Question Home

Position:Home>Philosophy> Isnt this a fallacious argument?


Question: Isnt this a fallacious argument!?
So, i was on youtube and i came across this interesting fella who support abortion, making arguments against pro life people!.
He is trying to refute this argument about "potential life"!.
Basically this is how "potential life" reasoning goes: when you are having an abortion, you are killing a potential human life that could grow up to be a living breathing human being!. So abortion is murder!.
His argument against this is: If thats so, not having sex is also killing a living, breathing human life, because when you dont spend time ****ing a woman/man, you are basically hindering a human life from coming into existence!.Www@QuestionHome@Com


Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
It's not strictly fallacious!.
It's a form of argument called 'reducto ad absurdium'!.
Basically it's the old pivotal question about "when does life begin!?"
taken to the ultimate extreme!.
Since there is such disagreement on that pivotal point, it's
imperative that the Government be kept out of the decision and
the issue be decided on an individual basis!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

The point here is one ridiculous argument to counteract another!.

If I said "sperm is a potential life" that means you are a murderer when you masturbate!. Nothing wrong with that argument!.

So the equivalent is when a woman has her period!. Is a woman who has her period a murderer!? There is even a bloody victim!.

Once you agree that calling something a "life" that isn't even BORN yet is ridiculous, then the argument WINS!. Can an argument be a "fallacy" and be correct!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

Yes!. he is using the argument landfall!. If one thing is "so" than EVERYTHING is "so"!.
His argument is simply not true!. We don't punish people for not having kids we punish them for killing someoneWww@QuestionHome@Com

One could also argue that a fetus is not a potential for human life, but actual, individual human life!. What is the difference between a fetus 10 minutes before it is born and 10 minutes after it is born (besides it's location)!. I cant see why you would think that just because a baby is inside a mother's womb that it is only a potential for human life!. If it has a functioning brain, it is alive, whether or not it is in a womb!.



And you dont need to use the F word to get your point across in this situation!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

yes it is fallacious, he's just making a point!. Kind of like the "slippery slope" argument!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

it's not fallacious but it might be fellatiousWww@QuestionHome@Com

I think you should post a link to the speech!. That's ludicrous, but I wonder if you aren't misinterpreting him!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Actually, it is only fallacious if the string of cause and effect is untenable!.

There is historic precedent to his argument!. Masturbation is seen as wasting of seed and considered a sin!. The catholic church considers it a sin to interfere with the possibility of the egg being fertilized and frowns on non coital sex, oral sex, anal sex, what have you, for the same or related reasons!. the point of not having sex in the argument in question was obviously hyperbolic, but I think it raises a valid point that goes to the heart of the issue!. At what point is an embryo considered equal to that of a newborn!?

There is a line that can be drawn and it has been by church and by the state!. It is not a definite line but one of graduation so the very vagueness makes it difficult to pick a definite place to draw the line!. Which is what all the hub bub is about!.

so, in my view, the argument is not fallacious because there is precedent for the argument in question in catholic doctrine and it is valid if you grant the underlying premises that come with a catholic belief!. also, the argument is calling attention to the reasonable requirement for justification for drawing the line at a particular place!. merely saying "killing children is wrong" is insufficient!. because what is at issue is precisely when an empbryo is considered a child and we have legal standards to judge that issue and religious ones to guide our behaviour, if we so choose!. So, it really turns on the issue of free choice versus no choice!.

By the way, an argument can be fallacious, but a conclusion is either true or false!. A fallacious argument can have a conclusion that is true

e!.g!.
All men are popcicles
All popcicles have a heart
Therefore all men have heartsWww@QuestionHome@Com