Critiquing: Is It Wrong for Pro-Lifers to Get Between a Woman and Her Doctor?

July 10, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Ethics Debate — Slogan Analysis — Sovereignty and Responsibility — Congenital Disorders — God’s Purposes

---

Introduction

The content provided centers around discussing pro-life arguments and addressing common pro-choice slogans and challenges. The primary focus is on three key questions:

1. Ways to respond to the slogan about not getting between a woman and her doctor.
2. The issue of God’s sovereignty over miscarriage versus a woman’s choice to abort.
3. Reconciling congenital disorders with the belief in a divine plan.

Slogan Analysis

The analysis begins with a critique of the pro-choice slogan “not getting between a woman and her doctor.” The author attempts to dismantle this slogan by asking for clarification and drawing an analogy with bank robbery:

“To me, just as an aside, this is like saying, if you are getting between a person, a patron, and his banker, when you’re robbing a bank.”

This analogy is problematic for several reasons:

1. False Equivalence: Equating a medical procedure with a criminal act like bank robbery is a false equivalence. The ethical and legal contexts of these two scenarios are vastly different, making the comparison inappropriate.
2. Straw Man Fallacy: The argument simplifies the pro-choice position to make it easier to attack. Pro-choice advocates do not frame the issue as preventing a robbery but rather as preserving a woman’s autonomy over her own body.
3. Lack of Nuance: The analysis fails to consider the complex ethical and medical considerations involved in the decision to terminate a pregnancy.

Sovereignty and Responsibility

The content next addresses the question of God’s sovereignty over miscarriage and how it relates to a woman’s choice to abort:

“God allows people to die. Let’s just speak very generally here. In God’s sovereignty, he’s over all of that thing.”

The argument here is that God’s allowance of natural death does not justify human-caused death:

1. Unsubstantiated Claim: The assertion that God’s sovereignty justifies all natural events but not human actions requires more substantial evidence and reasoning. It assumes a divine moral framework without providing proof.
2. Inconsistency: The content suggests that while God allows natural miscarriages, human-induced abortions are morally wrong. This distinction is not clearly justified, leading to an inconsistency in the argument.
3. Responsibility Shift: The argument shifts responsibility from the divine to the human without adequately explaining why one is permissible and the other is not.

Congenital Disorders and Divine Plan

The final section tackles the issue of congenital disorders in the context of a divine plan:

“I don’t think that David or the psalmist here is asserting that God is actively constructing each individual in the womb.”

This section attempts to reconcile the existence of congenital disorders with a belief in a divine plan by interpreting poetic language metaphorically:

1. Selective Interpretation: The content selectively interprets religious texts to fit the argument, which can be seen as cherry-picking evidence. It argues for a metaphorical interpretation without considering alternative views.
2. Lack of Testability: Claims about divine plans and purposes are inherently untestable. This makes the argument unfalsifiable, which is a critical flaw from a logical standpoint.
3. Moral Implications: The explanation provided raises ethical concerns about justifying congenital disorders as part of a divine plan. It does not address the moral responsibility for preventing or alleviating suffering.

Logical Fallacies and Cognitive Biases

Several logical fallacies and cognitive biases are evident throughout the content:

1. Straw Man Fallacy: Misrepresenting the pro-choice position to make it easier to attack.
2. False Equivalence: Comparing abortion to bank robbery.
3. Confirmation Bias: Interpreting evidence to fit a pre-existing belief system without considering alternative viewpoints.
4. Appeal to Authority: Relying on religious texts as authoritative without providing independent evidence.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

The content makes several claims that are both unsubstantiated and dubious:

1. Moral Justification: The assertion that divine sovereignty justifies natural events but not human actions lacks evidence.
2. Divine Plan: The idea that congenital disorders serve a divine purpose is not substantiated and raises ethical concerns.

Obligation to Substantiate Claims

In any logical argument, especially one involving moral and ethical considerations, it is crucial to substantiate claims with evidence. The content falls short in this regard, often relying on religious texts and metaphors without providing independent verification.

Methods to Test Alleged Promises

To critically evaluate any alleged promises of divine intervention, one could consider:

1. Empirical Evidence: Looking for observable, repeatable outcomes that align with the promises.
2. Statistical Analysis: Analyzing data to determine if there is a significant correlation between claimed promises and actual events.
3. Controlled Experiments: Conducting controlled experiments to test specific claims, where feasible.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

It is essential to align one’s degree of belief with the degree of available evidence. The content often relies on high levels of belief without corresponding evidence. This approach is not logically robust and fails to meet the standards of rational inquiry.

Conclusion

The content presents several arguments against common pro-choice slogans and challenges, but it often relies on logical fallacies, cognitive biases, and unsubstantiated claims. A more rigorous and evidence-based approach is necessary to construct logically coherent and ethically sound arguments. Mapping beliefs to the available evidence and critically evaluating claims are crucial steps in this process.

---

Thank you for engaging with these arguments. I welcome further discussion in the comments section to explore these issues more deeply.