next Ravi Zacharias or something, but Christian apologetics is not about lifting other apologists, or other people up, outside of Jesus. You don't sound like a Christian apologist. If you were, you should've known that. Christian apologetics is about defending the faith of Christianity from attacks, both from without and from within, and in accordance to the apostolic command of Peter the Apostle (1 Peter 3:15). It is about incorporating the gospel while responding to critics of the faith. I know who Mike Licona, William Lane Craig, and other great apologists are, but rather I am a Christian apologists or not is not based upon this awareness since that's not the purpose of Christian Apologetics. Sometimes fame comes with being a Christian apologists, but that should never be our motivation. If this Greg person is for real, then he would agree with this. Fame, as an apologist, doesn't mean that one's fame provides universal awareness. I don't know this Greg person, nor have I ever heard of him until now, does that make me any less of an apologist? No, bc that's not the purpose of apologetics. I call myself "Apologetics 101" because I teach real Christian apologetics, not because I'm some kind of apologetic "groupie."
Any source you cite is always cited as an "authority." If they are not an "authority" in the area in which they are cited, then this is an "appeal to false authority" bc they don't have expertise in the area in which you are citing them in. If he does, but no evidence is provided, then you are assuming that Greg's personal opinion is infallible. You said you provided evidence, but you did not. You might know semantics, but I know evidence, and you didn't provide any. You displayed the fact that Greg claims that 1) it is a legal decision, and 2) that is based upon sentiency (sensory awareness). However, as already noted, both of these claims are false. I have already discussed the "legal thing." Laws can't institute what makes a person a "person." Sentence is what is known as a "decisive moment" and it is one of the views that some people think constitute "personhood" but this has problems as well. Rae gives the following: "As is the case with the other decisive moments, however, sentience has little inherent connection to the personhood of the fetus. It confuses the fruit of personhood with the root of it. Consciousness and sentience are some results of being a person, not the condition for being one. That is, we function in certain ways because we are being of a certain type, not the other way around. Even if not actualized, the embryo/fetus has the intrinsic capacity for consciousness and sentience from conception" (Scott B. Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, p. 147). In addition to this, it seems, the debate is over when personhood begins, not that personhood doesn't exist. All you and your Greg source stated was that abortion advocates dispute when this concept should be applied, something we already knew, but that is no charge to change our terminology, especially when they are using the same term. Besides, most philosophers would agree at least, that personhood starts at conception (Rae, p. 145), it is only the abortion advocates that disagree when this term should be applied. Your "worms-in-a-can" analogy describes what you are doing, better than me. Applied against me, it's a false analogy sense I am not throwing it different terms, nor am I trying to change definitions in the middle of a conversation. The same term is used by abortion advocates, even if they dispute when this term should be applied.
None of these decisive moments work because they all have problems with them that do not adequately answer the question when personhood begins (Rae, pp. 145-149). There is no doubt that personhood begins at conception, and a number of biblical passages agree with this (Job 3:3; Jer. 1:5; Is. 49:1: Ps. 139:13-16, etc.). However, this is the very issue that is in dispute within the prolife/prochoice debate, and this is the very reason that one should not change one's thermology when someone is discussing an issue. A better analogy than the one you made is if a Frenchman walked into a room full of English-speaking Americans and expect them to all learn and speak French because he does. That's irrational, rather, he should learn to speak English to properly communicate with everybody. If everyone is using the term "person" and "personhood" to describe the issues at hand, why should we change to use of a different term bc we can't agree on its proper application, which, if we could, there would be no debate at all? We be back where that one Frenchman wants everyone to start speaking French instead of American English. It would make no sense.
The problem here is that I don't think you have your audience in mind. If you did, the concept of discussing personhood would not alarm you since that's the term everyone is using. I'm not changing the subject on anybody. There are side issues that can irrupt from any given issue. That's the very nature of controversy. And what gives a person intrinsic value is connected to personhood, or what makes a person a person. A rock is not a person, does it also have intrinsic value? Of course not! However, persons do have intrinsic value, and we're back to the issue what constitutes a "person" with personhood? It is not a change in what is being debated, on the contrary, it is the very issue that is being debated !Believe it or not, I understand what you are getting at, and would agree, in principle, that we should use the same terms so everyone would understand what we're getting at. However, I do not see how changing the term that everyone is using to describe the issue is going to do that. Appealing to semantics is a good way to avoid issues, and make it look like everyone's on the same page when they are not, but it isn't realistic, and it may even be deceptive. I appreciate the "back and forth" but we are obviously getting nowhere with each other, so maybe we should end it here. I wish you well! Blessings!
Rick: The first paragraph of your book demonstrates that you’re not willing to do your homework. Looking up things isn’t rocket science. That’s what I would have done, and that’s what you would have done if you weren’t so busy being defensive and implying that I’m an untrustworthy liar. Or, at least, that’s what I would hope you would have done instead of depriving yourself of new sources and learning opportunities. Hopefully, maturity will fix that without the need for too many painful lessons. God brings each along in His own timing and in the ways He chooses to use them according to the unique role He assigns to each.
Me: You got all of that from my first paragraph? None of that was intended in my first paragraph. Or maybe you were sarcastically applying that to my long response? At any rate, I didn't, nor never, called you a liar, so that's a strawman. I was simply commenting on the misleading nature of one changing their terms in a discussion to make it easier to seem like they were "winning" the debate. You were not doing that with me, so I was not accusing you of that. We were having a discussion about the use of terms, so I thought we were both on the same page at least with what we were debating. I cited an ethicist regarding sentence as a decisive moment--how is that me not doing my homework? You accused me of not looking up definitions and not doing my homework, but gave me no specifics. So, it would appear that this is a baseless allegation, kind of like you assuming that I was calling you a liar when I wasn't. Rae is a new source, but he gave justified reasons, not just his personal opinions. This isn't about me not willing to learn new things--I'm certainly willing to learn new things, in fact, my ethics class just finished last week--but whether or not a particular argument is good, and whether if it works logically, but it doesn't. Not all arguments are created equal, so, of course, I am not going to take such an argument. I am quite mature, both physically and spiritually. I'm 43 years old with an Associates degree and one class away from my Bachelor of Science degree in Religion from Liberty University. I have been a Christian for over 23 years, and a Christian apologist for 19 years. My YouTube channel, itself, has been on YouTube for over a year. Maturity is not my problem, people with bad arguments are. I am hoping, with time, you will fix the problems with your arguments. I will continue to pray for you on that. In the meantime, maybe it's just better to agree to disagree. God bless!
Rick: Well, here’s another lesson in semantics: When you question the existence of a person that someone cites, you imply that you consider his word untrustworthy, which, in turn, implies that your experience allows you to classify him as a liar. I find it interesting that you were quick to label my citation of a source that I expected you to be familiar with as argument from authority; yet now you seek to establish your own. It’s amusing because, from my perspective, your resume is that of one who is young and inexperienced, yet thinks he has arrived at an unreachable goal.
Me: Obviously, your "first impression" is wrong, and unjustified, since nothing about what I have said to you so far would suggest that. No, I never implied, said, or suggested that your source didn't exist, only that I was unaware of him. I am aware that a source can exist that I'm unfamiliar with, but you seem to have a hard time recognizing the fact that I can be an apologist, and yet have a source that I'm unfamiliar with. I guarantee you anyone reading this post, including you, have sources that you might be unfamiliar with. However, you tried to challenge my status as a Christian apologist over it, which would lead me to challenging yours since that's not the role nor purpose of Christian apologetics.
In addition to that, questioning rather a source is right or not, does not mean that I am calling either you or your source a liar. That's the either/or fallacy. There is a third option, namely, you and your source are simply wrong. Being wrong isn't the same as lying about what you're saying. You and him gave your opinion about what you think, and I gave mine, but one does not have to accept another's opinion simply because one gives one. Opinions are like holes in the head, everybody's got one. However, for some reason, you seem to think that I must take your opinion, but I don't, so you start questioning everything about me bc I don't agree with you.
Thirdly, I didn't commit the appeal to authority fallacy since my authority was an authority in ethics and Rae gave evidential reason in the form of logical justification (philosophical evidence) why this particular position fails. Therefore, I wasn't assuming Rae's infallibility bc I didn't present him as the evidence but, rather, presented him as a source for the evidence. Whenever you cited your source, his reasoning was bc people had trouble agreeing on the proper nature or application of "person" or "personhood" (the thing in which was the object of the debate) that we should abandon this terminology that everyone is using. All he did was give his opinion in the form of an irrational justification. He gave no real reason why one should not use this terminology, therefore I reject both his and your reasoning, and for that, you started making personal attacks against me rather than my arguments.
My "resume" was intended to show that I am knowledgeable in these areas, so this isn't my first rodeo, but you seem to treat it as if it were. Again, sorry we couldn't agree, but | just don't think we have anything more to say to each other. Sorry, but I still don't see no justified reason to change the terminology everyone else is using. Blessings!
Rick: “First impression“? LOL! Like that was the first thing you said? LOL! Bud, this is the thing about semantics: You’re saying things you don’t even know you’re saying, and you’re too defensive to let anybody tell you otherwise. That’s a deep rut for a communicator to get trapped in. It’s unprofessional. If you’re on the spectrum, I’m sorry for being rough on you; but turning your words around and seeing them from your audience’s perspective is a critical process for an apologist to learn. And congratulations on getting as far as you have.
Me: Wow, green is not your best color. You're starting to sound petty. And you think I'm defensive? Listen, dude, you lost the debate. Consider this a learning lesson for you: don't come to this discussion without knowing the issues at hand. Prolife/Prochoice debate is not one of those discussions that you can carry your lack of knowledge about the issues on your sleeve, and try to wing it by faking like you know the issues when you don't. It's analogous to stepping into the ring with Mike Tyson and forgetting your boxing gloves.
I know you think you're teaching semantics, when the exact opposite is true. If you truly want to be a good communicator, then use the terms that everybody is already using. I'm a YEC, but I wouldn't get into a debate with Hugh Ross on the Flood, just to change the meaning of Ark. Hugh already knows what I mean by it, so changing it to something else, say the "Vessel", would make no sense to him, or to anyone else, but if I call it the Ark, everyone, regardless of what they think on it, would know exactly what I mean. Changing the meaning of words in the middle of a discussion is a specific fallacy called an equivocation fallacy. What you are doing is the exact opposite of proper communication, not in favor of it.
Maybe we need to back up for a second, and let me explain why personhood or person would be a better term than "human being." I'm not an evolutionist, of course, but evolutionists believe human beings are just animals. In the evolutionary worldview human beings are related to bananas. If you make it a matter of biology, then strictly human beings would have no intrinsic value. However, persons is not a physiological construct. It is a philosophical term. It refers to someone's state of being. This is why we can refer to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as persons although they are not human (with the exception of the Son through the Incarnation), but they have intrinsic value. Being human is not require to have intrinsic value, but the fact that someone is human, dependent on one's worldview, does not require them to have intrinsic value. However, everyone agrees that persons have intrinsic value, even if we debate the point when that someone is considered a person.
To respond to what you said to me: how could I speak a different language without knowing it. You seem to claim to be an expert in semantics, but you do not hear your own words as you say them. I gave you my credentials, now show me yours. So far, you've told me nothing to make me believe your some kind of expert in semantics, and certainly not one knowledgeable in the issues of this discussion, but yet your ego is in high gear.
How is it "unprofessional" for me to tell you what I think, especially when it involves the issues that are being discussed within a given controversy? I am seeing my words from the audience's perspective. Not a soul involved in this controversy would failed to understand what I am talking about if I bring up personhood. I think you are a bit confused. You think that "understanding your audience" means let's embraced their presuppositions, or let's change our terminology to fit it better with what the other side believes. No, that's the opposite of what we want. We want to convince them that we're right, and to get them to stop killing children. You don't do that by trying to play enough word games to make them think we all agree when we don't.
I don't know what you mean by "on the spectrum" but I am a truly saved Christian and Christian apologist who knows both how to argue his position and how to properly communicate it. You lack familiarity with the issues at hand, clearly. Listen, can you please stop responding to me now. I don't know what your problem is, but it is getting too divisive. Most people usually don't go this long in a discussion. We obviously don't see eye-to-eye on this. That's fine. You want to continue to confuse people by playing word games, go ahead, but do not expect me to argue in such an irrational fashion. Please just leave me alone, and let me be. If you want another debate on this (a rematch) make sure that you have better understanding of the issues at hand, but this conversation is getting us nowhere.
On a more positive note, I do wish you well, but you have got to tone down your aggression, and upgrade the way in which you argue. Learning some logic may help. Blessings!
Rick: Right, Mr. Perfect. Whatever you say.
Me: I will pray for you! Blessings!
My Conclusion: Rick was under the impression by changing the terms would offer more clarity in the debate and proper communication. However, the exact opposite was true. Instead of providing clarity his attempt would've muddied up the waters of the conversation by using a term that isn't common among the parties involved, especially since everyone actually agrees that human life begins at conception, thus, this was not the issue being debated by either side. The issue was over rather personhood, which always have intrinsic value, starts at conception. The law does not get to decide this. He was, falsely, under the impression that if he could change the terms in the debate, he could get everyone to agree, then there would be no debate at all, but such methods are misleading, deceptive, and non-realistic. Also, it would only further confused people who are use to certain terms being applied in the conversation.
Furthermore, he thought his use of "semantics" would improve the conversation, and add clarity. However, by changing terms that were not the proper terms use and that no one was disagreeing with, he was actually creating confusion rather than proper conversation. He was obviously getting agitated with me because I refuse to use terms that were inappropriate to the discussion at hand, but I am convinced that if you want to produce effective and proper conversations with others, especially when a highly controversial subject is involved, you don't change terms like that, nor alter the meanings of the terms and issues that are involved. If we want others to stop killing babies, then we need to stick to demonstrating the conclusions that need to be demonstrated.
Comments