This is just outrageous!

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.

Cat's Out of the Bag

Adlai Stevenson's "Cat Bill" veto has been analyzed twice in respect to his logical fallacies. And yet, there are still fallacies to note in his argument of opposing a 1949 bill. Megan noted Stevenson's "slippery slope," "appeal to tradition," and "false dilemma" fallacies and Hailey addressed also Stevenson's "slippery slope" and "stack the deck" fallacies.

In his speech, Mr. Stevenson argues the bill being unethical with respect to the nature of cats. His point is that "It is in the nature of cats to do a certain amount of unescorted roaming"(par. 5). This "begs the question" on what constitutes "a certain amount" of roaming around. Do cats just need to stroll around the yard or should they be given an entire town as their stomping grounds? Apparently those who are supporters of this bill feel that cats are over-stepping their bounds whether they be natural or not. By saying "a certain amount," Mr. Stevenson indirectly justifies the actions of cats that have caused a drop in the bird population and thus disgruntled the people of Illinois.

He also oversimplifies one aspect of cats help society. "Cats perform useful service, particularly in rural areas, in combating rodents"(par. 5), is only one side to the issue. Though seeing cats killing rodents as beneficial is logical, there is also a downside. If a stray cat wanders into a farmer's barn and eats a mouse that feeds on oats used for the horses, then the cat is doing the farmer a service. However, cats are known to leave the corpses of their prey around. If a dead, possibly diseased mouse is left in the feeding bin and goes unnoticed, the food will be poisoned and horses and other animals could be exposed to illness and even death. This would be an incredible diservice to the farmer, his animals, and those who depend on the livlihood of the farm like the farmer's family.

He further generalizes the effects of the cats on the community. He argues that Illinois policy should not be so concerned in "a cat visiting a neighbor's yard or crossing the highway," and declaring it a "public nuisance"(par. 5). If this bill has raised enough attention as to "[be] introduced in the past several sessions of the Legislature, and it has, over the years, been the source of much comment"(par. 4), then obviously the problem entails more than cats wandering into neighbors' yards, but causing harm to the bird population.

By generalizing the issue at hand, Governor Stevenson makes his argument appear logical, practical, and the only rash and mature answer. However, his logic is falsified because he didn't take into consideration other sides of the issues that prompted this bill.

Michelle Obama's Olympic Plea

Michelle Obama pleaded to the IOC for a Chicago Olympics in 2016 and walked away empty-handed as they were sent to Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. Her speech was much more of a plea than a confident assurance that Chicago was the right place. Michelle tried to shift the focus of the IOC from why Chicago was the right place for the Olympics to why the Olympics would be right for Chicago, “Chicago's vision for the Olympic and Paralympic movement is about so more than what we can offer the Games -- it's about what the Games can offer all of us.” Rio understood what the IOC wanted and, “convinced Olympic officials that the city would keep spectators and athletes safe with an increased police presence and other measures.” Rio continues to show that they will increase security in order to alleviate the fears of the IOC. In literature shifting the focus of an argument to something of much less relevance is called a red herring. The application process is explained here. The cities answer questionnaires about how the athletes will arrive. Will they be safe? Are there enough hotels? Can the city handle the huge crowd? What about traffic and food? Is the atmosphere ideal for such a big event? Instead of answering these types of questions, Michelle focuses on other issues.

For example, Michelle tried to create emotional appeal by telling us the stories of how the Olympics impacted her life. The problem with her logic in this area is that it was in direct opposition of her emotional appeal. She tells us that watching Olympic greats like Nadia and Carl Lewis inspired her to believe that she could accomplish something great as she watched from her father’s knee. She follows this by saying, “today, I can dream, and I am dreaming of an Olympic and Paralympic Games in Chicago that will light up lives in neighborhoods all across America and all across the world; that will expose all our neighborhoods to new sports and new role models; that will show every child that regardless of wealth, or gender, or race, or physical ability, there is a sport and a place for them, too.” This hasty generalization never explains to us how the other cities will be lit up by an Olympics in Chicago. In the previous sentences she had just convinced us that it didn’t matter where the Olympics were, children across the world would be impacted. Nadia go her perfect 10 in 1976 in Montreal and it apparently affected Michelle a great deal. Carl Lewis first competed in 1984 in Los Angeles, which isn’t exactly Chicago’s back yard. We’ll just send the Olympics to Rio Michelle, it’s the same to you.

Michelle again tries to create sympathy in the reader by talking about Chicago’s poor inner neighborhoods, ““Ours was a neighborhood of working families -- families with modest homes and strong values.” I’m sure the homes in South Chicago are modest by American standards but in most other countries they would be considered mansions. Some voters at the IOC come from third world countries where most people would do anything to be a working family with a modest home. She didn’t get sympathy from the IOC on that one. Let’s compare the average downtown Chicago home with the downtown Rio home and Chicago might just win. In fact let’s pull up the “pathetic rating level” statistics for major cities. In Africa AIDS is a rampant epidemic in almost every country. Russia is still behind decades economically compared to the US. A lot of people in Paraguay still live in huts. People are willing to risk death crossing the border between Mexico and the US in order to have a shot at a better life. People are starving in Ethiopia. If the IOC were principally concerned with helping a city out, they would have the Olympics in sub-Saharan Africa every 4 years. Instead they choose cities like London, Atlanta, Turin, and Barcelona to host.

Here’s another example of how she tries to paint Chicago as the victim of the world. She says that her dad from Chicago had a really hard life but never gave up. By sending the Olympics here you’ll be helping people like him. My dad could have seen the Olympics and it would have made him happy. Michelle, I doubt your dad would have gone to every event, if even one. The poorer people in Chicago, that she feels so bad for and that will receive so much help, won’t have money to attend the games. He would have watched from home if they were held in Chicago or Beirut. I bet there’s some people in the world with rougher lives than your dad Michelle. Maybe a 50 year old from Cambodia who has worked in a sweatshop since he was 5 and no longer has his right hand because it got ripped off by unsafe machinery. Should the Olympics go there to make up for his hard work and sacrifice too?

Michelle never explains why the Olympics should come to Chicago. She talks about poor neighborhoods needing something to cheer for, something to motivate them. She never connects that need to why the Olympics should be sent to Chicago. Chicago is sad so the Olympics should come here is her entire argument. She needs to connect Chicago’s struggles with the Olympics really supplying that help to the struggling town. That would be much more effective.

This is what we learned from Michelle: she was born from Chicago, the Olympics changed her life and will impact the lives of the whole world no matter where they are held, the Olympics can offer a lot to Chicago just like it could to every other city in the world, her dad taught her how to fight, her dad had a hard life, and some people have small homes in Chicago. To sum up everything into one phrase, “Chicago is so bad and hard that we need the Olympics, therefore the games should be in Chicago.” Or maybe she thought they were supposed to go to Chicago because it doesn't matter where they go but because she was born there they should be there. There’s no logical connection in there at all is there? Michelle tried to make the IOC feel like the world owed her and Chicago the Olympics. She tried to reason with us but came up to no sensible conclusion. She tried to get votes for Chicago, but instead got the least amount of votes and a quick exit from competition.

Anatomy of a Ban

The name of this article tells us in itself that the author is going to dissect the subject. This is a catchy way to bring out curiosity in readers. There are many ways that the author accurately depicts the situation; however, many logical fallacies can be found within the article.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=12389

Hasty Generalization/sweeping generalization is used in the following ways:

-"Women who have had an abortion require psychological treatment of such symptoms as nervous disorders, sleep disturbances, and deep regrets,"

• Saying that all women who have had an abortion need psychological treatment covers such a basic range of women. It explains only one side, leaving the women who are relieved by the choice to abort.

"Abortion results in increased tobacco smoking,"

• This is obviously a skewed statement trying to make the reader think that every woman who aborted now smokes, and if they already smoked, they smoke more now. A sentence that could still accurately portray the affects of abortion on smoking would include "can result in." The author can lose ethos by a conscious reader recognizing this fallacy.
  

"Most couples find abortion to be an event which shatters their relationship,"

• Saying "most couples" has a misleading connotation unless a published study is cited as a reference to solidify the facts.
  

"Abortion exploits women, treating them and their children as mere property,"

• One woman who has never chosen to abort feels that abortion itself exploits women. a statement by this woman could easily be turned into the quote we see above. If women chose to abort, then how can they feel like property?

False Analogy

The article concludes with the statement, "Because the bill is so radical, experts don't expect it to make it out of the House of Representatives." What makes the bill so radical? Comparing it with one other state's bill hardly gives the true view of the topic. To say that because this bill is so radical that it won't make it past the House compares it with other "radical" bills that didn't pass. This bill is completely different than other bills in content and purpose. A fair comparison would account for that.

All of these problems give little credibility to the author. This makes it harder to build good ethos, pathos, and logos.