Seven Deadly Fallacies
The Illogic of Pro-Abortion Arguments
By Donald DeMarco
We are rational animals. This is not a matter of debate. In fact, it explains why people have developed a long list of invectives for those whose thoughts and actions deviate noticeably from a rational standard: _airhead, blockhead, knucklehead, lunkhead, dimwit, moron, idiot, lamebrain, dumbbell, dolt, not the sharpest knife in the drawer_, and so on, _ad infinitum_.
Nonetheless, when seemingly responsible people argue for abortion�repeatedly, passionately, and under sophisticated auspices�the degree of irrationality in these arguments is often overlooked and ignored. That�s because human beings are also highly distractible and therefore easily taken in.
Logic is the tool that exposes the rationality or the irrationality of an argument. Following are seven popular irrational argumentations (logical fallacies) that are used to justify abortion.
1) Mistaking the Qualified for the Absolute
While it is true that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius, this is never an absolute statement. Water boils at this temperature _at sea level_�not so at other altitudes. "Exercise is good," is an unqualified statement. If one is recovering from triple bypass surgery, certain forms of exercise are not good.
Similarly, _choice_�the most effective ploy in the pro-abortionists arsenal�is a notion that is taken as absolute but needs qualification. Even pro-choicers are not pro-choice about domestic violence, slavery, racism, or driving under the influence. Mothers Against Drunk Driving are a case in point. They do not advise, "Don�t drink," but "Don�t drink _and_ drive."
In a _New York Times_ editorial, Faye Wattleton, former president of Planned Parenthood, stated, "The right to abortion . . . shouldn�t be a political football that candidates can kick around at will." But choice, she seems to forget, is an act of the will. If women can choose abortion, why can�t politicians (and voters) choose to make it an election issue? Ms. Wattleton tries to qualify choice when it comes to politics, but not when it comes to abortion. In the final analysis, what does being "pro-choice" really mean?
2) Double Standard
Howard Fast (d. 2003), author of some 42 novels, argued that pro-lifers are insincere because their concern for life does not continue beyond birth: "I have never heard a right-to-life voice raised in protest against 60,000 innocents murdered by the death squads of El Salvador." Responding to this charge, William F. Buckley, Jr. had this to say: The lifers are, by Mr. Fast and others who think as he does, encumbered by the responsibility for everything that happens to the fetus after it materializes into a human being in the eyes of the law. And if you aren�t around to see to it that at age 14 the kid is receiving the right education, ingesting the right food, leading a happy, prosperous life, why, you had no business bringing him into this world. You are a hypocrite to the extent that you support life for everyone who suffers in life. It is only left for Mr. Fast to close the logic of his own argument, which would involve him in a syllogistic attempt along the lines of: Everyone suffers. No one not living suffers. Therefore, no one should live. (Column, _National Review_, February 24, 1989) In other words, according to Mr. Fast, pro-lifers are responsible for everything while pro-abortionists are responsible for nothing.
Another aspect of the double standard is to acknowledge a right to life for most people who have passed the infancy stage but withhold that right not only from the unborn, but from infants up to some arbitrarily established age. For philosopher Mary Ann Warren, the age is nine months after birth; for Peter Singer, it is 28 days _post partum_. Michael Tooley and others offer different cutoff ages.
