Logical Fallacies used by abortion proponents
Fallacies of Relevance
(general rule applied in a specific case beyond the intended outcome)
- Straw Man
Fabricating a weak argument, attempting to associate the weak argument with the position of the opposition, then attacking the fabricated weak argument.
(attempting to associate the victory over the weak fabricated argument with a victory over their opponents argument)
- Red Herring
Changing the subject to avoid the issue or draw attention away from a point or points that conquers their position.
- Argumentum ad Hominem (Attack the arguer)
- Abusive (insulting the opposition, engaging in personal attacks that avoid the issue)
- You Too ("tu quoque"); Asserting that the opposition is guilty of the same thing to avoid culpability of their own transgression.
- Argumentum ad Populum (Appealing to the people)
- Appeal to Force (if you don't kill Jews, Hitler will kill you)
- Appeal to Pity (if you don't kill the unborn, the mother will suffer)
Fallacies of weak induction
- Argumentum ad Verecundiam
Appeal to (weak, unqualified or biased) Authority; abortion is justified because Margaret Sanger said so.
- Argumentum ad Ignoratiam
Appeal to Ignorance
People have tried to prove unborn are human beings
They have failed
Therefore, unborn are not human beings.
- Hasty generalization (using atypical samples to represent a greater group)
- False Cause
- Slippery Slope
When the premises presented are unlikely to produce the given conclusion.
- Weak Analogy
No (or weak) connection between associated premises or parts of premises.
Fallacies of Presumption, Ambiguity, and Grammatical Analogy
- Begging the question
Asserting/assuming something is true as a basis for proving the truth about it.
- Complex question
- False dichotomy (false bifurcation, either-or)
Presenting a false inference that only one of two options is possible.
"Either you give me all of your money or admit that you hate me."
- Suppressed Evidence
Ignoring information that affects the truth of a premise.
Or ignoring stronger evidence that supports a different conclusion.
Also - taking quotes out of context.
- Begging the question
Using different definitions of the same word.
"He was in a battle,
therefore he died"
(no, he tripped over a rock, fell down and was the only survivor)
Or attempting to draw an equivalency when none exists.
Misinterpretation of a reference (ambiguity of a statement).
- Grammatical Analogy
Claiming (falsely) that what is true of the part is true of the whole.
The reverse of composition (false claim that what is true of whole is true of parts)