Friday, October 31, 2008

Sometimes we are obliged to restate the obvious, Part 2

As reasonable human beings, we are sometimes obliged to restate the obvious.

The Westchester Institute has recently published a white paper (allow time for .pdf file to download) regarding the scientific rationale for establishing the moment at which human life begins.

Connected with this, and my garage sale, I have been re-reading a classic introductory textbook on Philosophical Logic, by Copi/Cohen. I was reminded of the classic informal fallacies of argumentation (which still apply in any debate about abortion, or indeed, about politics during a campaign/election year).

Informal Logic and Informal Fallacies form the critical guidelines of any discourse, public debate, or reasonable argumentation. Educate yourselves about these traditional rules of debate, and you won't go far wrong in the election, on human life issues, or even spousal relationships.

Q: Which informal fallacy applies -- "Women simply are not reasonable when discussing things; my wife, for example, just the other day...."?


zaphod said...

This has NEVER been a complicated question. Life is a continuum. If that continuum is interrupted, death results. Human life begins at conception. It just does. Wishing away this central fact does not make it any less of a fact. When an abortion is performed, the continuum of a human life is interrupted, a human life is ended.

CultMan said...

You still haven't answered my question: "Which informal fallacy applies?"

Try it our on you loved ones; it makes an interesting Thanksgiving game....

PS Of course, any unbiased idiot knows the answer to the question of the origins of human life - conception marks the spot; the question I am raising is "What is any idiot American thinking this week? And why?"

CultMan said...

PS: What I mean is that the question still applies to "the inter-sexual" situation -- how exactly does LOGIC inform our relationships and beliefs, personally.... and how does it affect us as Christians.

Secondly, are you implying that making "folks" (oh I love that Democrtatic, Liberal word - folks) aware - via blog postings - of more substatial arguments (ie my posting pro-life stuff) is not worthy of our efforts?

Your commment seems to be almost hostile, yet I simply don't believe that.

Don't think you do, G., for what it's worth.

So I am also unsure about what your response actually means.

zaphod said...

I wasn't being hostile and no, I didn't answer your question. My response was to the pdf you linked. It's well-written and I don't take issue with any of it. I'm just looking at the current political climate. We're about to elect someone president who can't even stand against partial birth abortion or stand with an infant born alive after a failed abortion. He says he doesn't want his daughter to be "punished" with a baby if she were to make a mistake. Is the problem really that people don't know when human life begins? Isn't it much worse than that?

I don't expect people to be unbiased. I just don't want them to be idiots. A lot of people just don't want to know.

CultMan said...

Fair enough; and I am really worried about this election too. Sleepless in the awful, possible, future USA -- Toronto ON.