Posted on 06/30/2015 11:20:24 PM PDT by kathsua
Don’t you hate it when your honest clarification question is mistaken for the start of a fallacious argument? Almost every time in the last year I’ve talked with pro-choice students at a pro-life outreach, I’ve had an exchange that goes something like this:
Pro-Choice Student: The fetus isn’t even a person.
Tim: We agreed earlier that a newborn is a person. Do you think a fetus is a person right before birth?
Pro-Choice Student: *sigh* I know where you’re going with this, you’re going to try to trap me by asking if it’s a person right before that, or right before that.
Tim: No! I’m so glad you said that because that gives me the opportunity to clarify. The argument you’re describing is a logical fallacy, it’s one of the worst pro-life arguments I’ve ever heard, and if any pro-lifer out here makes that argument, I’ll prove them wrong on your behalf. I’m not trying to trap you, I’m just trying to figure out what your position is. What is it that makes us persons?
Unfortunately, because of how common this pro-life mistake is, the pro-choice student is expecting our conversation to go something like this:
Pro-Choice: The fetus isn’t a person.
Pro-Life: When do you think it becomes a person?
C: It isn’t a person until it can think.
L: So would you say it’s a person at birth?
C: Sure, it can think at birth.
L: Well, how about the day before it’s born?
C: I don’t know, maybe.
L: How about the day before that?
C: I think I see where this is going…
L: And how about the day before that? You just have to push back a little at a time to prove that there isn’t a difference between a newborn and a fetus. If the newborn is human, and there isn’t any big change in any day of its development, then it must have been human at the beginning.
C: Well I think there’s a big difference between the day it can think and the day before that.
L: Okay, then let’s talk about the day it can think. How about one second before that? The difference in the fetus from second to second is miniscule. So how can you say it is not human one second and human the next?
C: I don’t know how to explain it but I’m not persuaded.
While making what sounds to some pro-life ears like a very persuasive and reasonable argument, the pro-life person in this example has fallen into a logical fallacy called the Continuum Fallacy, more commonly known as the fallacy of the heap or the fallacy of the beard. This fallacy takes place when you attempt to demonstrate that two states cannot be distinct because there is a continuum of states between them.
That might be confusing. Stay with me, I’ll explain with a very easy-to-understand example.
In my opinion, the easiest way to understand why a type of reasoning is fallacious is to see that reasoning applied to something more obvious, and then see the consequences. Let’s apply the same continuum reasoning to President Lincoln’s beard:
lincoln
Beard Believer: Lincoln obviously has a beard.
Beard Skeptic: Oh really?! When do you think a beard becomes a beard?
Beard Believer: I’m not sure. Certainly it’s a beard when it’s an inch long.
Beard Skeptic: Well, what if he expertly trimmed his beard down by one millimeter? Would he still be furry enough to qualify as “bearded?”
Beard Believer: Yeah, sure, I guess.
Beard Skeptic: What about one more millimeter?
Beard Believer: Yeah…
Beard Skeptic: And what about one more millimeter?
Beard Believer: I think I know where you’re going with this…
Beard Skeptic: And one more millimeter after that? What if he’s down to stubble? What if we remove the stubble and now he’s clean-shaven? Unless you can clearly delineate the exact moment Lincoln no longer has a beard, and give an argument for why that moment is not simply arbitrarily chosen, we must conclude that there is NO difference between Lincoln’s beard in this picture and a clean-shaven woman! Therefore if Lincoln has a beard, EVERYONE, MAN OR WOMAN, HAS A BEARD!!!
Click here to sign up for daily pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com
If you aren’t familiar with the continuum fallacy, it’s awfully hard to argue with the skeptic’s conclusion. But of course we know that Lincoln has a beard and we know that if someone is clean-shaven, they don’t have a beard. We know that even if we aren’t sure exactly how much facial hair one must have in order to qualify as having a beard, we generally know one when we see it. Just because there are some cases when it isn’t obvious whether a given person is bearded, that doesn’t mean we cannot ever recognize the difference between a bearded person and a non-bearded person.
Similarly, it doesn’t follow that because a pro-choice person cannot determine where the dividing line is between a valuable human infant and (in her mind) a non-valuable human zygote, that does not mean that there isn’t a difference. I don’t think there is a morally relevant difference between the two; I just don’t believe that can be demonstrated by asking “what about one second before that?” over and over. I agree with the conclusion of this pro-life argument, but this isn’t a logical way to get to the conclusion.
You might be wondering, “does anyone even make that illogical argument?” The answer is yes. I’ve heard it from many pro-life people, I’ve seen it in pro-life blog posts, and I’ve even seen it in at least one Christian pro-life movie. It’s especially common for pro-life people to turn to this argument when they feel stuck, like the argument is a safety net. I don’t want to name names or call anyone out, because the pro-life movement doesn’t need more division. But we do need to stop making this bad argument.
You might be thinking, “but come on, it is totally fair to call the pro-choice person to task if they can’t explain the difference between a human you can kill and a human you can’t!” And I agree!
This fallacious pro-life argument is driven by a question that is perfectly fair to ask IF it is used in the context of shifting the burden of proof. Let’s return to Lincoln’s beard for a moment. Suppose someone were to say that she thought that it was morally justified to kill anyone with a beard. Suppose then that they refused to give any kind of explanation for when someone has a beard and when they don’t. That would be a big problem! If you’re going to advocate for the right to kill a group of humans, it seems reasonable to expect you to be pretty clear about which humans are in that group.
The fact that there is a continuum between two states does not necessitate that there is no difference between the two states. But if you are going to claim that someone on one side of the continuum has the right to life and the person on the other side of the continuum does not, it is reasonable to demand some explanation.
The pro-lifer should ask what the difference is, and point out how odd it is that a woman can legally kill her third-trimester unborn just days before it is born, and how it doesn’t seem like there is a relevant difference between the third trimester unborn and the newborn. But he must not erroneously claim that there cannot possibly be a difference simply because there is a continuum of states between the two. And if you recognize that a pro-choice person thinks you’re making this mistake, clarify what you really mean, and that you wouldn’t use such poor reasoning.
LifeNews Note: This post originally appeared at the Equal Rights Institute blog. Click here to subscribe via email and get exclusive access to a FREE MP3 of Josh Brahm’s speech, “Nine Faulty Pro-Life Arguments and Tactics.”
That is very common on this and all issues.
The way we resolve this and other disputes is in the judicial system.
But some don't want to accept the court's decision.
Really hammered a Pro-Choice friend a couple months ago. We were at his Mom’s house, and he had just given his 5 year old niece a piano lesson. We were watching her practice “Twinkle Twinkle Little Star.” I pointed at her and asked him if he still believed in abortion. He looked like a deer in the headlights! He couldn’t answer! Ha!
There is another angle to “continuum”... perhaps this aligns with narrowing the definitions:
I think of the time of birth to be the time that it is because after that, on average, babies would be too large to be born without the mother and/or baby dying.
With that being the case, abortion prior to birth is then based on arbitrariness - the baby is small versus big relative to natural birth.
So, determining when to have “abortion”, I logically want to use a non arbitrary time. That time, the time when it is night and day whether it is morally sound, is the moment cells multiply. Before that, life is not occurring, after that it is. Well after that the fetus is merely larger.
Pro-aborts argue the fetus doesn’t intrinsically deserve the legal right to live — which unfortunately is true.
I do not see what the supposed logical fallacy of the continuum is.
There is a problem with using a criterion such as when someone can think as the dividing line between when it is okay to kill that person and when it isn’t. What is meant by “think”? Babies certainly do not display much of a thought process, and some people arguably do not ever learn to think. There are pro-aborts who use various milestones of brain development as their “cut-off” for when it is okay to kill a kid—including milestones that do not happen until about age 4-1/2 to 5 years. One could even push the cut-off between okay and not okay to kill to age 25—that is when the brain finally reaches maturity and is no longer developing.
I would push for the existence of awareness, regardless of how developed the brain is. The brain forms between 2 and 5 weeks after conception. It has no on-off switch: as soon as cells differentiate into being brain cells, they function as brain cells. They sense stimuli exterior to the body, they make neural connections, they sense and guide bodily processes. Those various brain activities together form the awareness of being alive. So, after sometime between weeks 2 and 5 after conception, the baby is quite aware and capable of feeling the pain of abortion.
You do not need to bring philosophy to pro-abort/pro-life debates (unless you are looking for a philosophical “loophole” that makes it okay to kill). The science of embryonic development tells us very clearly that an unborn baby is alive and aware.
You cannot settle an argument with an insane person. And it is folly to engage one in rational debate.
Abortion types call it a sacrament for a reason. That reason is not only to upset Christians. They call it that because to them, it is. You don’t discuss or debate that. All that accomplishes is giving them the power and authority to spread their faith and bring other insane people to rally to their cause.
Stop for a second and use the reductionist view.
You have a baby and you have people that want to kill it. Thats the bottom line when all the flowery and not so flowery language is stopped from clouding the issue.
It’s a baby. It is never going to be anything but a live baby or a dead baby. At any stage of development it is human life.
It does not matter an iota what pro death types think. It does not matter what they say. The above statement simply ‘is’. Like water IS wet. It’s not a debatable topic. It simply ‘is’.
WE are to blame for allowing any other point to be made by our side of this. We have spent decades trying to discuss and debate and find new and exciting ways to say the same words the death cult rejects every time. Folks, you are good people but see reality here. They D O - N O T - C A R E.
No words, now reason, no logic will get through to Abortion inc. They are a collective mindset. Recognize you are dealing with insane people and deal with them accordingly.
You are not going to get Charles Manson to change. Ted Bundy would not change. They are what they are. They just didn’t bring their victims to a semi medical clinic to off them. Think about Pro Aborts in those terms. Because they are an accurate reflection of what these people actually are and are doing.
You do not ‘discuss’ with that.
I go to the DNA of the zygote and ask if it is identifiable as a unique individual human being.
Incorrect. There is a continuum of fertilization: beginning, middle and complete. There are no instant state changes in the world.
There is no such moment. There is a start (single cell), and finish (two cells) and a continuum in between.
I agree. Life has got to have some essence and awareness and autonomy are a good definition.
We are correct but logic won't persuade the lefties.
I’m not searching for the perfect moment, just a better one.
With the premise “abortion is AOK”, I’m asking when is a good turning point before which it is AOK and after which it is not AOK. The initial cell division works a lot better (for me) than birth, which is just a matter of relative size of baby versus birth canal.
I puked when I saw the details, which I sought out for myself. Don’t regret doing that at all.
bfl
Probably because courts are sometimes unjust and immoral.
Indeed. As a scientist, I have grown countless millions of human cells in the lab. They are undeniably alive, and every bit of their DNA is human. Given the right stimuli, they could even become embryos. Despite the fact that they are indisputably human, alive, and have the potential to become embryos, killing them does not constitute killing human beings. That is because those cells have no central nervous system that makes them aware of being alive. Scientifically, there is no difference in "human being" vs. "not human being" other than the presence of a functional nervous system.
Huh? You are taking the pro-abortion position.
And that is why any pro-lifer engaged in a debate over abortion should stay away from discussing philosophy. Philosophy is a wishy-washy subject that anyone can use to justify any point of view.
Pro-aborts know that abortion kills a human being. That is why they push debates into discussions of philosophy rather than of science or morality. Pro-lifers should avoid falling into that trap.
Instead of falling for the philosophical discussion, pro-lifers should be putting pro-aborts on the defensive. Obviously, pro-aborts choose some arbitrary point at which they will concede that a baby is human because they have fallen for the line that the totality of women's rights is contained within the "right" to abortion. They consider the use of contraception (which requires a bit of forethought) as infringing on their right to have spontaneous sex any time they feel in the mood. By philosophically choosing arbitrary measures of humanity, they can go ahead and use abortion as primary birth control without feeling guilty about killing their babies.
There is a lot of stigma surrounding abortion; pro-aborts are now engaging in campaigns to attempt to reduce the stigma. Keep hammering them on the science, and they will keep feeling the pressure of stigma. If destroying human life doesn't bother them, being shunned does.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.