“How to Stump Anti-Abortionists”—BlogLogic from Daniel Florien

At the Unreasonable Faith blog, Daniel Florien has posted advice on “How to Stump an Anti-Abortionist with One Simple Question.” Here we have another example of that unfortunate syndrome I call BlogLogic. By his own reasoning he paints himself into a corner. Go here to see his post. Here’s my brief reply:

You’re kidding, right? No, I suppose not. But you should know better than to engage in such hasty generalization. (I believe I know you do know better.) Thoughtful pro-lifers have thought about this and won’t be stumped if you ask them.

Here’s one for you: Suppose abortion IS the murder of an innocent and defenseless human person; what do YOU think should be done about it? It’s silly to say that because nothing should be done about it, it isn’t murder. You’ve got the reductio ad absurdum turned inside out.

Copyright © 2009 by R. Douglas Geivett

About Doug Geivett
University Professor; PhD in philosophy; author; conference speaker. Hobbies include motorcycling, travel, kayaking, sailing.

5 Responses to “How to Stump Anti-Abortionists”—BlogLogic from Daniel Florien

  1. Denmar says:

    Abortion might be considered murder, but people wake up please. We murder cows, chickens, sheeps, dogs, cats on a daily basis. What makes humans any different? We are animals, and we could be used as food but no theres the whole ‘human rights act. What about the cow acts, or chicken acts?

    Abortion prevents people from living on the streets, it prevents people from being mothers of unwanted children due to rape.

    No woman should be forced to bare a child, and abortion is saving a live instead of ‘killing’ it.


  2. Bob Dobolina says:

    Daniel Florien would make a compelling case if he could refute dissenting viewpoints. Unfortunately, as a long-time reader of his site, his general response to those who disagree with his pontificate pronouncements is “Are you off your meds?” The guy’s a charlatan–not a logician.


  3. [Doug Geivett’s note to reader: this comment is address to Daniel Florien, who commented here January 22 (see above.]

    “Of course if it really is murder, then a person should have the punishment for murder. That was my point. That is a logically consistent position.”

    You obviously don’t have a legal education. The punishment for ending the life of another human being ranges all the way from the death penalty (in many states) to getting military honours. The act of deliberately ending the life of another human being does not, in our society, come with one set punishment. (That is one of the many, many reasons why the “How much time should she get?” question is so asinine, and obviously only asked by people who haven’t thought about how our laws function.) That a punishment may vary depending on the circumstances of the death, or the nature of the person killed, does in no way reflect upon their humanity (or lack thereof).

    Consider this, my liberal blogger: whites get less jail time for murdering blacks than they do for murdering each other (or that blacks get for murdering whites). Does that mean that blacks are less human than whites, since you get punished less for killing one of them? Or is it evidence of systematic and unjustified denigration of their humanity?

    Anyway, back to the question, and the silliness of it: in no other place in our legal system do we:
    *determine punishment solely by the type of victim;
    *determine punishment in advance, without a trial;
    *not take mitigating circumstances into account;
    *demand that each and every wrongdoer be punished; nor
    *declare one method of killing (or robbery, or arson) to be different than any other.

    Your question is only a “stumper” because it implies a world which is fundamentally inconsistent with our legal system.

    In short: it’s a stupid question, and anyone who asks it is revealing his own deep-seated ignorance of the function of law in our country.


  4. Thanks for your link & comment. My point was really that some are stumped, not all — though the title is a bit misleading. But you have to admit, it was good copywriting! 🙂

    Of course if it really is murder, then a person should have the punishment for murder. That was my point. That is a logically consistent position.

    But whether it is murder or not is a different issue, one that I may tackle in the future.


  5. Rich Bordner says:

    Agreed. At worst, the pro-lifer just doesn’t know the best policy to go about enforcing a law…but it is a non sequitur to infer from that that his argument about the morality of abortion is therefore in error.

    I mean, there are tons of things we think are wrong and should be illegal, but yet we don’t know the best way to go about prosecuting them.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: