Abortion and Logic .....

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0034.html


Abortion and Logic DONALD DEMARCO

"John Irving is a well-known novelist and short story writer. In his latest book, My Movie Business: A Memoir (Knopf, 1999), he presents his view on abortion and his attitude toward Right-to-Life advocates. This passage is quite remarkable in that it contains well over a dozen logical fallacies within a relatively brief span of words. Its illogic density, we might say, is exceptionally high. It is a passage that is most worthy of inclusion in a logic text to illustrate Sophistical Reasoning."


http://catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0034.html



Many pro-choicers claim to be the rational side in the abortion debate.

Is this really true ?

Doesn't the pro-choice side argue that the "Sanctity of Life" position is irrational, illogical ?
Why is that ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0034.html


Abortion and Logic DONALD DEMARCO

"John Irving is a well-known novelist and short story writer. In his latest book, My Movie Business: A Memoir (Knopf, 1999), he presents his view on abortion and his attitude toward Right-to-Life advocates. This passage is quite remarkable in that it con ...[text shortened]... hoice side argue that the "Sanctity of Life" position is irrational, illogical ? Why is that ?

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Only got one thing out of that article, Ivanhoe. I now hate, with a passion bordering on murderous rage, the word "fallacy".

Both sides agree that if the fetus has gained personhood an abortion cannot be morally justified.

The question therefore boils down to "When does un unborn human being become a person", or "When does an unborn human being acquire personhood and the accompanying Human Rights, among which the Right to Life ?

Another related question is : "When does a human being lose his personhood and the accompanying Human Rights".

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Only got one thing out of that article, Ivanhoe. I now hate, with a passion bordering on murderous rage, the word "fallacy".

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

DECLARATION ON PROCURED ABORTION

1. The problem of procured abortion and of its possible legal liberalization has become more or less everywhere the subject of impassioned discussions. These debates would be less grave were it not a question of human life, a primordial value, which must be protected and promoted. Everyone understands this, although many look for reasons, even against all evidence, to promote the use of abortion. One cannot but be astonished to see a simultaneous increase of unqualified protests against the death penalty and every form of war and the vindication of the liberalization of abortion, either in its entirety or in ever broader indications. The Church is too conscious of the fact that it belongs to her vocation to defend man against everything that could disintegrate or lessen his dignity to remain silent on such a topic. Because the Son of God became man, there is no man who is not His brother in humanity and who is not called to become a Christian in order to receive salvation from Him.

...............etc etc

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

Originally posted by ivanhoe
The question therefore boils down to "When does un unborn human being become a person"?

Originally posted by dottewell
Agreed. What is your answer and why?

I'm not certain that it is a named fallacy, but reading autobiography as analytic argument hardly qualifies as exemplary logic. The clearest errors I was able to find were Donald Demarco's fundamental errors of writing mechanics and his gross disregard of standard academic conventions. The lines between Irving's and Demarco's words are not appropriately marked.

Demarco wrote, "In the first sentence, Irving describes himself not only as a novelist, but as a rather prolific one, having authored nine of them." Grammatically, "them" refers back to novelists. I didn't realize Irving had so many childern who pursue the same profession.

Demarco wrote, "Irving, though perfectly willing to describe himself, does not extent that same liberty to his approaching Right-to-Lifer.” Perhaps he meant extend, rather than extent.

Then, Demarco offers us some examples of poor logic for that textbook we're producing. He wrote, "Appealing to the emotions of the masses (as any number of tyrants have done throughout history rather effectively) is no substitute for shedding light on the argumentation at hand." Certainly the word "argument" would suffice without the suffix. Even so, the transformation of a novelist into a tyrant defies my capacities to follow the chain of logic.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I'm not certain that it is a named fallacy, but reading autobiography as analytic argument hardly qualifies as exemplary logic. The clearest errors I was able to find were Donald Demarco's fundamental errors of writing mechanics and his gross disregard of standard academic conventions.

Me too. Your writing intimidates the hell out of me. I'd hate to be forced to grade it. 😕

One of my profs wrote a book that offered a critique of the arguments inherent in The Confessions of Augustine (spiritual autobiography), Absalom, Absalom (novel), and assorted other texts. However, his critique was not rooted in efforts to define logical fallacies. Rather, he aimed to show how these texts made claims to truth--explicit and implicit--that undermined themselves in a variety of ways. Some of us labelled this professor a "fundamentalist deconstructionist," partly because of assertions he made about the relative inconsistency of Paul de Man's practice of deconstruction in contrast to Jacques Derrida.

In other words, it is possible to critique Irving's implicit arguments without resorting to the sort of flawed analysis spewed forth by the likes of Demarco.

Originally posted by invigorate
I maintain that the unborn child becomes human when it can survive outside the womb. Circa 22 weeks. To be safe I say 20 weeks is a good arbitary cut off point.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Me too. Your writing intimidates the hell out of me. I'd hate to be forced to grade it. 😕

One of my profs wrote a book that offered a critique of the arguments inherent in The Confessions of Augustine (spiritual autobiography), Absalom, Absalom (novel), and assorted other texts. However, his critique was not rooted in efforts to define log ...[text shortened]... arguments without resorting to the sort of flawed analysis spewed forth by the likes of Demarco.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
PLEASE NOTE SPELLING CORRECTION ---> Wulebgr: [b]" .... it is possible to critique Irving's implicit arguments without resorting to the sort of flawed analysis spewed forth by the likes of Demarco.

Please do.[/b]