B
- Status
G
Guernica
Guest
Nah, sorry, the teacher was right, the OP made a bad analogy. If you put forth a transparently false analogy in a class debate, you may get some laughs – that’s the nature of classroom debates. You were not in a religion class, so you can’t count on all the other students being sympathetic to your views.
The scenario of a mother abandoning her child from a doomed plane and taking the last parachute for herself would just never happen. Like I said, commercial aircraft do not stock parachutes for their passengers. I can’t think of any situation other than on military missions that an aircraft’s passengers are expected to bail out via parachute if the plane becomes disabled, and I’m pretty sure that nobody lets mothers with small children go on military missions.
So, let’s see, the OP has put forth a false analogy, creating a false dilemma that could never happen in real life and thus is not worth burning everybody’s expensive class time logically debating, and he used a treacly and extremely obvious appeal to emotion in doing so. (For the layman: those are all major logical fallacies that will get you dinged points by your professor if you try to employ them in a debate.)
I’m sorry the OP found this out the hard way by bringing down the ridicule of his classmates on himself, but the use of an argument that flawed should have been corrected by his professor, and should rightfully have earned him an F for the day in critical thinking class.
The scenario of a mother abandoning her child from a doomed plane and taking the last parachute for herself would just never happen. Like I said, commercial aircraft do not stock parachutes for their passengers. I can’t think of any situation other than on military missions that an aircraft’s passengers are expected to bail out via parachute if the plane becomes disabled, and I’m pretty sure that nobody lets mothers with small children go on military missions.
So, let’s see, the OP has put forth a false analogy, creating a false dilemma that could never happen in real life and thus is not worth burning everybody’s expensive class time logically debating, and he used a treacly and extremely obvious appeal to emotion in doing so. (For the layman: those are all major logical fallacies that will get you dinged points by your professor if you try to employ them in a debate.)
I’m sorry the OP found this out the hard way by bringing down the ridicule of his classmates on himself, but the use of an argument that flawed should have been corrected by his professor, and should rightfully have earned him an F for the day in critical thinking class.
N
Nom_the_Wise
Guest
You are quite incorrect. It is probable that a child (of whatever age) and his/her mother could be on airplane together, and that airplane could be going down. There has been no statement of what kind of airplane. There could be one parachute on the plane, and they have to choose who gets it (assuming the child is an adult and they couldn’t share it).
What Ben Sinner has learned by everyone knit-picking about the details of skydiving is that this is probably a subject to be avoided. Forever.
The fact that your reader feels an emotion in relation to something that you wrote doesn’t automatically make it ad misericordium. The ad misericordium fallacy comes into play when one “appeals to pity.” As in “Hey you married people! You’ve been hogging all the joy with your institution of marriage. Us homosexuals want to be happy, too. Don’t you want us to be happy? Therefore, let us get married.” The fallacy causes the syllogism to be invalid.
Therefore, Ben Sinner did not create a false analogy, a false dilemma or an appeal to pity. He tried to create a metaphor that would lead his listeners to understand that self-sacrifice can easily be applied to a woman who puts her child’s life before her own. And his professor should be reported to the department chair.
D
Dale_M
Guest
I agree very much. The reason for the laughter is unclear to me, but the use of ridicule by a group in order to silence a minority opinion is the very opposite of critical thinking. The instructor of the course erred greatly in not silencing the class, and in not allowing the OP to continue his argument.
I agree that talking to the instructor in private about the incident is a good idea. Not in a confrontational manner, but to make her aware of why the OP feels aggrieved and feels let down. I think she will realize her own failure without pushing the matter. And I would leave the Department Head out of it. Going above your instructor’s head isn’t necessary at this point, although if the situation remains unresolved perhaps it will be a required action.
As for the comparison itself, I don’t think it was very sound. In the case of an abortion or the case of a mother sacrificing her child on an airplane, both are choices made by an individual. That most mothers would sacrifice themselves instead of their child doesn’t mean that individual choice should be taken away.
Granted, it could be said that a mother who sacrificed her child to save herself will earn social condemnation. So the question naturally arises, why does a woman who gets an abortion to save her life also not earn such condemnation? I think the answer lies in the difference views that most people have regarding a fetus and a baby. From an orthodox Catholic and strict pro-life position, a baby and fetus are equivalent. But, at least in the US, the majority of people do not believe that. So the comparison of the abortion and the airplane sacrifice is not likely to be convincing to most persons.
I think OldCatholicGuy had the correct line of argument.
His comparison still leaves you the difficult task of convincing the audience that fetus=baby. Expect to be fought hard on that point.
B
Ben_Sinner
Guest
Really? You are gonna go there with this?
You are more concerned about how the parachutes work than you are about what the main point is…a mother choosing to die to save her child.
Was the plane analogy a bit exaggerated? Yes I wasn’t expecting my analogy to be put in the history books…it was just the first thing that came to my mind in the heat of the moment, but I expected people to look past all the irrelevent details (how parachutes function,etc) and look at the main point
Was the life/death choice for the mother exaggerated/false? No, not at all. it is a very real dillemna whether its via falling from a plane, held at gunpoint, running in front of a bus, space alien attack, or whatever circumstance…
And as for the “emotional appeal”…I guess I should have laughed back at them because one of their arguments were “It’s okay for the mother to abort the baby because she knows the baby will live in constant suffering and pain, so it’s best for the mother to put an end to the pain.”
So them blaming me for being emotional would be the pot calling the kettle black
I consider your “wasting exspensive class time” comment semi-rude too. The teacher wanted to know our views and opinions so she better be ready to listen to all of them no matter how absurd she might think they are because my tuition is paying her income.
And not many ppl were getting in line to show their Pro-Life colors so I had to do alot of the countering because the class was mostly Pro-Choice.
One of the Pro-choicers tried to bring up the argument that “it’s hypocritcal to be against abortion, but permit the killing of animals”
Another one used the “its hypocritical to be against abortion but permit the death penalty (even in cases when it’s justified)”
One of them said she would abort the baby because she wanted to focus on school and not a baby.
One of them said she would abort the baby because she wants to use the money for child support to buy shoes and clothes.
Sounds like logical arguments to me…
I didn’t laugh at them for that so they should have showed me the same respect I showed them.
B
Ben_Sinner
Guest
BTW, this wasn’t a graded assignment
She was just asking for opinions in class and it turned into an argument
Not to mention that she used her own “emotional appeal” by stating that children who have disabilities are less likely to be adopted at a foster home. (relating to the topic of putting the child up for adoption instead of aborting it)
She was just asking for opinions in class and it turned into an argument
Not to mention that she used her own “emotional appeal” by stating that children who have disabilities are less likely to be adopted at a foster home. (relating to the topic of putting the child up for adoption instead of aborting it)
G
Guernica
Guest
No. The only time a mother and child could be on plane together is on a commercial flight.
No. You are also attempting an appeal to emotion citing a false dilemma that could never happen in real life.
There will NEVER be a situation where there is a mother having to debate whether or not to share the ONE available parachute with her child in really real life. Here’s why:
The ONLY time a mother and child (adult or not) will be up in the air in an airplane is if they are on a commercial airline flight. If the plane becomes disabled, there will not be parachutes available AT ALL. Why? Because it wouldn’t do anybody any good. Your average commercial airliner is traveling at altitudes in excess of 30K+ feet. Up there, the air is too thin to breathe, and the cold would be unendurable without special gear.
Do some actual research: if a Special Forces soldier attempts a jump from that height, s/he has to wear an oxygen mask and special clothing to protect against hypothermia, and have hours upon hours of paratrooper training.
Also, even if you have a bunch of paratroopers up in a plane at that height, there would be enough parachutes to go around – because each soldier would have both a primary chute and a backup chute. Have you ever served in the military as a paratrooper? Are you related to anyone who has?
Also, have you ever researched plane crashes? They happen in minutes, even seconds, and the G-forces involved are TREMENDOUS – the passengers would be getting thrown around to such an extent that logical thought would be impossible. If you are in a plane that is crashing down from a former speed of 500+ miles an hour to sudden full deceleration, from an altitude of 30K+ feet, you would achieve weightlessness on the way down. That is, until the impact… pretty much liquefied you. Terminal velocity is… oh, not a gentle thing.
Some melodramatic Hollywood movie tableau in which the plane obediently holds still long enough for ONE passenger (who happens to be a mom and child) happening upon the ONE parachute packed on a commercial airliner, and the mom (who just happens to know how to put on a parachute and pop open the door of a pressurized airliner with no previous training) has time to debate whether to use the chute herself or put it on her kid (while the plane continues to obediently hold still, at tens of thousands of feet up, with one hatch popped open, long enough for her to think about it) is just plain absurd.
And what about the other 90 or so passengers on the plane? Are they just sitting by watching Mom go through her existentialist dilemma of MY Life, or My Baby’s Life – without desperately trying to get that ONE parachute away from her? Are you serious?
“I’m offended” is not a logical argument.
No – ALL of her students’ tuition is what is paying her income, not just yours. Your tuition is not single-handedly floating that teacher’s salary. How many students were in that room besides yourself? Do the math.
And the teacher wanted to know OUR views and opinions – your words – not just yours.
Look, my friend, I’ve been through college, grad school, law school, etc., and you must recognize that you are not the only student that prof is teaching. You are not entitled to special treatment because of your religious views.
Your analogy doesn’t work – just face it and come up with a better one. That’s the nature of intellectual debate. If one of your theories is exploded or meets with a hostile reception, come up with a better one, that works, that is logically airtight.
The rules of logical debate owe you no special treatment because of your religious views. Embrace the challenge, study harder, think more.
B
Ben_Sinner
Guest
“I’m offended” is not a logical argument.
Wasn’t trying to make an argument out of it. Just thought it seemed rude what you said. If you meant no disrespect then I apologize if I overreacted.
No – ALL of her students’ tuition is what is paying her income, not just yours. Your tuition is not single-handedly floating that teacher’s salary. How many students were in that room besides yourself? Do the math.
I understand that. Did I ever say my tuition was the sole contributor of her salary? No. It should have been implied that my tuition was just one piece of the puzzle of her income gain.
And the teacher wanted to know OUR views and opinions – your words – not just yours.
But when she calls on me individually to give my opinion, then she better listen instead of interupting me, belittling me, and shutting my comment off before I could even finish before she goes on to the more “logical” students’ views.
The illogical students should earn the same level of common respect in their arguments as the logical ones
Look, my friend, I’ve been through college, grad school, law school, etc., and you must recognize that you are not the only student that prof is teaching. You are not entitled to special treatment because of your religious views.
My friend, I never felt I was entitled to special treatment. Just professional/mature treatment.
You said you went to law school… I’m sure you wouldn’t like it if the judge and audience in the courtoom would do what my teacher/classmates did if you were trying to make a case to free an innocent person convicted…I expect a professional enviroment.
Your analogy doesn’t work – just face it and come up with a better one. That’s the nature of intellectual debate. If one of your theories is exploded or meets with a hostile reception, come up with a better one, that works, that is logically airtight.
I’ll have to agree and disagree with you on some points…
Was it the best analogy? Of course not and I will probably never use that again unless I can be absolutely clear with it before being unallowed to finish it. But it still should have effective enough for people to understand what I was talking about.
You’re too caught up in the nit-picking details of "no plane would be with a parachute, a mother and child wouldn’t be allowed on,"or whatever you were trying to say…
my “plane” story was just adding a little color and imagery to my ultimate analogy…
"A mother who would die to save her child outside of the womb is the same as a mother dying to save her child inside of the womb"
THIS was my analogy all along, the plane stuff just added color and imagery to it. I don’t see why its so hard for people to understand that.
The rules of logical debate owe you no special treatment because of your religious views. Embrace the challenge, study harder, think more.
Never felt I was entitled to special treatment. Just professional/mature treatment.
Wasn’t trying to make an argument out of it. Just thought it seemed rude what you said. If you meant no disrespect then I apologize if I overreacted.
No – ALL of her students’ tuition is what is paying her income, not just yours. Your tuition is not single-handedly floating that teacher’s salary. How many students were in that room besides yourself? Do the math.
I understand that. Did I ever say my tuition was the sole contributor of her salary? No. It should have been implied that my tuition was just one piece of the puzzle of her income gain.
And the teacher wanted to know OUR views and opinions – your words – not just yours.
But when she calls on me individually to give my opinion, then she better listen instead of interupting me, belittling me, and shutting my comment off before I could even finish before she goes on to the more “logical” students’ views.
The illogical students should earn the same level of common respect in their arguments as the logical ones
Look, my friend, I’ve been through college, grad school, law school, etc., and you must recognize that you are not the only student that prof is teaching. You are not entitled to special treatment because of your religious views.
My friend, I never felt I was entitled to special treatment. Just professional/mature treatment.
You said you went to law school… I’m sure you wouldn’t like it if the judge and audience in the courtoom would do what my teacher/classmates did if you were trying to make a case to free an innocent person convicted…I expect a professional enviroment.
Your analogy doesn’t work – just face it and come up with a better one. That’s the nature of intellectual debate. If one of your theories is exploded or meets with a hostile reception, come up with a better one, that works, that is logically airtight.
I’ll have to agree and disagree with you on some points…
Was it the best analogy? Of course not and I will probably never use that again unless I can be absolutely clear with it before being unallowed to finish it. But it still should have effective enough for people to understand what I was talking about.
You’re too caught up in the nit-picking details of "no plane would be with a parachute, a mother and child wouldn’t be allowed on,"or whatever you were trying to say…
my “plane” story was just adding a little color and imagery to my ultimate analogy…
"A mother who would die to save her child outside of the womb is the same as a mother dying to save her child inside of the womb"
THIS was my analogy all along, the plane stuff just added color and imagery to it. I don’t see why its so hard for people to understand that.
The rules of logical debate owe you no special treatment because of your religious views. Embrace the challenge, study harder, think more.
Never felt I was entitled to special treatment. Just professional/mature treatment.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
The only military missions in which the passangers have parachutes are those in which the passangers are airborne soldiers on either training jumps or combat jumps (i.e. they bring their own chutes). As for a mother with a small child being let on to a military aircraft for a military mission, it happens. Emergency medical, humanitarian, and relocation flights. If you are going to “correct” his analogy, do so with accurate information.
S
sedonaman
Guest
Perhaps a better analogy would have been an airplane in distress with three people aboard: the pilot, your teacher, and you, with only two parachutes. The pilot decides who gets the chutes: you and him. How would your teacher feel? IOW, abortion doesn’t pass the Golden Rule test.
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
From a pro choice perspective it was a bad analogy because most pro choicers do not see a fetus as the moral equivalent of a person. If you want to win them to your side, that’s what you have to target. So saying that a mother would sacrifice herself for her child so why not a fetus isn’t going to work unless you can show that they are morally equal, or there isn’t a point to a woman sacrificing herself.
H
Holly3278
Guest
I don’t see anything wrong with your example either. However, we must realize that Jesus said we would be mocked and persecuted for His sake:
These things I command you, that you love one another. If the world hate you, know ye that it hath hated me before you. If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember my word that I said to you: The servant is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they have kept my word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for my name’s sake: because they know not him that sent me.
(John 15:17-21 DRB)
Also remember that we are to love our enemies:
You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thy enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust. For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans this? And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more? do not also the heathens this? Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.
(Matthew 5:43-48 DRB)
Finally, remember to never get revenge:
If it be possible, as much as is in you, have peace with all men. Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord. But if the enemy be hungry, give him to eat; if he thirst, give him to drink. For, doing this, thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head. Be not overcome by evil: but overcome evil by good.
(Romans 12:18-21 DRB)
May God bless you.
These things I command you, that you love one another. If the world hate you, know ye that it hath hated me before you. If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember my word that I said to you: The servant is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they have kept my word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for my name’s sake: because they know not him that sent me.
(John 15:17-21 DRB)
Also remember that we are to love our enemies:
You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thy enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust. For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans this? And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more? do not also the heathens this? Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.
(Matthew 5:43-48 DRB)
Finally, remember to never get revenge:
If it be possible, as much as is in you, have peace with all men. Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord. But if the enemy be hungry, give him to eat; if he thirst, give him to drink. For, doing this, thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head. Be not overcome by evil: but overcome evil by good.
(Romans 12:18-21 DRB)
May God bless you.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Bingo. The whole point of Roe v. Wade was that the justices agreed to let states use “viability” to define when a person’s life begins. When a person’s life begins is the whole sticking point. We don’t live in a society that allows infanticide, even when a child is severely handicapped. It is the question of when a person’s life begins that decides it all.
The other sticking point, of course, is the idea that a woman’s body is entirely her own domain, even when she is pregnant.
S
SonCatcher
Guest
The teacher was not “right” because she did not “correct” the student (even if the argument he presented is justly deemed fallacious). She ridiculed him. She led the ridicule of the class. In doing so, she instigated an ad hominem attack against the student in question.
It is her job to patiently moderate the debate and explain dispassionately when an argument is inadequate. She failed.
G
Guernica
Guest
Even if there were refugees on board a military plane carrying paratroopers, the mother would still never end up in a position where she was the lone passenger on board with her child and ONE parachute. In that situation the pilot would attempt an emergency landing.
The OP’s analogy has been logically exploded eight ways to Sunday – just let it go. Even he’s been reduced to defending it with: But it wasn’t meant to be a TRUTHFUL statement! It was for COLOR!
See, this is why the pro-life side usually loses in logical debate class. They don’t prepare. They don’t do their research. They don’t bother to learn the rules of logical debate in favor of believing that their religious faith trumps all that. I’ve seen these pro-life/pro-choice debates staged in high schools, on college campuses, in law schools, and here’s what usually happens:
The pro-choice side shows up with facts, figures, verifiable data – and the pro-life side shows up with their religious faith – to a secular debate in a secular venue. They start out with “I’m Christian/Catholic/Baptist, and my religion forbids abortion!”
The secular pro-choice side rebuts with: “Not everybody shares your faith – Constitutional right to freedom of religion. Moving on.”
And because these kids haven’t prepared anything beyond that, they flounder. They pull “facts” out of the air – during one debate back at my law school, we had one law student on the pro-life side insist that a woman’s uterus could be “turned inside out” during an abortion! No, it’s true, she read it somewhere! Like the Internet, maybe! Even the neutral law professor moderating the debate cringed at that one.
When those assertions are exploded, the pro-life side will try to rely on transparent emotional appeals and pathos. In the OP’s case, he responded with a preposterous what-if scenario that doesn’t even really support his pro-life position, and believe me, coming up with some baroque fantasy scenario in which A Good Woman must commit the Ultimate Sacrifice!!!1!! for her child (as posed to the class by a man) will not win you anybody’s sympathy. Women don’t want to hear a man telling them that in order to be a REAL woman, you’ve got to be absolutely willing to die for a child. You won’t win them that way.
If the pro-life side wants to win anybody’s sympathy, they’ve got to work on their approach. For starters, religious faith does not trump all in a SECULAR class debate, so don’t expect everybody to just hand you the win because you’re Catholic. Secondly, support your arguments with verifiable FACT. How many hours of preparation and research did you put in before the debate? Any at all?
You’ve got to do the research, do your homework. Don’t rely on hearsay floating around your parish – make sure what you’re saying is true, and logically valid.
I’ve spotted plenty of misinformation in this thread alone: first of all, St. Gianna Beretta Molla did not die of uterine cancer, she had a uterine fibroma. (A tumor, yes, but not cancerous.) She died of peritonitis following delivery. Also, contraceptive use predates Christianity by more than 1800 years. Google “Kahun Gynecological Papyrus.” The ancient Romans relied heavily on emmenagogue potions made from silphium, a now-extinct species of giant parsley.
It’s lack of intellectual rigor on the part of pro-life advocates that’s sinking the pro-life cause in secular venues. Plus when the pro-life student debaters lose, even then they don’t familiarize themselves with logical fallacies or what makes a valid argument; no, they just go home and get lots of sympathetic back-pats from their fellow parishioners, and never once do they really question why they lost.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Even if we decide to concede point that the analogy does not work, the teacher was not right, because the teacher did not teach anything and failed in her job as a neutral moderator. If, as the moderator, the teacher thinks the class needs to recognize a flaw in an argument, the teacher needs to ask the students jumping on the speaker: “It is not enough to say that’s a bad analogy. Let’s say I’m with him…explain what’s wrong with the analogy.” Otherwise, the teacher needs to ask the student directly: “So by your analogy–(insert logical problem with the analogy–). Explain why that criticism doesn’t apply, otherwise you need to change your analogy.” Then the teacher needs to get out of the way again.
The teacher also needs to ride herd on the class in terms of maintaining a mannerly demeanor. Those who are derisive need to get a yellow card, with a red card on repeat offenses. Lack of basic manners is a very bad habit in a debater. Worse yet, it discourages shy students from participating. You can’t have that in a classroom where participation is how the learning occurs. You have to have a more protective structure…practice without pads and helmets, as it were.
S
SonCatcher
Guest
Selective data. The pro-life side does show with just as many facts and figures. It gets lost b/c the pro-abortion side engages in ad hominem attacks on the pro-life advocates’ religious faith.
The “misinformation” was unintentional and has no bearing on the relevance of her story. She understood clearly that her own life was in danger and that she could ensure her own survival by accepting a procedure that would cause her child to die. She refused. Her child lived. She died. That is all that is relevant.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
Says the guy who thinks military aircraft carry parachutes for their passangers. If you are going to lecture me about preparing prior to commenting, ensure you’re actually following your own advice. Also, the OP’s opponent’s argument was- it’s ok to murder an innocent to save another innocent. Not very logical or well thought out.Even if there were refugees on board a military plane carrying paratroopers, the mother would still never end up in a position where she was the lone passenger on board with her child and ONE parachute. In that situation the pilot would attempt an emergency landing.
The OP’s analogy has been logically exploded eight ways to Sunday – just let it go. Even he’s been reduced to defending it with: But it wasn’t meant to be a TRUTHFUL statement! It was for COLOR!
See, this is why the pro-life side usually loses in logical debate class. They don’t prepare. They don’t do their research. They don’t bother to learn the rules of logical debate in favor of believing that their religious faith trumps all that. I’ve seen these pro-life/pro-choice debates staged in high schools, on college campuses, in law schools, and here’s what usually happens:
The pro-choice side shows up with facts, figures, verifiable data – and the pro-life side shows up with their religious faith – to a secular debate in a secular venue. They start out with “I’m Christian/Catholic/Baptist, and my religion forbids abortion!”
The secular pro-choice side rebuts with: “Not everybody shares your faith – Constitutional right to freedom of religion. Moving on.”
And because these kids haven’t prepared anything beyond that, they flounder. They pull “facts” out of the air – during one debate back at my law school, we had one law student on the pro-life side insist that a woman’s uterus could be “turned inside out” during an abortion! No, it’s true, she read it somewhere! Like the Internet, maybe! Even the neutral law professor moderating the debate cringed at that one.
When those assertions are exploded, the pro-life side will try to rely on transparent emotional appeals and pathos. In the OP’s case, he responded with a preposterous what-if scenario that doesn’t even really support his pro-life position, and believe me, coming up with some baroque fantasy scenario in which A Good Woman must commit the Ultimate Sacrifice!!!1!! for her child (as posed to the class by a man) will not win you anybody’s sympathy. Women don’t want to hear a man telling them that in order to be a REAL woman, you’ve got to be absolutely willing to die for a child. You won’t win them that way.
If the pro-life side wants to win anybody’s sympathy, they’ve got to work on their approach. For starters, religious faith does not trump all in a SECULAR class debate, so don’t expect everybody to just hand you the win because you’re Catholic. Secondly, support your arguments with verifiable FACT. How many hours of preparation and research did you put in before the debate? Any at all?
You’ve got to do the research, do your homework. Don’t rely on hearsay floating around your parish – make sure what you’re saying is true, and logically valid.
I’ve spotted plenty of misinformation in this thread alone: first of all, St. Gianna Beretta Molla did not die of uterine cancer, she had a uterine fibroma. (A tumor, yes, but not cancerous.) She died of peritonitis following delivery. Also, contraceptive use predates Christianity by more than 1800 years. Google “Kahun Gynecological Papyrus.” The ancient Romans relied heavily on emmenagogue potions made from silphium, a now-extinct species of giant parsley.
It’s lack of intellectual rigor on the part of pro-life advocates that’s sinking the pro-life cause in secular venues. Plus when the pro-life student debaters lose, even then they don’t familiarize themselves with logical fallacies or what makes a valid argument; no, they just go home and get lots of sympathetic back-pats from their fellow parishioners, and never once do they really question why they lost.
L
Lochias
Guest
One of St. Francis’ followers said it best, when he wished that men had necks like storks…that way, more words would get stuck in their throat.Even if there were refugees on board a military plane carrying paratroopers, the mother would still never end up in a position where she was the lone passenger on board with her child and ONE parachute. In that situation the pilot would attempt an emergency landing.
The OP’s analogy has been logically exploded eight ways to Sunday – just let it go. Even he’s been reduced to defending it with: But it wasn’t meant to be a TRUTHFUL statement! It was for COLOR!
See, this is why the pro-life side usually loses in logical debate class. They don’t prepare. They don’t do their research. They don’t bother to learn the rules of logical debate in favor of believing that their religious faith trumps all that. I’ve seen these pro-life/pro-choice debates staged in high schools, on college campuses, in law schools, and here’s what usually happens:
The pro-choice side shows up with facts, figures, verifiable data – and the pro-life side shows up with their religious faith – to a secular debate in a secular venue. They start out with “I’m Christian/Catholic/Baptist, and my religion forbids abortion!”
The secular pro-choice side rebuts with: “Not everybody shares your faith – Constitutional right to freedom of religion. Moving on.”
And because these kids haven’t prepared anything beyond that, they flounder. They pull “facts” out of the air – during one debate back at my law school, we had one law student on the pro-life side insist that a woman’s uterus could be “turned inside out” during an abortion! No, it’s true, she read it somewhere! Like the Internet, maybe! Even the neutral law professor moderating the debate cringed at that one.
When those assertions are exploded, the pro-life side will try to rely on transparent emotional appeals and pathos. In the OP’s case, he responded with a preposterous what-if scenario that doesn’t even really support his pro-life position, and believe me, coming up with some baroque fantasy scenario in which A Good Woman must commit the Ultimate Sacrifice!!!1!! for her child (as posed to the class by a man) will not win you anybody’s sympathy. Women don’t want to hear a man telling them that in order to be a REAL woman, you’ve got to be absolutely willing to die for a child. You won’t win them that way.
If the pro-life side wants to win anybody’s sympathy, they’ve got to work on their approach. For starters, religious faith does not trump all in a SECULAR class debate, so don’t expect everybody to just hand you the win because you’re Catholic. Secondly, support your arguments with verifiable FACT. How many hours of preparation and research did you put in before the debate? Any at all?
You’ve got to do the research, do your homework. Don’t rely on hearsay floating around your parish – make sure what you’re saying is true, and logically valid.
I’ve spotted plenty of misinformation in this thread alone: first of all, St. Gianna Beretta Molla did not die of uterine cancer, she had a uterine fibroma. (A tumor, yes, but not cancerous.) She died of peritonitis following delivery. Also, contraceptive use predates Christianity by more than 1800 years. Google “Kahun Gynecological Papyrus.” The ancient Romans relied heavily on emmenagogue potions made from silphium, a now-extinct species of giant parsley.
It’s lack of intellectual rigor on the part of pro-life advocates that’s sinking the pro-life cause in secular venues. Plus when the pro-life student debaters lose, even then they don’t familiarize themselves with logical fallacies or what makes a valid argument; no, they just go home and get lots of sympathetic back-pats from their fellow parishioners, and never once do they really question why they lost.
The OP’s argument was fine, and not intended to be researched for three weeks with a top team of scientists from NASA using electron microscopes to look for **all the flaws ever. **
Your tone is why a lot of Christians have trouble taking your kind of argument very seriously. It’s also really easy to carry this kind of (frankly, arrogant and bullying to the extreme) argument when you’ve got a room full of like-minded thinkers who have all the tact of a wolverine with a toothache. No actual debate can be done in the face of such rudeness, and to borrow another poster’s signature line, it’s the people who only know how to use hammers that view everything else as a nail. Some empathy and patience would do you a world of good.
L
LSK
Guest
- Status