Few things have pleased me recently as much as the news that the US Supreme Court is to overturn Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalised abortion throughout the country.
Few things upset me as much as people relying on rhetorical fallacies to make a point, and in general using English without the glorious precision it affords.
You might think that, inasmuch as my second paragraph doesn’t follow from the first, I myself am guilty of a logical fallacy, in this case that of a non sequitur. If you do think so, you are the kettle calling the teapot black.
The fallacy you thereby commit is called ‘hasty generalisation’, reaching a conclusion on insufficient evidence. For I’m guilty of no non sequitur: my first two sentences are logically linked.
According to Justice Samuel Alito, Roe v Wade was “unconstitutional” and “egregiously wrong from the start”. Its “reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences”.
One damaging consequence Justice Alito didn’t mention was forcing pro-abortion fanatics to violate the fundamental rules of logic and rhetoric. Just look at the photograph above.
The obviously incensed young lady is holding up a placard, saying “My body my choice”. She omitted a comma after ‘body’, which is bad grammar. She may even know it, but probably feels that punctuation is elitist and uncool.
Her logical error is much worse. She has committed the rhetorical fallacy of begging the question (petitio principii) – using the conclusion of the argument as its premise.
As a quick aside, the expression ‘begging the question’ doesn’t mean ‘raising the question’, as it is often misused. Whenever I hear that solecism uttered, I feel like killing the transgressor – in fact, I’ve already killed several, but that’s strictly between you and me.
But never mind English, feel the fallacy. The whole argument about abortion boils down to the issue highlighted in the illiterate placard. Is the foetus merely a part of the woman’s body, like her appendix or gall bladder? Or is the foetus a being endowed with the potential of gaining sovereignty, in which case the woman’s authority over it can’t be absolute, extending to life and death?
I shan’t bore you by reconstructing the logical chain I create in support of the second proposition. I’ve written on this subject quite a few times, including about a month ago. Just tap ‘abortion’ into the SEARCH feature on the right, and you’ll find what, to me, constitutes an irrefutable argument.
By contrast, the pro-abortion fanatic in the photograph, and many more like her, probably don’t even know what a cogent argument is. This supports my lifelong observation that political passions cancel out whatever intelligence the fanatic possesses, which usually isn’t much to start with anyway.
I like not only the morality and logic of the forthcoming ruling, but also its political aspect. The key choice of conservative (which is to say sound) politics is that of localism over centralism.
The former is devolving political power to the lowest sensible level; the latter is concentrating it within the central state. The second option was highlighted by Roe v Wade, which divested the states of the political power that should be theirs as of right.
Overturning that constricting legislation means transferring more power to individual states, which should put a song into every conservative heart. The issue is critical – so much so that the bloodiest war in American history was fought over it.
Then, in 1865, the centralists won their victory over the localists. The forthcoming ruling will redress some of the imbalance – and more power to the Justices’ elbows.
Let’s hope it is so!
Not to be cruel, but I have noticed over the years that the most vocal women at pro-abortion demonstrations would appear (at first glance) to have nothing to worry about.
President Lincoln struck a great blow for centralism as he waged his war over secession. It is rarely taught as such, as ending slavery makes a nicer story, and that one particular right is what the South meant by the phrase “states’ rights”. But taken in general, “states’ rights” are worth fighting over. Would that we could go back and strike a blow against federalism run amok. The founding fathers who were in favor of a strong federal government at the time of our revolution would be aghast at the behemoth it has become. They fought over a tax on tea. Imagine if the Crown had told them what candles to buy (as were are forced to buy a specific version of electric light or shower head)!
“The founding fathers who were in favor of a strong federal government at the time of our revolution would be aghast at the behemoth it has become.”
Correct. Government to the extent it is constituted is destructive of human liberty and freedom. Someone said that. The big brother social welfare state in all manifestations only began with the FDR administration. “Relief” as it was called at the time meant to be only TEMPORARY but as with almost all things governmental develops a long-lasting life of it’s own.
Yes, that relief was meant to be temporary, just as the war on poverty and welfare were meant to get people to work – to make them less dependent on the government, not more so. How quickly that was shelved.
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”
Over the decades when I have had conversations with pro-abortionists their main argument is that if a woman is raped why should she bear that burden. None of them had ever been raped, however, they thought it justification for the whole business. The poor young child never gets to express their views.
That’s a theme with many variations, such as: What if a woman is raped by her mentally retarded father and gets pregnant? I usually reply that, when that happens, let’s discuss the situation. But first let’s establish the overall principle.
Their argument boils down to this: the innocent foetus must be killed to assuage the burden on the mother and the guilt of the father.