Fallacies arise from
mistakes in reasoning, that is, the way one concludes based on the given
premises. Formal fallacies are determined once an argument can be reduced to only
its form, whereas the determination of informal fallacies relies on familiarity
with the content. Fallacies can then be broken into several categories: that of
relevance, appeal to people, attack against the person, weak induction, and
those that rely on presumptions or ambiguity.
Each category included
several types of fallacies, and these will be presented, defined, and explained
through examples, in the specific context of abortion. A heated debate of which
most people have been exposed to in some form or another, but does each debater
rely on proper reasoning to make their various points? It is the aim of this
essay to examine the arguments on abortion, in light of the informal and formal
fallacies which have been examined in Hurley’s Logic Text. This essay will not
serve as a platform to make the case for the pro-life position; it will instead
be limited to the arguments proposed by the pro-choice position. There is no
way to reference comprehensively each argument, but I will be giving president
to the most popular arguments and shedding light on the various fallacies, if
there are any to be found.
Implicit
Fallacies
As
was stated above, conclusions of arguments are derived by reasoning from the
given premises, and this reasoning can either be faulty or appropriate. When
the reasoning is faulty, there is a fallacy to be found, no matter how subtle
it may be. Various arguments will be summarized, and if there are any fallacies
implied they will be brought to light. Sometimes, more than one fallacy can
apply to any one argument.
One
argument given in favor of the right for the mother decided to terminate her
pregnancy, is given in light of the potential risk to the mother’s life. Many
pro-life advocates agree with the conclusion that the pregnancy can be
terminated if the mother’s life is indeed in danger, but what can be determined
from various court rulings, is that the term life has been equivocated upon. Equivocation occurs when some word
is used either implicitly or explicitly in two different senses. Life, indeed, is an ambiguous term which
can meant in a literal sense, as in denoting a living being, or in a
qualitative sense, as in a quality of life. The way in which pro-lifers use the
term is in a literal sense, that is, the pregnancy risks poses a threat which
would end the mother’s life. However, if this term is to be understood as in quality of life, the cases in which the
mother could employ this argument would virtually be equal with the number of
pregnancy cases because all pregnancies affect the mother’s quality of life.
Another
argument which has been given in support of the mother’s choice to terminate
her pregnancy rests on the fact of the burden which is placed on the mother. A
hypothetical case can be given which references a financially struggling mother
who does not have the resources to support another child. Though we do not need
to ignore the needs of those around us, we need to recognize that this is not
in fact an actual argument for why the mother should have the right to
terminate her pregnancy. Rather, this is an appeal to pity, an informal fallacy
which attempts to evoke pity from the audience in order to sway the acceptance
of a conclusion. In addition to appeal to
pity, this “argument” begs the question. It assumes that there is not a life of
a child at stake. If this argument was reworded to state that a financially
struggling woman could no longer support her 3-year-old and therefore chose to
undue herself of this burden (i.e. terminate the life of the child), we would
intuitively know that this request would be absurd and indeed morally wrong.
I purposefully use the
word wrong to assert a value claim. It
is not merely a bad choice for this woman to make, but it is inherently wrong.
So many pro-choices try to reduce the argument to a preference: “Don’t like
abortions? Don’t have one.” This is not the issue at stake. Just as much as
murder is not merely a matter of preference, neither is abortion, unless one
begins by begging the questions that abortion is not murder. Presuppositions
made by both sides of the argument cannot go unjustified.
Cases
of rape in which pregnancy results, indeed serve as cases of extenuating
circumstances which need to be examined more closely, but does that mean there
is not anything which can be said as a response to those who would use cases of
rape as a means to justify terminating a pregnancy? Ad hominem circumstantial
has to do with attacking the opponent based on their circumstances, in order to
discredit their argument. Proponents
of allowing abortions based on cases of rape, deal with their opponents by way
of pointing out their circumstance, either that of being a male or of having
not been raped, to discredit their argument because they could never relate to
the victim. Though these are tragic cases, in which all parties should be
utmost compassionate, caring, and gentle with the victim, we must realize that
circumstances do not always discredit
arguments.
Another type of fallacy
which relies on attacking the person is that of ad hominem abusive, one of
which I have personally experienced in the context of this argument. My
pro-choice interlocutor began verbally abusing me as an attempt to discredit my
argument. This was done by accusing me of being uncompassionate, calloused, and
heartless. In these instances, one must take a step back and examine the truth
value of my premises. If they were in fact true, and the argument was in valid
form, then these (unfair) accusations are irrelevant. What we see is also
evident of the tu quoque fallacy, which is Latin for “you, too.”
This is done in order to shift the burden of guilt. It plays out like this: “You
think it is heartless to terminate the pregnancy? Well it is heartless of you
to insist that this victim not terminate her pregnancy.”
The
right to privacy argument also begs the question, but because this fallacy has
been referenced above, I will instead focus on how it uses the accident fallacy
and the fallacy of the weak analogy. The right to privacy argument states that
the woman has the right to privacy and therefore the right to abortion because
it is a private matter. The accident fallacy is committed when a general rule
is wrongly applying to atypical specific cases. Though
guaranteed under the fourth amendment, citizens are to be given the right to privacy
as is qualified in the Constitution. Certain interests of the state, however,
do not fall into the category of what should be protect, does abortion? If the
state has the duty to indeed protect its citizens, and the unborn is a citizens
(though of a different location), then abortion does not fall under the
category of private acts. Just as instances of abuse are not protected under
the fourth amendment, even if they are done in the privacy of one’s own home,
abortion should not be a protected right.
Most
analogies given in support of abortion as a right given by the fourth amendment
commit the fallacy of the weak analogy. Indeed they would have to because what
analogy could be employed which would give someone the right to kill in the
name of privacy? If someone were to trespass, does that give me the right to
kill them? Any analogy would beg the question of whether the unborn is a person
or not, and therefore any analogy would commit the fallacy or the weak analogy,
by asserting a conclusions that depends on an analogy that is not strong enough
to support it.
Arguments
have been given based on the fact that there is a 50/50 chance that what we are
dealing with, in the context of the unborn, is either simply tissue or is a
living being that inherently has rights. From this premise, that there is a
50/50 chance that either of these options are correct, pro-choicers will commit
the fallacy of appealing to ignorance by asserting that, because we do not know
what it is, we should air on the side of choice (included in this are privacy,
freedom, and choice). However, it is an intuitively obvious notion that we
cannot explain the known with the unknown. What is more is the state has indeed
been constructed to protect the rights of its citizens and establish justice,
should it not intuit that its duty is rather to err on the side of life?
This
argument also commits the fallacy of suppressing evidence. Were all the
evidence to be presented, that there is not in fact a 50/50 chance that the
unborn consists of either simply tissue or a living being, the conclusion would
be different. If it was acknowledged, however, that all the evidence for the
personhood of the unborn points to the inherent right to life, the conclusion
in fact would be opposite: Never does the right to privacy, freedom, or choice
or the mother trump the lift of the unborn.
Conclusion
Many pro-choice arguments commit various informal and
formal fallacies alike. Indeed,
all of the arguments
referenced above rely on fallacies to reason from their premises to their conclusions. Exposed
fallacies are evidence of faulty reasoning, which implies that conclusions are
not correct. Due to the fact that all of the arguments referenced above do in
fact rely on fallacies which have since been exposed, the conclusions of all of
these arguments are not correct. This is not to say that there are not other premises
which could be offered, are that there are not other arguments out there. What
it does say, is that the burden of proof is on those which are proponents of
the right of the mother to terminate the pregnancy.
The comprehensive nature of all of the arguments listed above
can be reduced to show that anything short of erring on the side of life is
negligent on the state’s and the individual’s part. As the burden of proof has
been shown to remain on the side of the pro-choice debate, there is no reason
why abortions should be permitted in the meantime.
Bibliography
Hurley, Patrick J. A Concise Introduction to Logic.
12th ed. Stamford: Cengage Learning, 2012. Electronic Format.
No comments:
Post a Comment