How Proponents of Abortion-on-Demand
Dodge the Issue
Written and Illustrated by Tim den Bok
Introduction
Many proponents of Canada’s current policy of abortion-on-demand—defined
as abortion at any time during the woman’s pregnancy, and for any reason—refuse
to face the real issue. This issue is the metaphysical status of the pre-born
(embryo/fetus). Hereafter, I will refer to it simply as the “status of the pre-born.”
Metaphysics is the study of ultimate reality. Why is the pre-born’s status the real
issue? Because if it is a person, then it is protected by the moral rule against homicide
while if it is not a person, then it is not protected by this rule. By homicide I mean the
direct killing of a human being. The killing of a human being is “direct” when his or
her death is intended either as an end in itself or as a means to some other end. The
act of homicide is, what ethicists call, prima facie (pry-mah fay-shah) morally wrong.
The term prima facie is Latin for “on the face of it,” or “at first sight.” An action that is
wrong in this sense is morally prohibited unless there are overriding reasons to the
contrary.
Some proponents of abortion-on-demand take issue with the claim that the real
issue in the debate over abortion-on-demand is the status of the pre-born. They argue
that even if the pre-born is a person, it would be wrong for the government to legally
compel a pregnant woman to use her body as a natural incubator to sustain it. This
argument was first put forth by the philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson (born 1929)
in her essay “A Defense of Abortion.”1 However, the right of privacy over
Judith Jarvis Thomson, who argues that, even if the pre-born is a person, the government should not
legally compel a woman to use her body as an incubator to sustain it
one’s own body does not justify homicide. And, in fact, Thomson would seem to
concur with us on this point. In the above-mentioned essay, she argues, only, that a
pregnant woman has the right to withhold support from the pre-born. Nowhere does
she argue that she has the right to directly kill it. But what she, seemingly, fails to
understand is that this is, in fact, what abortion does. To quote the philosophers
Stephen Schwarz and R.K. Tacelli, “[Although} a woman who has an abortion is indeed
‘withholding support’ from her unborn child…. abortion is far more than that. It is the
active killing of a human person—by burning him, by crushing him, by dismembering
him.”2 To use an analogy, borrowed from the ethicist Norman Geisler, (born 1932)
abortion is like inviting a destitute person to come into your house—since in over 99
percent of pregnancies the pre-born is in the woman’s womb as a result of a free act
on her part, for which she, as such, is partly responsible—and then, after deciding that
he or she is no longer welcome, killing him or her.3 Given these considerations, the
author Randy Alcorn (born 1954) is surely correct when he says, “It is reasonable for
society to expect an adult to live temporarily with an inconvenience if the only
alternative is killing a child.”4
As we will see shortly, proponents of abortion-on-demand will often go to great
lengths to avoid dealing with the issue of the pre-born’s status. These dodges often,
though not always, commit, what logic textbooks call, “logical fallacies.” A logical
fallacy is, roughly, a mistake in reasoning. In this paper we will look at six of these
fallacies. Knowledge of these fallacies will help the reader to avoid being sidetracked
by them. I will also suggest a good way to defend oneself against them by asking
Socratic questions, the purpose of which is to steer the discussion back to the question
of the pre-born’s status, which is the real issue.
Breaking the Rules of Dialogue
Douglas Walton is an eminent logician (i.e., expert in logic). He says that, in
general, whenever a fallacy is committed a rule of dialogue is broken.5 There are two
Douglas Walton, who says that, in general, whenever a fallacy is committed a rule of dialogue is broken
rules in particular that proponents of abortion-on-demand who dodge the issue
violate. The first rule states that participants in a dialogue must try to fulfill their
burden of proof,6 Or to put it another way, “He who asserts must prove.” This is,
perhaps, the most fundamental rule of argumentation. As an example, someone, such
as the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), who claims that Jesus never
existed, has the unenviable task of having to prove this assertion.
Opponents of abortion-on-demand have, as their burden of proof, the obligation
of showing that personhood begins before birth. They typically draw this line at
fertilization. By fertilization, we mean the process by which the sperm and
Opponents of abortion-on-demand typically claim that personhood begins at fertilization.
the oocyte unite to form a one-celled embryo, known as a “primordial” embryo.
Proponents of abortion-on-demand, on the other hand, must, unless they are also
going to argue for infanticide, establish that personhood begins at birth.7
Proponents of abortion-on-demand must, unless they are also going to argue for infanticide, prove that
a person begins to exist at birth.
Why? Because, for them to concede that it begins to exist earlier than this, whether
suddenly or gradually, would be to admit that, at least, some abortions are acts of
homicide, and are, as such, prima facie wrong—a view which is inconsistent with the
abortion-on-demand position.
The time to try to come to an agreement with one’s partner in dialogue on the
real issue in the debate about abortion-on-demand, says Walton, is the opening stage
of the dialogue. The importance of doing this cannot be overemphasized. For, as
Walton says, “Allegations of irrelevance cannot be settled fairly if the issue of the
argument was never stated or understood in the first place.”8
The second rule says that participants in a dialogue must not try to shift their
burden onto the other person illegitimately.9 To help the reader understand this rule,
let us first consider how to shift a burden legitimately. One way that this can be done
is by offering a refutation of what the other person has said. For example, consider
the claim that the existence of evil disproves that there is an all-good, all-powerful
God. A legitimate way to shift the burden of proof back on to the person making this
claim is to appeal to the so-called “free-will defense.” According to it, because we have
a free will, we, not God, are responsible for our actions, some of which are evil. (Of
course much more can be said on this matter. Our point, here, is simply that the “freewill defense” is a legitimate response to the problem from evil.) In contrast, an
example of an illegitimate way to shift this burden would be something like the
following:
“The Bible talks about you. Yeah, it says, ‘The fool hath said in his heart there
is no God.’”
This response is illegitimate because, to quote from a textbook on critical thinking,
“One does not prove a point by attacking a person.”10
Logical Deceptions
There are several ways that proponents of abortion-on-demand dodge the real
issue. As I said earlier, logic textbooks call these dodges “logical fallacies.” The term
fallacy derives, in part, from the Latin word fallere, which means “to deceive.” Logical
fallacies, then, are deceptions. This is true whether the deception is intentional or
unintentional. (Hence, the logical sense of the term “deceive” is not identical to its
ordinary meaning, which requires that the act be intentional.)
Logic textbooks group fallacies into two broad categories: formal and informal.
In this paper I am only concerned with informal fallacies. “These fallacies,” one
scholar says, “bear directly on issues of truth and falsity.”11 Reasons that are given for
the basis of a conclusion, but that commit informal logical fallacies, are bad reasons.
By this I mean that they cannot stand up under scrutiny. Because they are logically
fallacious they fail the test of logic, which is an important criteria of truth. The
conclusion of the argument could still be true. It is just that no good reason has been
given to accept it.
The Harmful Effects of Fallacies
Albert Camus (1913–1960), the French Nobel prizewinning author and
philosopher, says, “Mistaken ideas always end in bloodshed, but in every case it is
someone else’s blood. That is why some of our thinkers feel free to say just about
Albert Camus, who says that, “False ideas always end in bloodshed, but in every case it is someone else’s
blood”
anything.”12 This has certainly been the case with regard to the mistaken ideas on
abortion put forth by leading proponents of abortion-on-demand, such as Henry
Morgentaler (1923–2013). Speaking of the pre-born, for example, Morgentaler says,
“There is no child there.”13 This mistaken idea led him to open twenty abortion
Henry Morgentaler, who, speaking of the pre-born, says, “There is no child there”
clinics throughout Canada, train over one hundred doctors on how to perform
abortions, and, perhaps, most significantly, begin a fifteen-year legal campaign that
culminated, in 1988, with Canada’s abortion law being declared unconstitutional in
the case R. v. Morgentaler.14 Sadly, as a result of these actions, countless innocent
human lives have been taken.
What is true of mistaken ideas, in general, is true of logical fallacies in particular.
Like mistaken ideas, they can result in actions that are extremely harmful. This has
undoubtedly been the case with regard to the logical fallacies committed by
proponents of abortion-on-demand. As we will see in a moment, the popular
arguments for abortion all commit logical fallacies of one sort or another. In fact, the
distinguishing characteristic of these arguments is that they assume, without proof,
that the pre-born is not a person. This is the logical fallacy known as begging the
question. In contrast, sophisticated pro-choice arguments, such as those given by
philosophers, theologians, and bioethicists, do not make so obvious a mistake.
Unfortunately, because the popular pro-choice arguments are repeated over
and over again in the popular media, the average person who hears or reads them
assumes that they must be true. This is known as the “Big Lie Theory.” According to
it—or, at least, one aspect of it—if a person tells a lie frequently enough, it will be
believed. This propaganda technique was used effectively by Joseph Goebbels (1897–
1945), the Reich Minister of Propaganda. “If you tell a lie big enough and keep
repeating it,” he said, “people will eventually come to believe it.”15 Examples of
Joseph Goebbels, who says that if you tell a lie frequently enough, people will eventually believe it
pro-choice “arguments” that have come to be accepted, not because they are true, but
because of their frequent repetition, are that “Abortion is a woman’s right,” “The fetus
is a part of the woman’s body,” and “Abortion is a safe, medical procedure.”
Scripture on the Rebutting of Foolish Arguments
Scripture tells us to rebut foolish arguments, or show them to be false. For
example, Proverbs 26:5 (NIV) says, “Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be
wise in his own eyes.”
Before we look at what this verse means, let us, first, be clear on what is meant
here by the term “fool.” Normally, today, when the word is used, it is applied to
someone of low intelligence. However, this is not what the Bible means by the term.
A fool, in the biblical sense, is someone who is lacking in moral character. For example,
fools, the Bible says, are deceitful (Proverbs 14:8), scornful (10:23), and are right in
their own eyes (12:15).
Let us now look at the meaning of Proverbs 26:5. When it tells us to rebut the
fool “according to his folly”, it means that we should expose his or her foolishness. For
if we do not, the person may deceive himself or herself, as well as others, into thinking
that he or she is right when nothing could be further from the truth.
But, you may be wondering, does not the verse immediately preceding this one
tell us to not show foolish arguments to be false? It says, “Do not answer a fool
according to his folly or you will be like him yourself.” This verse uses the phrase
“according to his folly” in a different sense than it is used in verse 5. When this verse
uses the phrase, it means that when we argue with a fool, we should not employ the
same tactics as him or her (e.g., verbal abuse, impatience, poor listening skills, etc.).
Otherwise, we, too, are guilty of acting foolishly.
Six Ways Proponents of Abortion-on-Demand Avoid the Real Issue
In this paper we will look at six ways that proponents of abortion-on-demand
avoid the real issue. Each of these ways are fallacies that have been given names by
logicians to help one identify them and tell them apart. They are as follows: 1)
argumentum ad hominem; 2) appeal to pity; 3) red herring; 4) loaded terms; 5) hasty
generalization; and 6) irrelevant conclusion.
All of the above fallacies are listed in logic textbooks as fallacies of relevance.
They are called this because they all try to prove a point that is not the point in
question.
Socratic Questioning
As well as examining these fallacies, we will look at an effective way to answer
them that involves, what is called, Socratic questioning. This type of questioning gets
its name from the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates (470/469–399 B.C.). Three
Socrates, after whom a special type of questioning known as Socratic questioning is named
distinguishing characteristics of Socratic questioning, say Drs. Richard Paul and Linda
Elder, authors of the book The Art of Socratic Questioning, are that it “raises basic
issues, probes beneath the surface of things, and pursues problematic areas of
thought.”16
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Three Distinguishing Characteristics of Socratic Questioning
1. It “raises basic issues.”
2. It “probes beneath the surface of things.”
3. It “pursues problematic areas of thought.”
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Socrates questioned his partners in dialogue with various goals in mind. One
such goal was to expose the other person’s ignorance. Always, however, Socrates’
ultimate goal in asking questions was to find the truth. “My way toward the truth,” he
said, “is to ask the right questions.”17
Immediately following each fallacy, in between a set of border lines, I will
suggest three Socratic questions that can be put to those who employ such mistaken
reasoning. Though the ultimate purpose for these questions, as with Socrates, is to
find the truth, their proximate goal is to steer the discussion back to the question of
the pre-born’s status.
Justifying Our Criticisms
However, it is not enough, when rebutting fallacies, to simply ask critical
questions. It is also important to be able to justify one’s criticisms. For example, if
your partner in dialogue attacks your position because of its origin, you need to do
more than simply cry, “Genetic fallacy!” Mere assertions, in other words, will not do.
You must also be able to explain what is wrong with this way of arguing, and why the
argument in question is an example of this mistake. For this reason, as well as
examining some of the ways in which proponents of abortion-on-demand avoid the
issue, I will also explain why they are logically fallacious.
Argumentum Ad Hominem
One way that proponents of abortion-on-demand try to divert attention away
from the real issue is by attacking the opponents of this practice themselves and/or
their circumstances. This is a common fallacy. The Latin name for it is argumentum
ad hominem. It means “against the person.”
The logical fallacy argumentum ad hominem occurs when it is the person, rather than the person’s
position and/or circumstances, who is attacked.
Unfortunately, the ad hominem attack is a very common fallacy today. Three venues
where it is frequently heard are political gatherings, talk shows, and formal debates.
Those who commit this fallacy do so, often, to divert attention from the fact that their
position is weak. The idea here is: If you cannot attack the argument, attack the
arguer. As an illustration of this point, consider the following story:
In England solicitors are allowed to prepare legal cases but not to defend them.
That task belongs to barristers. On one occasion a solicitor got a case ready
and passed it onto the barrister who was to “plead” it. On the day of the trial,
the barrister showed up just moments before it was to begin. So confident was
he that the solicitor had done a good job of getting the case ready for him—
that he had not even bothered to look at it. After sitting down, he opened his
briefcase and pulled out his case, only to read the following words: “We have
no case: attack the plaintiff’s lawyer!”18
Examples of this fallacy, as used by proponents of abortion-on-demand, are as
follows:
•
“Anti-choice groups don’t care about born children or their mothers.”
•
“It’s inconsistent of anti-choice groups to defend both the sanctity of human
life and capital punishment.”
•
“Anti-choice proponents are violent. They shoot abortion providers and bomb
abortion clinics.”
•
“Anti-choice groups are trying to force their religious views on a pluralistic
society.”
•
“Abortion is a women’s issue. Since men can’t personally experience it, they
should keep their opinions about it to themselves. ”
•
“Anti-choice proponents are religious, fundamentalist zealots who hate
women.”
The Greek philosopher Plato (429–347 BC) says that, “Arguments, like men, are
often pretenders.”19 This is certainly true of the “arguments” above. They all
Plato, who says, “Arguments, like men, are often pretenders”
pretend to be logically sound arguments. But, though psychologically persuasive, they
are all seriously flawed from a logical perspective. For the real issue in the debate
about abortion-on-demand is, not the character and/or circumstances of those who
oppose this practice, but the status of the pre-born. Of course, these “arguments” do
have a kind of relevance. Otherwise so many people would not find them persuasive.
But this relevance, as we have said, is psychological, not logical.
The ad hominem attack is not always fallacious. One place where it can be
relevant is in the courtroom. Establishing, for example, that a witness was once
charged with perjury, though, admittedly, ad hominem, is in no way improper. But
though ad hominem attacks are warranted in some circumstances, this is not the case
in a dialogue. For here, unlike in a courtroom, a person’s character and circumstances
are irrelevant.
It is tempting to defend oneself against the above accusations. To do so,
however, would be bad strategy. For it would allow the focus to shift from the preborn’s status to the character and/or circumstances of opponents of abortion-ondemand.
As well as bad strategy, it is also unnecessary to defend oneself against these
accusations. Why? Because even if it is true that opponents of abortion-on-demand
are morally bad, it could still be the case that the pre-born is a person, and that, as
such, abortion-on-demand is prima facie morally wrong. This shows that the two
matters are, logically, unrelated.
The ad hominem fallacy, as a form of argumentation, is malicious. As such, it has
no place in a rational dialogue, the purpose of which is to find the truth.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Three Socratic Questions
1. “Why does that argument not commit the ad hominem fallacy?”
2. “How does that argument help you to fulfill your burden of
proof?”
3. “How are the character and/or circumstances of opponents of
abortion-on-demand relevant to the question of the pre-born’s
status?”
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Appeal to Pity
Another way that proponents of abortion-on-demand try to divert attention
away from the real issue is by trying to arouse sympathy for women with unwanted
pregnancies. This is a common fallacy called the appeal to pity. It occurs when, to
support a conclusion, an arguer arouses sympathy for the plight of someone rather
than giving reasons. It is often committed by defense lawyers in criminal trials. For
example, sometimes they will try to persuade a jury that their client is innocent of
murder by talking about the client’s terrible childhood. Why is this a fallacy? Because
the client’s upbringing is completely irrelevant to the question of his or her guilt.
An striking example of this fallacy is given by the logician Irving Copi in his book
Introduction to Logic. He tells the story of a youth who brutally killed both of his
parents and, then pled for leniency on the grounds that he was an orphan!20
Of course, the appeal to pity is not always fallacious. Think, for example, of the
urgent pleas for money made by humanitarian organizations like World Vision and
the Christian Children’s Fund of Canada. Should we reject these pleas simply because
they pull on our heartstrings? Of course not! There is nothing improper with such an
appeal. For the person making it was not obligated to support a conclusion with
reasons.
Not all appeals to pity are logically fallacious.
As is clear from the following examples, proponents of abortion-on-demand are
frequently guilty of committing the appeal to pity:
•
“If abortion is made illegal, thousands of women will again die from back-alley
abortions.”
•
“Outlawing abortion will result in aborted women being prosecuted and
convicted for homicide.”
•
“If abortion is made illegal, only rich women will be able to afford to travel to
foreign countries to get them, which is discriminatory.”
•
“Abortion should be accessible to women who feel they can’t raise a child with
disabilities.”
•
“Denying abortion to women who are pregnant due to rape or incest would be
cruel.”
•
“It’s a proven fact that refusing women access to abortion can harm them both
physically and mentally.”
•
“If abortion is forbidden, then poor women will be forced to go on welfare to
support their children.”
•
“Unless women continue to have access to abortion, unwanted pregnancies
will interfere with their careers, which would make it harder for women to
compete against men.”
Like the ad hominem fallacy, the appeal to pity is psychologically persuasive. As
a powerful rhetorical ploy, it can be used to: 1) hide the weaknesses of one’s case; 2)
divert attention away from one’s burden of proof; and 3) discredit one’s opponent.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Three Purposes for Which the Appeal to Pity Is Employed
1. It is used to hide the weakness of one’s case.
2. It is used to divert attention away from one’s burden of proof.
3. It is used to discredit one’s opponent.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
But though the above arguments are psychologically persuasive, like the ad
hominem fallacy they are, nonetheless, logically fallacious. As such, they are all bad
arguments. To see why this is so, we need, again, to ask ourselves the question: What
are proponents of abortion-on-demand supposed to be trying to prove? The answer
to this question, as I said earlier, is that a person begins to exist at birth! Instead what
they often try to do, as we have seen, is arouse sympathy for women with unwanted
pregnancies. But this is not the real issue. As such, these arguments are logically
irrelevant.
It is important to understand that in rejecting the above arguments as
irrelevant, we are in no way insensitive to the misfortunes of women with unwanted
pregnancies. It is simply that none of the reasons given above justify homicide.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Three Socratic Questions
1. “Why does that argument not commit the logical fallacy appeal to pity?”
2. “How does that argument help you to fulfill your burden of proof?”
3. “Your argument presupposes that the pre-born is not a person. What is
your justification for this presupposition?”
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hasty Generalization
Another common tactic used by proponents of abortion-on-demand for voiding
the real issue is to focus on the so-called “hard cases.” By this I mean abortion for the
reasons of rape, incest, fetal abnormality, and threat to the woman’s life.
Both sides in this dispute agree that a woman who becomes pregnant as a result
of rape or incest is the victim of a horrible crime. Nonetheless, research shows that all
of the “hard cases” combined, account for less than one percent of all abortions.21 This
means that more than 99 percent of the pre-born who are aborted are perfectly
healthy, were conceived through consensual sex, and do not pose a risk to the
woman's life! However, a person could be excused today for thinking that the exact
opposite is the case: that it is the “hard cases” that account for the vast majority of
abortions performed in Canada. The media is largely to blame for this false
impression. One of its favourite questions to ask opponents of abortion-on-demand
is, “Do you believe that abortion is justified in the case of rape?” For example, this
question was asked of Stockwell Day, former leader of the Canadian Alliance. 22 More
recently, Rick Santorum was asked this question during his 2011 campaign for
Republican Party nomination for President of the United States.23
Tim Graham, of the Media Research Center, calls the rape-question, “One of the
hoariest tactics of liberal media personalities.…” He says further, “Can you imagine a
liberal interviewer asking if they [pro-choicers] would accompany their daughter to
the clinic? Or what would they do if the daughter regretted their abortion? No, only
the pro-lifers get this hardball.”24
Rather than facing the real issue, some proponents of abortion-on-demand try
to justify their position by attempting to arouse sympathy for the victims of rape and
incest who become pregnant. In doing so, they commit the fallacy, just discussed, of
appeal to pity. They also commit the fallacy called hasty generalization. One logic
textbook defines this fallacy as follows: “If one considers only exceptional cases and
hastily generalizes to a rule that fits them alone, the fallacy committed is that of [hasty
generalization].”25 According to another logic textbook, this fallacy says, “Accept this
general conclusion because these (unusual or atypical) cases support it.”26 An
example of this fallacy would be the argument that, since we lock up dangerous
criminals, it is okay to rob law-abiding citizens of their freedoms.27
Proponents of abortion-on-demand seem to commit the fallacy hasty
generalization when they try to justify this practice by appealing to the “hard cases.”
Their reasoning seems to be as follows: “Look at pregnancies involving the “hard
cases” of rape, incest, fetal abnormality, and threat to the woman’s life. It would be a
terrible injustice to legally force women in such situations to give birth. Therefore,
there should be no legal restrictions whatsoever on abortion.” But this is clearly a
fallacious argument. For even if one were to grant that abortion is justified in the
“hard cases”—which, as we have seen, make up less than one percent of all
abortions—it would not follow that abortion-on-demand is acceptable. To argue that
it is, says the ethicist Francis Beckwith, would be like saying that just because one is
justified in breaking the speed limit in the case of an emergency, that, therefore, there
should be no speed limit at all.28
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Three Socratic Questions
1. “Why does that argument not commit the logical fallacy hasty
generalization?”
2. “How does that argument help you to fulfill your burden of proof?”
3. “Even if one were to grant that abortion is justified in the “hard cases”,
how would it follow from this that abortion-on-demand is acceptable?”
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Loaded Terms
Sometimes proponents of abortion-on-demand try to dodge the issue by
resorting to the use of a loaded term (or phrase). This fallacy occurs when a loaded
term (or phrase) is used, in place of reasons, to undermine a person’s position. Words
that are loaded are not neutral but make a value judgment. For example, someone
who is determined about something could, depending on one’s view of the matter, be
described as either tenacious or pigheaded. As well, a person who takes his or her
religion seriously could be called very religious, or a religious extremist or fanatic.
Another name for this fallacy is question-begging epithet. It was first described
in this way by the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1784–1832) because, since
a loaded term makes a value judgment that is not proved, this fallacy is a subclass of
the fallacy begging the question. The fallacy begging the question occurs when one
assumes what one is supposed to prove.
Jeremy Bentham, who coined the phrase “question-begging epithet”
As should be clear from the previous example, it is not always a mistake in reasoning
to use loaded terms. It all depends on the context. For example, it is, obviously, not
fallacious to use loaded terms in a poem. It is fallacious, however, to use them when
one is in a dispute with someone.
As we said earlier, proponents of abortion-on-demand often resort to the
fallacies of loaded terms to dodge the issue of the status of the pre-born. Consider, for
example, the following imaginary exchange between a proponent and opponent of
abortion-on-demand:
OPPONENT OF ABORTION-ON-DEMAND: “The real issue in the
abortion debate is the status of the pre-born. For if the pre-born is a person,
then it is protected by the moral rule against homicide, while if it is not a
person, then it is not protected by this rule. From this, it follows that my
burden of proof is to show that the pre-born is a person, while yours is to
show that it is not.”
PROPONENT OF ABORTION-ON-DEMAND: “That’s ridiculous! I find it
absolutely outrageous that you anti-choice people think that you can deprive
women of our right to choose, our right to make reproductive choices, our
right to control the decisions affecting our own bodies!”
Let us examine what happened in the above exchange. The opponent of
abortion-on-demand began by, correctly, focusing the discussion on the status of the
pre-born. In response, the proponent of this practice let loose with an angry outburst
containing the following loaded phrases: “anti-choice people,” “right to choose,”
“right to make reproductive choices,” and “right to control the decisions affecting our
own bodies.” These phrases are all question-begging epithets because they all
assume, without proof, that abortion is a legitimate woman’s right. But this could only
be the case if the pre-born is not a person. For if the pre-born is a person, then it is
protected by the moral rule against homicide.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Three Socratic Questions
1. “Why does that argument not commit the logical fallacy loaded terms?”
2. “How does that argument help you to fulfill your burden of proof?”
3. “That argument presupposes that the pre-born is not a person. What is
your justification for this presupposition?”
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Red Herring
This fallacy occurs when a person diverts attention away from the real issue.
Usually, this is done to hide the weakness of a case. This fallacy gets its colourful name
from a technique used to train hunting dogs. This practice involves dragging a smelly
red herring across the path of dogs that are in pursuit of a prey. If the dogs follow the
new trail, they are scolded and jerked back onto the original trail. In this way they are
taught to stick to a scent.
The fallacy red herring gets its name from a technique used to train hunting dogs.
An example of this fallacy would be the skeptic who, in response to the claim by a
Christian that the New Testament is a historically reliable document, replies that it is
full of contradictions. This is a red herring because the point in question was not the
inerrancy of the New Testament, but its historical reliability. These are two totally
separate issues. For if a document had to be inerrant to be historically reliable, no
historical documents could be considered reliable!
It is not hard to see how most, if not all, of the arguments that we have looked
at in this paper in support of abortion-on-demand commit this fallacy. The real
question in this debate, as I have said, repeatedly, is the status of the pre-born. All of
the fallacious arguments that we have looked at in this paper draw attention away
from this question in one way or another. The ad hominem arguments do this by
attacking the character and/or circumstances of opponents of abortion-on-demand.
The arguments that appeal to pity try to dodge the real issue by arousing sympathy
for women with unwanted pregnancies. The arguments that commit the fallacy hasty
generalization attempt to sidetrack us by focusing on the “hard cases.” The arguments
that contain loaded terms try to divert us through the use of loaded terms.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Three Socratic Questions
1. “Why does that argument not commit the red herring fallacy?”
2. “How does that argument help you to fulfill your burden of proof?”
3. “Is this the real issue that we should be focusing on?”
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Irrelevant Conclusion
Many of the above arguments put forth by proponents of abortion-on-demand
also commit the fallacy irrelevant conclusion. This fallacy occurs when one tries to
establish a point that is not the point in question. An example of this fallacy is the
argument that because torturing terror suspects to elicit important information often
works, therefore, the statement, “Torture is morally justifiable,” is true.
This
argument commits the fallacy irrelevant conclusion because proving that torture
works is not the same as showing that it is morally justifiable.
Proponents of abortion-on-demand, as I argued above, should be trying to
prove that a person begins to exist at birth. Instead, as we have seen, they attempt to
demonstrate that, among other things, opponents of abortion-on-demand are of
questionable character, or that women with unwanted pregnancies are deserving of
our sympathy, or that the “hard cases” are a common occurrence. But in doing so, they
are trying to prove a point that is not the point in question.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Three Socratic Questions
1. “Why does that argument not commit the fallacy irrelevant conclusion?”
2. “How does that argument help you to fulfill your burden of proof?”
3. “Is the point you are trying to establish the point in question?”
________________________________________________________________________
The Need for Gentleness
“No one,” as the Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias (born 1946) has pointed out,
“likes to be hit over the head with logic.” For, by its very nature, logic, like math, is
hard,
Ravi Zacharias, who says, “No one likes to get hit over the head with logic”
objective, and impersonal. With logic, as one textbook on the subject says, “Order is
the key word.”29 Logic is all about putting our thoughts in order. Given this fact, it is
not surprising that the experience of being corrected with logic can leave one cold. To
make matters worse, those doing the correcting can easily come across as heartless.
This is especially the case given the sensitive nature of abortion. For this reason, when
presenting this material, it is important to follow the biblical admonition to correct
those who are in error with gentleness. We would do well to heed the following
instructions from the apostle Paul:
“A servant of the Lord must not quarrel but must be kind to everyone, be able
to teach, and be patient with difficult people. Gently instruct those who
oppose the truth. Perhaps God will change those people’s hearts, and they
will learn the truth. Then they will come to their senses and escape from the
devil‘s trap. For they have been held captive by him to do whatever he
wants.” (2 Timothy 2:24–26, NLT)
The apostle Paul, who says that we should correct others with gentleness
Conclusion
In this paper we have examined six logical fallacies that are often committed by
proponents of abortion-on-demand in an attempt to dodge the real question in the
debate over this practice: Is the pre-born a person? I also suggested, as a way to try
to steer the discussion back to this issue, several Socratic questions that can be put to
those who commit these fallacies. I am confident that the reader, equipped with, both,
the knowledge of these fallacies, as well as these Socratic questions, should, with
some practice, be able to keep a discussion about abortion-on-demand focused on the
status of the pre-born. “To be forewarned,” as the saying goes, “is to be forearmed.”
____________________
References
1. Judith Jarvis Thomson, “A Defense of Abortion,” in The Problem of Abortion, 2d ed.,
ed. Joel Feinberg (Wadsworth Publishing Company: Belmont, CA, 1984), 173–87.
2. Francis J. Beckwith, Politically Correct Death—Answering Arguments for Abortion
Rights (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, MI, 1993), 133.
3. Norman Geisler, Christian Ethics—Options and Issues (Baker Book House: Grand
Rapids, MI, 1989), 141.
4. Randy Alcorn, Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments (Multnomah Press:
Portland, OR, 1992), 80.
5. Douglas N. Walton, Informal Logic—A Handbook for Critical Argumentation
(Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1994), 18.
6. Ibid, 18.
7. There are some proponents of abortion-on-demand, such as Michael Tooley and
Peter Singer, who also defend infanticide. However, it has been my experience that
most proponents of this position are unwilling to go to such extreme measures.
Though they may be pro-choice with regard to abortion, the same is not true when it
comes to infanticide.
8. Douglas N. Walton, Informal Logic—A Handbook for Critical Argumentation
(Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1994), 60–61.
9. Ibid, 18.
10. M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley, Asking the Right Questions—A Guide to
Critical Thinking (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1994), 74.
11. Ed. L. Miller, Questions that Matter—An Invitation to Philosophy (McGraw-Hill
Book Company, The United States of America, 1984), 43.
12. James W. Sire, Habits of the Mind—Intellectual Life as a Christian Calling
(InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL, 2000), 212.
13. William D. Gairdner, The War Against the Family (Stoddart Publishing Co. Limited:
Toronto, ON, 1992), 431.
14. “Henry Morgentaler.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morgentaler.
01/03/14. Web.
15. “Joseph Goebbels quotes.” http://thinkexist.com/quotes/joseph_goebbels/. Web.
16. Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder, The Thinker’s Guide to The Art of Socratic
Questioning (Foundation for Critical Thinking Press, Dillon Beach, CA, 2007), 3.
17. Ronald Gross, Socrate’s Way—Seven Master Keys to Using Your Mind to the Utmost
(Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam: New York, NY, 2002), 47.
18. Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic (Collier-Macmillan Canada: Toronto, ON,
1969), 61–62.
19. Henry A. Virkler, A Christian’s Guide To Critical Thinking (Thomas Nelson
Publishers, Nashville, TN, 1993), 184.
20. Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic (Collier-Macmillan Canada: Toronto, ON,
1969), 65.
21. Brian Clowes, Ph. D., The Facts of Life—An Authoritative Guide to Life and Family
Issues (Human Life International: Front Royal, VA, 1997), 178.
22. “Stockwell Day”—INJUSTICEBUSTERS. injusticebusters.org/index.htm/
Stockwell_Day. htm. 15/02/01. Web.
23. “Piers Morgan Pushes Santorum If He’d Oppose Abortion If His Raped Daughter
Was ‘Begging You’ For It. newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-raham/2012/01/23piersmorgan-pushes-santorum-if-hed-oppose-abortion-if-his-raped-daughter. 23/01/12.
Web.
24. Ibid.
25. Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic (Collier-Macmillan: Canada, Toronto, ON,
1969), 68.
26. Norman Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, Come Let Us Reason—An Introduction to
Logical Thinking (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1990), 105.
27. Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic (Collier-Macmillan Canada: Toronto, ON,
1969), 85.
28. Francis J. Beckwith, Politically Correct Death—Answering Arguments for Abortion
Rights (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, MI, 1993), 69.
29. Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, Come Let Us Reason—An Introduction to
Logical Thinking (Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, MI), 12.