Irish Woman Dies When Denied Abortion

[Storm]

I'm the first to admit that logical fallacies are not necessarily fallacies of reason or that they can't be part of a critical argument, including the above type of fallacy (simply called "appeal to emotion", or divided into different types of fallacies, such as "argument from outrage" or argumentum ad misericordiam or argumentum ad odium or "argument from pit", or some other English or Latin term used to describe a rhetorical technique which plays on emotion, not logic or reason).

However, the use of appeals to emotions is only considered valid when it is a supporting premise. The above isn't.

This wouldn't be much of an issue were it not for the sad fact that political and social issues have generally been dominated by appeals to irrational reactions. There was a thread, if memory serves, some time ago which began with a picture of a fetus and something to the effect of "how can you kill this" or "how is this not human" or some such nonsense. Generalization from a single example, especially if it is fraught with loaded terms and appeals to emotion, don't contribute to debates on social reforms. They do the opposite. It's bad enough that politicans, news media, corporations, etc., constantly bombard us with such rhetorical strategies. But the internet (among other things) is perhaps the closest thing possible to a "voice of the people". Why use it to employ the same rhetorical devices which are already so pervasive?

There was no fallacy. There was an article and a comment on irony. Now, do you have anything to say on topic?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

There was no fallacy. There was an article and a comment on irony. Now, do you have anything to say on topic?

Yes it was and yes I do. Unless you had no intentions for the link, the quoted section, and the coment to in any way relate to the abortion debate, then it is certainly a falllacy. An appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) is a fallacy (I can give you references you wish). And as for "anything to say on the topic" I'd say that a major problem is that both sides depend a lot more on fallacious arguments which appeal to emotions than they do on critical evaluation.

I'd say that this thread (or at least the original post) is an example of a very real problem with the way the issue of abortion is approached, and that such examples (on both sides) dominate the discussions, making it far less likely that anything useful will come of them.

 

[Storm]

Yes it was and yes I do.

No, it wasn't, and I've said why. Now, if you have something to say about the case, please get on with it instead of whining about fallacies where there are none.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No, it wasn't, and I've said why. Now, if you have something to say about the case, please get on with it instead of whining about fallacies where there are none.

"many of the emotional appeals commonly used in argumentation, such as appeal to pity or fear or ad hominem arguments, are fallacious" p. 266 of Walton's Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation (Cambridge University Press, 2006)

If that isn't enought to convince:


"While pity is an admirable human quality, it does not provide the best basis for argument. When we turn to pity instead of reasoned discourse to support a particular contention, we commit the argumentum ad misericordiam" p. 109 of Pirie's How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic

"Compassion, for example, is a fine thing to have. There is absolutely nothing wrong with feeling sorry for someone. But when feeling sorry for someone drives us to a position on an unrelated matter, the result is the fallacy known as 'argument' from pity" (p. 188 of Moore & Parker's Critical Thinking 9th ed.)

"To construe this [a tv ad about poor children] as a good argument, we need to add "If you feel sorry for poor kids, you should give money to any organization that says it will help them." That's an appeal to pity, and it's simply implausible, since some drug cartels help kids, too." p. 191 of Epstein & Kernberger's Critical Thinking 3rd ed.


Here's your initial post:

Yeah, this never happens with modern medicine.

Woman 'denied a termination' dies in hospital

Her husband, Praveen Halappanavar (34), an engineer at Boston Scientific in Galway, says she asked several times over a three-day period that the pregnancy be terminated. He says that, having been told she was miscarrying, and after one day in severe pain, Ms Halappanavar asked for a medical termination.

This was refused, he says, because the foetal heartbeat was still present and they were told, “this is a Catholic country”.

She spent a further 2½ days “in agony” until the foetal heartbeat stopped.
​

Isn't the movement supposed to be "pro-LIFE?"

It begins with a sarcastic comment followed by an excerpt intended to play on compassion, and concludes with an ironic and loaded use of the opposing side (pro-life).

The whole thing relies on a class of fallacies relating to emotional appeals, loaded terms, and other uses of language to frame the discussion in emotional, not rational, terms.

The fact that you've "said why" by stating

There was no fallacy. There was an article and a comment on irony.

is no more of a defense or explanation than "what I did is something I define as not being a fallacy" (which can be done with every single fallacy).

You can call my objection to these tactics "whining" all you wish, but as this is a debate section, I fail to see how it is unimportant or irrelevant to point out that fallacies like those in your opening post are problematic because they dominate the debate of abortion policies.

 

[Storm]

LegionOnomaMoi, armchair psychology speculating on my motives is not an argument. Now, If you think a factual example of the consequences of anti-choice arguments is a logical fallacy... well, that says a good deal more about your motives than mine.

Let me know when you have something to say about the event. I'll be reporting any future attempts to derail my thread, though.

 

[sandandfoam]

Why is that?

Because there is no choice. The healthe service is in crisis - if you're lucky enough to get into hospital you take what you get.

 

[dgirl1986]

Yeah, this never happens with modern medicine.

Woman 'denied a termination' dies in hospital

Her husband, Praveen Halappanavar (34), an engineer at Boston Scientific in Galway, says she asked several times over a three-day period that the pregnancy be terminated. He says that, having been told she was miscarrying, and after one day in severe pain, Ms Halappanavar asked for a medical termination.

This was refused, he says, because the foetal heartbeat was still present and they were told, “this is a Catholic country”.

She spent a further 2½ days “in agony” until the foetal heartbeat stopped.
​

Isn't the movement supposed to be "pro-LIFE?"

This is terrible, another heartbreaking situation. Not only does the husband lose a child but a wife too.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

LegionOnomaMoi, armchair psychology speculating on my motives is not an argument.

I'm not speculating on your psychology.

Now, If you think a factual example of the consequences of anti-choice arguments is a logical fallacy... well, that says a good deal more about your motives than mine.

Who said anything about motives? You seem to be missing why your post is a fallacy, because you refer to psychology and motives as if the fallacy comes not from the content of your post, but from an explicit attempt to deceive. It doesn't.

One quotes I gave (from a textbok on critical reasoning and logic I've used to teach) concerned an advertisment for donations to help poor children. The reason this is a fallacy isn't because of motives, but because it appeals to emotion rather than reason.

What constitutes a fallacy is now and has been the domain of logicians and philosophers and all that matters here (as far as the fallacy part is concerned) is whether your initial post falls into one or more of the domains of argumentation considered to be fallacies. More important than the fallacy (and the only reason I said something about it at all), is because of abortion policies and how such fallacies drive them.

This type of fallacy (using loaded words, appealing to emotions, etc.) is particularly pervasive in politics and in discussions of social issues in general and abortion specifically. Both sides rely on an emotional, rather than logical/rational, response. This may sometimes be a deliberate atttempt to manipulate, but I don't think it usually is, particularly when we aren't talking about organized groups putting out banners, slogans, tv ads, etc.

That doesn't make it any more harmful. As long as most abortion dialogue, regardless of the forum (internet, in person, tv., etc.), takes place in within a framework of emotional appeal, the chances for progress, rational exchange, and resolution will be constantly held back.-

Let me know when you have something to say about the event. I'll be reporting any future attempts to derail my thread, though.

So the discussion is only about this event? Then why did you post the following (emphasis added):

Why is it special? It's special because it puts a face on the victims of these laws. It wasn't so long ago here in the US that a Republican official denied that abortion was ever medically necessary in the modern world. This story is important because such views mean more innocent, preventable deaths, and people who hold them need to have their noses rubbed in reality. Declaring women "collateral damage" acceptable to ideological agenda is absolutely intolerable.

That's seems to be generalizing from the story and talking about abortion policies in general. It certainly goes well beyond the event, as do the following:

Isn't the movement supposed to be "pro-LIFE?"

This is true. The real question for me, though, is whether it's against the law to be a good doctor.

It wouldn't have happened if not for draconian anti-choice laws. Sorry, but your stance strikes me remarkably callous.

I'm well aware that the doctors acted as legally required - that's the problem.

If I'm wrong about the relevancy of my belief that the abortion debate would be better served if people didn't do things like put "a face on the victims" (such as pictures of a fetus with captions such as "it's a child, not a choice") or use similar methods to convince others, then when you report this post, I''ve no doubt the moderators will handle it appropriately. However, as I think that the topic here is more about abortion policies than a specific event, and as I think abortion policies are too dominated by the fallacies I referred to, I don't find my posts irrelevant.

 

[Storm]

Reported.

ETA: Oh, by the way... when your "arguments" consist of nothing more than what my words were "designed" to achieve, rather than the actual words? Yeah, that's armchair psychology speculating on my motives.

 

[Quiddity]

She died of an infection in the blood and having an abortion could have saved her? I'm not following.

 

[Storm]

She died of an infection in the blood and having an abortion could have saved her? I'm not following.

The infection was caused by the three day miscarriage, so yeah.

 

[Quiddity]

The infection was caused by the three day miscarriage, so yeah.

So they lied about it having a heart beat?

 

[Storm]

So they lied about it having a heart beat?

No. Where'd you get that?

 

[Quiddity]

No. Where'd you get that?

The article says the doctor heard a heart beat when she came in and they checked it consecutively after that. What am I missing here?

 

[Storm]

The article says the doctor heard a heart beat when she came in and they checked it consecutively after that. What am I missing here?

I'm asking why you think I said the doctors were lying about the heartbeat.

To answer the question, you seem to be missing the fact that the miscarriage took days, leading directly to the woman's death.

 

[Quiddity]

I'm asking why you think I said the doctors were lying about the heartbeat.

To answer the question, you seem to be missing the fact that the miscarriage took days, leading directly to the woman's death.

Oh, well I'm used to hearing about miscarriages and no heart beat, so I was puzzeled at why they would say she had a miscarriage and then tell her they heard a heart beat.

 

[Drolefille]

The article says the doctor heard a heart beat when she came in and they checked it consecutively after that. What am I missing here?

That when a miscarriage occurs it does not mean the fetus's heart has stopped beating. At 17 weeks, when a woman's body is rejecting a fetus - whether due to the fetus, her body, or some combination of problems - the fetus could not survive. Whatever the cause, the doctors stated the fetus would not survive, but refused to complete the miscarriage with a D&C because the fetus was currently still possessing a heart beat. The infections she died of are known complications from miscarriages - ones avoided by performing a D&C aka a termination aka an abortion (which is a misnomer in this case as she was already spontaneously aborting the baby.)

This is what you are missing.

 

[Storm]

Oh, well I'm used to hearing about miscarriages and no heart beat, so I was puzzeled at why they would say she had a miscarriage and then tell her they heard a heart beat.

Not all miscarriages are over in a matter of hours. In this case, there was no saving the fetus, but it still took days to die. In that time, the mother was infected. It's likely that aborting the fetus and repairing the damage would have saved her life.

 

[Apex]

Yeah, this never happens with modern medicine.

Woman 'denied a termination' dies in hospital

Her husband, Praveen Halappanavar (34), an engineer at Boston Scientific in Galway, says she asked several times over a three-day period that the pregnancy be terminated. He says that, having been told she was miscarrying, and after one day in severe pain, Ms Halappanavar asked for a medical termination.

This was refused, he says, because the foetal heartbeat was still present and they were told, “this is a Catholic country”.

She spent a further 2½ days “in agony” until the foetal heartbeat stopped.
​

Isn't the movement supposed to be "pro-LIFE?"

All the pro-life people I know, including myself, would agree should have been given an abortion.

 

[Storm]

All the pro-life people I know, including myself, would agree should have been given an abortion.

Granted, and a valid point. However, there are those who say otherwise, and sometimes they get their way.