Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
These are mostly opinions. But there is some fallacious reasoning / manipulative rhetoric going on here:
Jumping from one's position to "not caring about" women/babies is an unwarranted conclusion. This mirrors typical black and white thinking where if one is for legalized abortion they "don't care about babies" or if one is against they "don't care about women." Of course, reality is much more complicated as is common with moral dilemmas. We can care about two things but care about one slightly more. |
answered on Sunday, Apr 04, 2021 09:38:49 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
|
I see two fallacies here. The first is the complex question fallacy (plurium interrogationum). The question presupposes welfare programs are a way of showing we care for women and children.
Or maybe it's just a non sequitur:
|
answered on Sunday, Apr 04, 2021 12:37:58 PM by Jordan Pine | |
Jordan Pine Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
|
There seem to be a few instances of false dilemma: Part of the claim is that caring about the women in this situation means one must support expansive child benefits and welfare programmes; with the implication that such programmes are the only way to "care about women's autonomy" and that not supporting those programmes means one doesn't care about women in such situations, as evidenced by the last sentence of the "conversation". The possibility of alternate approaches seems to have been discounted. Limiting abortion violates a woman's bodily autonomy leads us to two options: support a woman's autonomy and allow abortion or limit abortion and violate autonomy -- again, the possibility of allowing abortion while supporting a woman's autonomy has been discounted. The exchange seems to be mostly opinion, interspersed with commonly-used but unsupported claims. |
answered on Sunday, Apr 04, 2021 10:22:52 AM by Arlo | |
Arlo Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
|
"Therefore you a selfish nimrod who kills babies and don't care about women either." would be an ad hominem. "limiting abortion violates the bodily autonomy of the women" would be one issue and " I personally don't believe in expansive government programs" is another issue.. Person B is trying to make it all one issue. Not sure if their is a fallacy in that. |
answered on Sunday, Apr 04, 2021 08:56:54 AM by richard smith | |
richard smith Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
|
"The fact that the women does not want the child does not justify a killing of the child." This would be a definist fallacy regarding the word "child". A fetus is not a child, and if they used the word fetus instead of "child" it would make for a weaker argument. Its also an appeal to emotion too, because people are generally more emotionally attached to "children" than to fetuses. Also, what does and doesn't justify an abortion is arbitrary and an opinion. |
|||||||
answered on Tuesday, Apr 06, 2021 01:10:39 PM by Jason Mathias | ||||||||
Jason Mathias Suggested These Categories |
||||||||
Comments |
||||||||
|
|
A lot of unsupported claims there. Nobody supported any of the claims they were making, which makes the whole thing as huge exercise in begging the question by both sides. Nobody established that abortion volated any bodily autonomy, nor that unborns count as children. But basically the opposing team has a point here. You really cannot expect anti-abortion policies to work without extensive enough welfare, desperate enough people will logically have abortions regardless of whether they are illegal. The conclusion that you care neither about babies nor women is however a logical interference to make. Since you know full well that desperate enough people will have abortions anyway, the only ends you are serving by making abortion illegal in that circumstances is simply to harm women. |
answered on Tuesday, Apr 06, 2021 06:35:30 AM by GoblinCookie | |
GoblinCookie Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
|
I agree with everything that was said before me, I will not repeat, but I will deal with one sequence.
We can look at this in two ways: 1. Person B thinks that abortion is the murder of a child (no, this is neither an opinion, nor some philosophical idea or problem, this is simply a false claim) 2. Person B intentionally perverts the situation by putting words in Person A's mouth. This is the already mentioned strawman fallacy. |
|||||||
answered on Monday, Apr 05, 2021 09:35:13 AM by Shockwave | ||||||||
Shockwave Suggested These Categories |
||||||||
Comments |
||||||||
|