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.”
All false.
A functioning nervous system is NOT the essence of a “human being,” any more than an arm or a leg. A functioning nervous system is a bodily system that comes into existence at a certain stage of development. The BEING that is developing exists BEFORE the nervous system comes into being.
Any cell that you ever grew, which was of such nature that, IF NOT DELIBERATELY DESTROYED, it would have grown into a baby, WAS A HUMAN BEING.
A cell may be human, but if it is not a cell which, if not deliberately destroyed, would grow into a baby, it is not a human being.
A very good opener. Connecting the abortionist with the Margaret Sangers and Kermit Gosnells of the world disrupts the flimsy worldview underpinning the belief systems of the minimally moral. They're forced to consider how easily apparently "nice people" become Nazis. Especially since selecting out for destruction or survival the pre-born based on genetic testing immediately after conception is already underway.
I've seen "viability," as an argument for determining when a life deserves protection, gradually give way to "quality of life issues" becoming the gauge.
Helping a "choice" supporter see infanticide for what it is: a sacrifice offered to "Quality of Life" and not really different than infant sacrifice, as cold as exposing infants at birth, really seems hits home with those who are reachable.
The only pro-life argument I make is one that I can validate.
I am glad that I am alive and that the women who was pregnant with me did not murder me and instead carried me to term and allowed me to be adopted.
Pro-choicers hate me when I say that....... But it is not possible for them to refute it.........
Don't debate abortion, simply quote John Brown to the child murderers and leave it at that.
John Brown was a violent terrorist but he was indisputably prophetic when he stated: "I am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood."
When the end comes, they may remember John Brown's words and repent before it's too late.
Agree completely. I have stayed largely off the pro life threads for one reason. Pro lifers have no desire to fight. They want to discuss and debate with these pieces of human garbage when they should be taking the metaphorical gloves off.
When ‘we’ subclassify a baby as a zygote/blasticocyre/insert sci definition here, we devalue the humanity of the person totally. It’s a baby. It’s a human. Period.
If we are good with devaluing people ourselves how are we supposed to make any argument to anyone? If we can be good with subclassification, then lets subclasify the disabled. At what level are pro lifers OK with killing them? Parapalegia? Quad? IQ under 50? 40? 30? 20?
How about Jews? Can we subclassify them too? Didn’t work out well the last time it was tried. So why then should we concede ANT part of humanity?
Just say no. It’s a simple word really. Two letters. Rolls off the tongue with little difficulty. So say it.
“No. You arent going to define the argument on womens rights because the right of the individual human trumps the right od a made up ‘group’. No one speaks for ‘women’ or their ‘rights’. Individual women speak for their own. Since a baby cannot communicate as we can, we speak for them UNTIL they can.”
No, you aren’t going to shut us up and spread your crap unobstructed.
No you arent going to define the narrative because a baby is not a narrative. It’s a baby. Thus it is a human.
No, I am not going to be cowed for calling you what you are.
It’s simple. Now we can fight with words today or fight with more when the ‘bioethicists’ redefine you all personally and subclassify you into a death sentence.
But fighting is going to happen. Accept it and get started.
Consider this, and then tell me if you still think your argument is true.....
I am assuming that we both agree that murder (killing an innocent human) is wrong. Our difference lies on when we consider the human to have begun. We consider insects to have 4 stages of life: the egg, the larvae, the pupa, the adult. We consider this mass of cells to be a living insect during all 4 stages. How is it that insect life stages are all life, whereas you consider human life stages to not all be life. A human zygote, you say is not life, yet an insect larvae is alive. Do you have more respect for insect life than human life? It would seem so.
Destroy an arm or leg, and the human being still exists. Destroy the nervous system, and the human being is gone--even if the rest of the body can function on a respirator for a time.
Or, to put it another way, any organ can be transplanted into a person, and that person will remain the same fundamental person he/she always has been. But if a brain transplant were to take place, the essence of the person would be the person from which the brain came, not the body into which the brain was transplanted.
A cell may be human, but if it is not a cell which, if not deliberately destroyed, would grow into a baby, it is not a human being
*Any* human cell has the ability to grow into an embryo, given the right set of chemical signals. The chemical signals that drive the development of an embryo aren't even present in all products of conception. Only about 10-15% of fertilizations survive until birth (in the absence of abortion).
This is why I dislike philosophical measures of when it is or is not okay to kill. You can choose any arbitrary point if you avoid objective science, and then the pro-abort/pro-life debate devolves into an argument over which arbitrary point is superior. OTOH, the presence of awareness is something that can be objectively determined based on the status of development.
——even if the rest of the body can function on a respirator for a time.-——
Heresy........ antiTerry statement
It’s another example of how useless Logic in most circumstances.
“I am pro-life. The opposite view is not pro-”choice” but pro-death.”
That’s the argument I use with my pro abortion friends. I tell them I am pro choice and with that I choose life. If you are against life, therefore you must be pro death. They flip out.
The left plays games with words to fit their agenda. We sit back and take it. Fight back. Ads, billboards, commercials, anything to coopt the “pro-choice”narrative to mean we choose life.
There is nothing between life and death. You either support the life of a child or you don’t. Isn’t difficult. Just be prepared to face the, “this isn’t about the baby, it’s about the mother” argument.
I wouldn’t use murder to make the point. If you say that abortion is the ultimate child abuse, you can make a better point. You trap them into asking for an explanation.
Describe in detail the drill, burn and dismemberment procedure and ask: “would you treat any vegetable, animal or mineral in such a manner”. the trap is set. If the answer is yes, you are dealing with a depraved mind not seen since Nazi Germany. If the answer no, you have your entry.
What you said.
Classic liberalism includes liberal economic aspects -- no government. But do leftists like that? No
I don’t think ‘if’ comes into this and thats really my entire point in these rants.
And please don’t take this as a personal assault as it isn’t intended as one...I’m just in rant mode.
-IF- we are dealing with a depraved mind? IF? WTF is POSSIBLY more depraved than someone wanting to murder a child so they can buy a new car or so their/wifes or girlfriend’s body remains attractive as a ‘depository’ for Teh SexitimeZ?
Because ultimately/reductionism, thats what it’s all about. ‘I don’t wanna deal with my happy getting harshed. So I’ll kill my problem. Or rather, have someone else who gets of on murder for hire do it for me.’
Pretty depraved from step 1.
Just ask the salient question:
“You don’t know when a fetus becomes a unique person. Are you willing to take the risk of murdering a helpless human, YOUR CHILD, because of YOUR ignorance?”
If they say yes, simply respond, “may God have mercy on you.” and walk away.
A court does not get to redefine terms that have been in use for millennia - like marriage for example. That’s exactly what enraged people. White is not suddenly black.
Gratuitous assertion. Question-begging.
Which begs the question...why do they think it's so "sick" if there's nothing wrong with it?
Exactly!
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.