Abortion Again?

Last time I mentioned abortion, I said it wasn't something I put too much effort into studying. But it seems to be a big deal and I have been thinking about it more and more.

I still don't see why I need to.
Abortion is the act of killing unborn babies. Does it need to get more complicated than that?

Apparently. The pro-choice apologetics I've heard though are really really terrible.
Maybe I'm coming in from a hard angle, I mean, I am looking to be convinced that murdering babies is OK. That's a tough sell, but for some reason a lot of people feel that way.
I even offer an alternative: show me why a foetus is somehow not human and therefore all right to dispose of.

The short of it: my position is that abortion is the murder of unborn babies. You either have to convince me that it's not murder, or it's not a baby.
So far, I'm unmoved. And if it's wrong to hold the view that murdering babies is wrong, then I don't want to be right.

I don't want to suggest that all women who have had abortions are evil. I imagine many have felt that it was the right thing to do in a certain situation. Of course there are also the numerous medical reasons for abortions to be necessary. The particular attitude I'm very much opposed to is "A baby/pregnancy would be an inconvenience to me, so I'll just abort it".
I'm aware pregnancy is no walk in the park, and childbirth even less so, but once the baby is born, if it's still unwanted, there are plenty of couples who aren't able to conceive their own who would love to adopt.

So what have I been offered in defence of baby killing?

Does Ockham's Razor Disprove The Existence Of God?

Here's another fairly common argument put forward by some atheists. On the face of it, it usually looks like one of the smarter ones too. Of course it's just another mess of nonsense. Let's take a look!

There are various ways they might put it, but it boils down to something like: For any model of the universe that includes God, a simpler one can be made for a naturalistic universe.

The way they defend it is by suggesting that there is no reason to have God somewhere in the theory of everything. Everything they study and discover in science uses natural processes, so there's no reason to assume that there is a god at any level of reality. More often than not, the atheist who is making this claim isn't actually a scientist themselves, so any discoveries they have personally found will be minimal and probably previously well documented by actual professionals.

The main defence? Ockham's Razor.

The Apologist's Guidebook

What we do:

But in your hearts honour Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defence to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behaviour in Christ may be put to shame. -- 1 Peter 3:15-16 

Misunderstanding the Moral Argument

I'm not sure what it is about fundie atheists, but many of them just don't seem to be able to grasp the Moral Argument. In a recent conversation one hit just about every mine in the field even though I was doing everything I could to steer them through safely. It's like I was saying 'two steps right' and they heard 'spin on the spot'.


I stepped in to a conversation to help clear up a few things. The atheist was speaking to a Christian who was attempting to defend the moral argument, but to me I thought the believer hadn't really got the best grasp of it himself. I think he understood it, but wasn't so great at explaining it. Whatever the case with the Christian, the atheist had no chance to get to grips with it, so I figured I'd push things in the right direction to get them both on track. It was meant to be a quick in and out, but the atheist seemed unable to grasp my clarity.

I should have taken the hints from his comments like these before getting involved...

Is this real misunderstanding or intentional dishonesty?
Anyway, here's where I came in. Take a look at this.