Is there one for arguing for abortion by giving the possible consequences of making it illegal? Like saying making it illegal will just lead to back alley abortions etc
That’s a fallacious appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam): questions of truth/morality don’t depend on the convenience or inconvenience of procedural problems down the road. If you flesh it out a bit, it’s also presenting a false dilemma — abortion with NO horrible illegal procedures, or no abortion WITH horrible illegal procedures (those are of course the ONLY options anybody could imagine…).
Doubly so, when you consider that what we have, is millions and millions of abortion WITH many horrible illegal procedures even though abortion is legal!
Not quite what you’re asking, but the easiest answer is to do some maths: suppose making abortion decreased abortion by 50% and that the (now illegal) abortion was so unsafe that 50% of the mothers died in the process, we would still see a reduction of deaths by 25%.
Right, it is consequentialist reasoning at its heart (and thus should be shunned by Christians) but worse it also subtly reverses our sympathies in the situation toward the filicidal mother when they should be with the innocent child. Simply put, if a mother trying to kill her own child gets injured or dies in the process, then this is clearly God’s judgment.
I was enjoying the post….and then completely forgot what I was reading about at the bottom….those monsters are amazing!
Eagle_Eyed
8 years ago
I would say the first argument is not necessarily circular reasoning (one could make the same case to the questioner who assumes the PP scandal is in fact a scandal), but is rather an argument ad feminam. Feminists falsely believe that only women can make moral judgments regarding child-bearing since only women can become pregnant. Of course that’s equivalent to saying men can only make moral judgments regarding rape since only men have the organs and sex-drive that contribute to rape. I’d never heard of “bulverism,” which is surprising since I’m a fan of both logic and Lewis. A related… Read more »
It appears the comments on “Up To Our Knees” have closed. I replied and am waiting to see if my reply was accepted. If not, please continue on another comment thread (of your choice) by restating your comment and I will re-reply so that others can engage your argument..
So, one must first believe the deity exists (to “have a face-to-face”
with your deity before I believe in it is like you having one with
Vishnu, but if you don’t believe a thing is true, how could you honestly
purport to commune with said thing?) to be convinced by the deity that
it exists, which would lead me to believe the deity exists. Sorry, but
circular reasoning is not a valid means of acquiring knowledge.
Here is my reply on the now disabled comments I did not believe in lions. One day a lion bit me on the ass. I then believed in lions. I met a guy who did not believe in lions. “How do you know lions exist? Its just a myth don’t you know!”, he said. “One bit me on the ass!” , I replied. “How could you honestly purport to commune with said thing?” he replied. “look at the bite-marks on my ass! Those are from the lion!” “How could….” ad nauseam. To date, Vishnu has not bitten me on my… Read more »
freddy
8 years ago
Regarding email campaigns, this the comprehensive list of those companies that help fund PP: Courtesy of http://www.voxday.blogspot.com/2015/07/ppgate.html? m=1http://moelane.com/2015/07/22/daily-signal-planned-parenthood/ Adobe American Cancer Society American Express AT&T Avon Bank of America Bath & Body Works Ben & Jerry’s Clorox Coca-Cola Converse Deutsche Bank Dockers The rest of the 41 corporations are listed at the link. Start sending emails, complete with quotes from the Planned Parenthood people about selling organs from aborted infants, to the PR/Marketing departments of these corporations and asking them if they support those practices. Put all the relevant names and emails on a central site, complete with various draft… Read more »
The American Cancer Society gives money to PP??!!!! My mother died of cancer and I occasionally give money to the Canadian Cancer Society in the hopes of helping find a cure, not to have them turn around and help fund abortion.
Thanks for the list of companies who help fund. The entire thing just makes me sick.
Rev. R. W. Shazbot
8 years ago
Man, this Planned Parenthood thing came along just in the nick of time. There for a minute it looked like evangelicals were actually going to take the gay marriage thing seriously. But now it’s back to business as usual – all abortion all the time. Rev. Wilson has already stated that he would happily accept legalized gay marriage in exchange for banning abortion. In other words, gay marriage isn’t really that big of a deal.
Thanks for providing a fallacy of your own! Someone prioritizing one social problem over another does not negate the seriousness of the latter anymore than someone prioritizing water over food negates the need for food.
Of course the PP scandal is much more recent than last month’s Supreme Court decision so the normal news cycle could have something to do with all this but you knew that.
It took me a moment to remember why this seemed so familiar, but I’ve seen this tactic used before – by younger brothers who are dead set on provoking their older siblings to yell at and/or hit them them.
When you suspect your debating partner is acting stupider than he really is, you’re probably dealing with a troll. They often start by asking interesting and provocative questions but then refuse to engage with the main point of the the answer. Best just to ignore them.
Furthermore, go view “The Two Towers” in the scene “Battle at Helms Deep”. There you will see a battle to the death and the necessity of choosing when to defend, when to fall back and when to charge.
Then, Theodin the Lesser, bleat your complaints among the men fighting the battle, but do not be surprised when you are thrown over the fortress wall as your body is more useful as a falling bag of flaming fat than as a man who hampers the battle efforts with his counter-productive complaining.
“Rev. Wilson has already stated that he would happily accept legalized gay marriage in exchange for banning abortion. In other words, gay marriage isn’t really that big of a deal.”
For personal reasons, I stopped playing chess the day Anna Nicole Smith passed away, so I may be a little rusty. Is the rook on the white team, or the colored team?
Don’t be ridiculous. I have no idea what that Anna Nicole Smith reference is supposed to convey, but if you’ve played chess even once, you know that different pieces aren’t on different teams. And I don’t believe that you don’t know that.
Clearly you’re deliberately being an obnoxious twit, so you’ve officially reached troll status in my book.
You must be joking. A pastor who detests gay marriage as an abomination (a view I don’t personally hold) nonetheless prefers it to the mass slaughter of the unborn, and you have a problem with that? Are you seriously suggesting Pastor Wilson is soft on gay marriage because, given only two choices, he would stop the abortion of a nearly full-term baby rather than prevent the nuptials of Adam and Steve?
I’m confused. Did he or did he not say that he would accept legalized gay marriage if abortion were outlawed? If he did say it, what part of it are you having trouble understanding? And where in the world did you get the idea that I have “a problem” with Rev. Wilson saying he would accept gay marriage if abortion were outlawed?
I think my comprehension problem is in trying to understand your difficulty with the concept of greater and lesser evils. People more articulate than I am have tried to explain this to you to no avail. Most people in the western world abominated Stalin’s Russia. They nonetheless allied themselves with Stalin in order to defeat Hitler’s Nazism which was perceived as a greater evil. You seem to be fixed on the notion that allying yourself to the lesser evil is equivalent to accepting it. Your first post on this subject made me think that you were calling out Pastor Wilson… Read more »
“If Hitler invaded Hell, I’d at least make a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.” Son, you’re on a roll. You’ve already proven you don’t know or understand law, you can’t read a case, a rook is worth 5 while a queen is 9 (knights and bishops are 3 each, pawns are 1), and you’ve displayed a lack of insight into tactics. I dunno; is Paris worth a mass to you? Does “two steps forward and one step back” ring any bells? How about “Find out what kind of whiskey he drinks and send a case… Read more »
Rather than arguing for your thesis that allying with a monster against an even bigger monster somehow constitutes an endorsement of the first monster? Instead you LOL.
Everybody gets an opinion on what the law OUGHT to be. In fact, the more the merrier. But if you’re going to get up in public and argue what the law IS, then you need to do enough research to at least understand what the case is about, much less what it stands for.
Is there a fallacy for arguing that “because you’re not adopting all the children you can and you’re selfishly having your own children instead of saving some from abortion then you have no moral right to object to this murder” (which is what I’ve just been told on Facebook)? The gentleman in question disdains my “moral high horse” and “bullshit grandstanding,” as far inferior to his moral high horse of never having children and telling others to do the same.
While I cannot provide the formal name for the fallacy (maybe the “you also/Tu quoque), it is an obvious false moral equivalent.
three things:
1. You may be trying to teach a pig to whistle. (A waste of time and it annoys the pig.)
2. No justification exists for murder since God says explicitly “Do Not Murder”.
3. Do not allow yourself to get drawn into a “what about” capital punishment, killing in self defense, warfare, etc. Any evil (not saying that those are) does not justify another evil.
Is there one for arguing for abortion by giving the possible consequences of making it illegal? Like saying making it illegal will just lead to back alley abortions etc
That’s a fallacious appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam): questions of truth/morality don’t depend on the convenience or inconvenience of procedural problems down the road. If you flesh it out a bit, it’s also presenting a false dilemma — abortion with NO horrible illegal procedures, or no abortion WITH horrible illegal procedures (those are of course the ONLY options anybody could imagine…).
Try applying that same argument to convenience store robberies.
Lets make them “safe legal and rare”.
Introducing communism: We’ll legalize theft and run it through the government so that no one has to risk their lives stealing from others!
Doubly so, when you consider that what we have, is millions and millions of abortion WITH many horrible illegal procedures even though abortion is legal!
Not quite what you’re asking, but the easiest answer is to do some maths: suppose making abortion decreased abortion by 50% and that the (now illegal) abortion was so unsafe that 50% of the mothers died in the process, we would still see a reduction of deaths by 25%.
Right, it is consequentialist reasoning at its heart (and thus should be shunned by Christians) but worse it also subtly reverses our sympathies in the situation toward the filicidal mother when they should be with the innocent child. Simply put, if a mother trying to kill her own child gets injured or dies in the process, then this is clearly God’s judgment.
One wordcountry: Poland: http://pastebin.com/cdUwiAvy
Great post Doug.
I was enjoying the post….and then completely forgot what I was reading about at the bottom….those monsters are amazing!
I would say the first argument is not necessarily circular reasoning (one could make the same case to the questioner who assumes the PP scandal is in fact a scandal), but is rather an argument ad feminam. Feminists falsely believe that only women can make moral judgments regarding child-bearing since only women can become pregnant. Of course that’s equivalent to saying men can only make moral judgments regarding rape since only men have the organs and sex-drive that contribute to rape. I’d never heard of “bulverism,” which is surprising since I’m a fan of both logic and Lewis. A related… Read more »
We could call that one “Frostism,” too . :-)
Randy Wanat,
It appears the comments on “Up To Our Knees” have closed. I replied and am waiting to see if my reply was accepted. If not, please continue on another comment thread (of your choice) by restating your comment and I will re-reply so that others can engage your argument..
thx…
Randy, here is your comment, my reply follows:
Randy Wanat
3 hours ago
So, one must first believe the deity exists (to “have a face-to-face”
with your deity before I believe in it is like you having one with
Vishnu, but if you don’t believe a thing is true, how could you honestly
purport to commune with said thing?) to be convinced by the deity that
it exists, which would lead me to believe the deity exists. Sorry, but
circular reasoning is not a valid means of acquiring knowledge.
Here is my reply on the now disabled comments I did not believe in lions. One day a lion bit me on the ass. I then believed in lions. I met a guy who did not believe in lions. “How do you know lions exist? Its just a myth don’t you know!”, he said. “One bit me on the ass!” , I replied. “How could you honestly purport to commune with said thing?” he replied. “look at the bite-marks on my ass! Those are from the lion!” “How could….” ad nauseam. To date, Vishnu has not bitten me on my… Read more »
Regarding email campaigns, this the comprehensive list of those companies that help fund PP: Courtesy of http://www.voxday.blogspot.com/2015/07/ppgate.html? m=1http://moelane.com/2015/07/22/daily-signal-planned-parenthood/ Adobe American Cancer Society American Express AT&T Avon Bank of America Bath & Body Works Ben & Jerry’s Clorox Coca-Cola Converse Deutsche Bank Dockers The rest of the 41 corporations are listed at the link. Start sending emails, complete with quotes from the Planned Parenthood people about selling organs from aborted infants, to the PR/Marketing departments of these corporations and asking them if they support those practices. Put all the relevant names and emails on a central site, complete with various draft… Read more »
The American Cancer Society gives money to PP??!!!! My mother died of cancer and I occasionally give money to the Canadian Cancer Society in the hopes of helping find a cure, not to have them turn around and help fund abortion.
Planned Parenthood performs cancer screening, including mammograms and pap smears, to many low-income women who may not otherwise have access to it.
Thanks for the list of companies who help fund. The entire thing just makes me sick.
Man, this Planned Parenthood thing came along just in the nick of time. There for a minute it looked like evangelicals were actually going to take the gay marriage thing seriously. But now it’s back to business as usual – all abortion all the time. Rev. Wilson has already stated that he would happily accept legalized gay marriage in exchange for banning abortion. In other words, gay marriage isn’t really that big of a deal.
Thanks for providing a fallacy of your own! Someone prioritizing one social problem over another does not negate the seriousness of the latter anymore than someone prioritizing water over food negates the need for food.
Of course the PP scandal is much more recent than last month’s Supreme Court decision so the normal news cycle could have something to do with all this but you knew that.
That’s what I said – in Rev. Wilson’s view, and I’m sure he’s not alone in this, gay marriage is negotiable.
???? Where do you get that?
Ironically, by a very fallacious line of reasoning.
On Facebook, of all places!
“If in this long chess game, they lose Roe and we get Obergefell, I’ll take it. I’ll lose a rook for a queen.”
https://www.facebook.com/dougwils/posts/10206145796016645?pnref=story
Trading the societal approval of the voluntary and self-imposed deaths of thousands for the end of involuntary and other-imposed deaths of millions ?
As a strategic objective, it makes sense. It’s Progress(tm)!
To say that this means that societal approval of the voluntary and self-imposed deaths of thousands is negotiable, however, is beyond stupid.
I can’t agree with that. Rev. Wilson and I disagree in many areas, but I don’t regard him as stupid, let alone “beyond stupid.”
*tilts head*
Sir, your reading comprehension is so execrable that I am surprised that you are capable of using a computer.
Oh, I think it is much more probable that his comprehension is fine and he’s doing this on purpose.
I expect you’re right.
It took me a moment to remember why this seemed so familiar, but I’ve seen this tactic used before – by younger brothers who are dead set on provoking their older siblings to yell at and/or hit them them.
It’s very effective, and exceedingly childish.
When you suspect your debating partner is acting stupider than he really is, you’re probably dealing with a troll. They often start by asking interesting and provocative questions but then refuse to engage with the main point of the the answer. Best just to ignore them.
Provide links that support your claim,please..
Furthermore, go view “The Two Towers” in the scene “Battle at Helms Deep”. There you will see a battle to the death and the necessity of choosing when to defend, when to fall back and when to charge.
Then, Theodin the Lesser, bleat your complaints among the men fighting the battle, but do not be surprised when you are thrown over the fortress wall as your body is more useful as a falling bag of flaming fat than as a man who hampers the battle efforts with his counter-productive complaining.
Man, you sure do fantasize about violently killing me a lot. This is the second time you’ve talked about throwing me to my death.
/facepalm
“Rev. Wilson has already stated that he would happily accept legalized gay marriage in exchange for banning abortion. In other words, gay marriage isn’t really that big of a deal.”
Where did he day that?
Right here:
“If in this long chess game, they lose Roe and we get Obergefell, I’ll take it. I’ll lose a rook for a queen.”
https://www.facebook.com/dougwils/posts/10206145796016645?pnref=story
In other words, gay marriage isn’t really that big of a deal.
Is a ludicrous mis-characterization of
“If in this long chess game, they lose Roe and we get Obergefell, I’ll take it.
I think I was too kind with the flaming wad of flailing flat compliment.
Of course it is.
But it’s an extremely accurate characterization of this:
I’ll lose a rook for a queen.
See, Rev. Wilson is using a chess metaphor. In chess, compared to a queen, a rook isn’t really that big of a deal.
Got it?
Compared to a queen, a rook isn’t a big deal.
But a rook is a pretty big deal in chess, compared to everything else. In the end game, a rook is pretty nifty to have.
“This really big issue is less big than that really big issue” “this is not a big deal.”
For personal reasons, I stopped playing chess the day Anna Nicole Smith passed away, so I may be a little rusty. Is the rook on the white team, or the colored team?
Don’t be ridiculous. I have no idea what that Anna Nicole Smith reference is supposed to convey, but if you’ve played chess even once, you know that different pieces aren’t on different teams. And I don’t believe that you don’t know that.
Clearly you’re deliberately being an obnoxious twit, so you’ve officially reached troll status in my book.
Saints be praised!
Got it.
You don’t understand chess. You have no concept of tactics in battle and your situation awareness is all centered around you, you, you.
Yep, Got it!
I don’t think that somewhat sloppy chess analogy means what you think it means. Loosing a rook is a big deal even in exchange for a queen.
You must be joking. A pastor who detests gay marriage as an abomination (a view I don’t personally hold) nonetheless prefers it to the mass slaughter of the unborn, and you have a problem with that? Are you seriously suggesting Pastor Wilson is soft on gay marriage because, given only two choices, he would stop the abortion of a nearly full-term baby rather than prevent the nuptials of Adam and Steve?
I’m confused. Did he or did he not say that he would accept legalized gay marriage if abortion were outlawed? If he did say it, what part of it are you having trouble understanding? And where in the world did you get the idea that I have “a problem” with Rev. Wilson saying he would accept gay marriage if abortion were outlawed?
ANYway, speaking of gay marriage…lest we forget…
more action at the college level…not sure if they have given up a rook or have a queen remaining to protect or if they’ve given up the game completely…
http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2015/july/cccu-goshen-college-eastern-mennonite-university-same-sex-m.html
I think my comprehension problem is in trying to understand your difficulty with the concept of greater and lesser evils. People more articulate than I am have tried to explain this to you to no avail. Most people in the western world abominated Stalin’s Russia. They nonetheless allied themselves with Stalin in order to defeat Hitler’s Nazism which was perceived as a greater evil. You seem to be fixed on the notion that allying yourself to the lesser evil is equivalent to accepting it. Your first post on this subject made me think that you were calling out Pastor Wilson… Read more »
“If Hitler invaded Hell, I’d at least make a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.” Son, you’re on a roll. You’ve already proven you don’t know or understand law, you can’t read a case, a rook is worth 5 while a queen is 9 (knights and bishops are 3 each, pawns are 1), and you’ve displayed a lack of insight into tactics. I dunno; is Paris worth a mass to you? Does “two steps forward and one step back” ring any bells? How about “Find out what kind of whiskey he drinks and send a case… Read more »
Hitler. LOL
Rather than arguing for your thesis that allying with a monster against an even bigger monster somehow constitutes an endorsement of the first monster? Instead you LOL.
Got it. ROTFLMAO. Your move.
Kelly M. Haggar,
“…can’t read a case…”
Salient. And an effective salient.
I see that same issue widespread (even) among the faithful. I wonder if it is part of the antinomianism that infects modern American evangelicalism.
Good call on your part.
Everybody gets an opinion on what the law OUGHT to be. In fact, the more the merrier. But if you’re going to get up in public and argue what the law IS, then you need to do enough research to at least understand what the case is about, much less what it stands for.
Hitler. LOLOL
Help me out here . . . if you’re trying to make a point, what is it?
Kelly, sister, this is what I got tired of asking him. Expect no response. I never got one anyway.
I guess we’re squarely in the “teach a pig to sing” envelope.
Somebody please help me with this guy:
Check out Rob Ford (@robford303): https://twitter.com/robford303?s=09
Is there a fallacy for arguing that “because you’re not adopting all the children you can and you’re selfishly having your own children instead of saving some from abortion then you have no moral right to object to this murder” (which is what I’ve just been told on Facebook)? The gentleman in question disdains my “moral high horse” and “bullshit grandstanding,” as far inferior to his moral high horse of never having children and telling others to do the same.
While I cannot provide the formal name for the fallacy (maybe the “you also/Tu quoque), it is an obvious false moral equivalent.
three things:
1. You may be trying to teach a pig to whistle. (A waste of time and it annoys the pig.)
2. No justification exists for murder since God says explicitly “Do Not Murder”.
3. Do not allow yourself to get drawn into a “what about” capital punishment, killing in self defense, warfare, etc. Any evil (not saying that those are) does not justify another evil.
Thanks, RFB. I think posting this would have been the best response to his deflection: http://giphy.com/gifs/e5ictMKIYnS8M