2008 Woodie Awards
::Editorial::
Pro-Choice Rebuttal
Issue date: 4/16/07 Section: Op-Ed
Chris Pierdomeneco wrote an editorial defending the pro-life stance on abortion. While he is entitled to his beliefs, I would like to point out how wrong he is.
Chris starts things off with a claim that is either crass or wrongfully emotional, about how murder is considered wrong by most people, "even among those who would call themselves atheists." Chris is a self-described fundamentalist christian hinting oh-so-subtly that atheism is generally immoral ("even atheists think murder is wrong!"). He even manages to group atheism along with other faiths (atheism is doubt - that's the opposite of faith).
If such crassness was not the intent of that paragraph, then he is wrongfully trying to harp on emotions in order to try and make people more sympathetic to his position. Abortion is not an issue about whether or not murder is wrong; it is an issue about whether or not abortion is murder. He does go on to address this, the actual issue, only to then come back to 'murder is a bad thing' (because apparently you can murder something that is not considered a person).
Chris then evokes the fallacy on which nearly every pro-life argument rests: the blurry boundary (usually called the slippery slope, but blurry boundary more descriptively shows the problem with the reasoning). Statements such as "while it cannot be proven that life begins at conception" suggest that Chris does realize that the boundary between being a fetus and personhood is blurry. But realizing that the boundary is blurry means acknowledging that there is nonetheless a boundary.
The problem is that Chris then suggests that we take no chances, that we should act as if there isn't a boundary! Can you even imagine a world in which such flawed logic was the norm? To take an obvious example, we would not acknowledge a difference between children and adults after all, we can't be certain where exactly the (biological) boundary is between the two. There are profound differences in the rights that they have. So would Chris have us treat all children as adults, because we just can't take chances on depriving adults of so many important rights?
Chris starts things off with a claim that is either crass or wrongfully emotional, about how murder is considered wrong by most people, "even among those who would call themselves atheists." Chris is a self-described fundamentalist christian hinting oh-so-subtly that atheism is generally immoral ("even atheists think murder is wrong!"). He even manages to group atheism along with other faiths (atheism is doubt - that's the opposite of faith).
If such crassness was not the intent of that paragraph, then he is wrongfully trying to harp on emotions in order to try and make people more sympathetic to his position. Abortion is not an issue about whether or not murder is wrong; it is an issue about whether or not abortion is murder. He does go on to address this, the actual issue, only to then come back to 'murder is a bad thing' (because apparently you can murder something that is not considered a person).
Chris then evokes the fallacy on which nearly every pro-life argument rests: the blurry boundary (usually called the slippery slope, but blurry boundary more descriptively shows the problem with the reasoning). Statements such as "while it cannot be proven that life begins at conception" suggest that Chris does realize that the boundary between being a fetus and personhood is blurry. But realizing that the boundary is blurry means acknowledging that there is nonetheless a boundary.
The problem is that Chris then suggests that we take no chances, that we should act as if there isn't a boundary! Can you even imagine a world in which such flawed logic was the norm? To take an obvious example, we would not acknowledge a difference between children and adults after all, we can't be certain where exactly the (biological) boundary is between the two. There are profound differences in the rights that they have. So would Chris have us treat all children as adults, because we just can't take chances on depriving adults of so many important rights?
RSS Feed
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 3
Anonymous
posted 4/17/07 @ 3:36 PM EST
I think your rebuttal isn't a rebuttal, but more an attack on Chris' article. Why are you pro-choice? We know why Chris is Pro-Life. He's a Christian who believes that life should be protected. (Continued…)
Vicken
posted 4/23/07 @ 11:21 AM EST
I wrote this as a letter to the editor. It was the editors of the Quad that labelled it as a "rebuttal."
You ask "Isn't is clear that he believes a fetus is alive and should be treated such?" yet also say that Chris said "that there isn't a clear definition to when life begins. (Continued…)
Shelly
posted 2/16/08 @ 10:55 AM EST
In response to Pro Life attitudes concerning abortions. When I was a young woman, I had a child of 13 months, living on my own, poverty level with no assistance from his professional working father. (Continued…)
Post a Comment