Critiquing: If Abortion Is Murder, Then Is Miscarriage Manslaughter?

April 20, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Abortion Debate — Library Censorship — Creation and Science — Incoherence Argument — Pragmatic Truth

---

Logical Coherence Analysis

Introduction

The content from the transcript “If Abortion Is Murder, Then Is Miscarriage Manslaughter?” by Stand to Reason discusses several controversial topics, including the legal implications of abortion and miscarriage, censorship of books in libraries, and the relationship between belief in creation and scientific coherence. This critique evaluates the logical coherence of the arguments presented, highlighting logical inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, and cognitive biases. The critique will also emphasize the importance of substantiating claims and mapping one’s degree of belief to the degree of available evidence.

Abortion and Miscarriage

Argument Overview The primary argument addressed is whether miscarriages should be considered manslaughter if abortion is deemed murder. The speaker dismisses this notion by comparing a miscarriage to an accidental death, stating, “If shooting someone in the head is murder, then when someone falls off a cliff by accident, that must be manslaughter. That’s the parallel, which is silly.”

Logical Inconsistencies

1. False Analogy: The analogy between shooting someone and falling off a cliff fails to capture the nuances of the abortion versus miscarriage debate. In the case of abortion, intent is present, whereas in miscarriage, there is no intent. The comparison is overly simplistic and does not address the moral and legal complexities involved.
2. Straw Man Fallacy: The argument sets up a simplified version of the opposing view to easily refute it. By framing the question as inherently “silly,” the speaker avoids engaging with the more nuanced ethical considerations that opponents might raise.

Library Censorship

Argument Overview The second topic involves the removal of explicit pro-transgender and pro-homosexuality books from children’s sections in libraries. The speaker argues for this removal on the grounds that such materials could be psychologically harmful to children, stating, “Let’s wait until adolescence before we begin to talk about those things.”

Logical Inconsistencies

1. Slippery Slope: The argument implies that exposure to these books will inevitably lead to psychological harm or misdiagnosis, which is a slippery slope without concrete evidence. The assumption that such exposure will result in significant harm is not substantiated.
2. Selective Standard Application: The speaker advocates for removing certain books based on potential harm but does not apply the same standard to religious books, which could also be argued to influence children significantly. This selective application of standards lacks logical consistency.

Creation and Scientific Coherence

Argument Overview The final topic addresses a friend who rejects Jesus because believing in creation would add incoherence to the universe. The speaker counters this by asserting that belief in God and creation provides a foundation for scientific inquiry, stating, “Science developed in the West because of belief in God.”

Logical Inconsistencies

1. Historical Inaccuracy: While belief in order and rationality influenced the development of science, it is inaccurate to claim that science developed solely because of belief in God. Many scientific advancements occurred in various cultural contexts, including non-theistic ones.
2. Begging the Question: The argument assumes that the existence of God is a given and uses this assumption to justify the coherence of the universe. This circular reasoning does not provide independent support for the claim.

Unsubstantiated Claims and Cognitive Biases

Unsubstantiated Claims

1. The claim that “psychologically harmful” effects will occur from exposure to pro-transgender and pro-homosexuality books is not backed by empirical evidence.
2. The assertion that “Darwinian evolution is false on the merits” lacks specific evidence and reasoning, reducing its persuasive power.

Cognitive Biases

1. Confirmation Bias: The speaker exhibits confirmation bias by selectively presenting information that supports their pre-existing beliefs while disregarding counter-evidence.
2. Appeal to Emotion: The use of emotionally charged language, such as describing the removal of books as “sanitizing their own commitment,” aims to provoke an emotional response rather than a logical evaluation.

Obligation to Substantiate Claims

Importance of Evidence Substantiating claims is crucial for maintaining logical coherence and credibility. When making strong assertions, especially on controversial topics, providing empirical evidence and well-reasoned arguments is necessary to persuade a rational audience.

Mapping Belief to Evidence The degree of belief one holds should correspond to the strength of the available evidence. This principle, rooted in epistemology, helps ensure that beliefs are proportionate to the justification supporting them. In the content, many claims are made without sufficient evidence, undermining their credibility.

Testing Alleged Promises

Methodology To test any alleged promises, such as those attributed to divine intervention, one could:

1. Empirical Observation: Gather and analyze data to see if there are consistent patterns that align with the promises.
2. Controlled Experiments: Design experiments to test specific claims under controlled conditions to eliminate confounding variables.
3. Longitudinal Studies: Conduct studies over extended periods to observe the long-term effects and outcomes of following the promises.

By employing these methods, one can objectively assess the validity of such claims.

Conclusion

The content presents several arguments that lack logical coherence due to false analogies, straw man fallacies, and unsubstantiated claims. Cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias and appeals to emotion, further undermine the persuasiveness of the arguments. To improve logical coherence, it is essential to substantiate claims with empirical evidence, apply standards consistently, and ensure that beliefs are proportionate to the degree of evidence available. By doing so, one can engage in more rational and credible discourse.

---

Feel free to discuss these arguments further in the comments section!