In his book "Who is For Life" Francis A. Schaeffer makes an unreasonable assumption. I would first like to introduce his opinion:
…[T]he acceptance of abortion does not end with the killing of unborn human life. It continues on to affect our attitude toward all aspects of human life. This is most obvious in how quickly, following the acceptance of abortion, comes the acceptance of infanticide―the killing of babies who after birth do not come up to someone's standard of life worthy to be lived―and then on to euthanasia of the aged. If human life can be taken before birth, there is no logical reason why human life cannot be taken after birth.
One must think logical in this situation. Ever since the beginning of time killing someone has been wrong. He is trying to make a point here that is not valid. In his first sentence he makes the claim that if we do not stop abortion now that it will continue until murder is even in essance okay. I am against aportion and disagree with it, but I would never make that second assumption because it is not fair. Especially for those people, who are for it.
In the second sentence he says that it will affect our attitude in all aspects of our lives. Abortion is not a domino affect.
It is important for each of us to learn from this. We can not assume things that have not happened before and have been a certain way for a long period of time. We can not discuss one topic and bring another one in and assume that it will support the orginal topic. Infacticide, for example, is going overboard. If he wants to talk about abortion he needs to stay on topic. Life is special and it is important that one understands that. I agree with him on this topic. But one has to understand that when a baby is born life begins in a new era.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yours is a good point, but you need to be more specific. Instead of simply saying it's illogical to say that accepting abortion leads to accepting infanticide, you should point out that he would need to provide additional evidence to support this claim.
ReplyDeleteSo, you're right that his logic is "broken"--tell us what he would need to do if he wanted to fix it.
OK, I didn't click on the link last time. Analyzing something from a site giving examples of fallacies rather than finding fallacies in a real article where you have the full context, is not enough to fulfill the assignment.
ReplyDeleteSorry for not having caught that earlier. You can have some extra time to come up with a new post in this category. This one does not count.
okay I am working on it
ReplyDelete