dolan (01/31/83)
The indication by Mr. Knight that my "Rational Argument Against Abortion" is faulty because of a "slippery slope" logical fallacy is inapplicable. Mr. Knight alludes to "adding" tiny bits of black pigment to white paint to gradually turn it black. I specifically state that the only things that the unborn child gets from its mother during the nine months of pregnancy are food, oxygen, waste removal, and physical security. Nothing else is added. If the addition of food or oxygen to a growing unborn child can "gradually turn it human", then at what point can we say that a born child achieves humanity? For that matter, how can we say that we ourselves have achieved humanity, for we all continue to eat and breathe. Or is it that the physical form of the unborn child has not yet reached what we would like to consider human form? The physical form of a newborn child is not the form of the teenage child, nor that of the adult. My physical form is not that of Muhammad Ali, nor that of Peggy Fleming. Which of us is not human? Do hands and feet have to be fully developed for a child to be human? The genital organs of human beings are not fully developed until adolescence. Are we not human beings until we reach adolescence? And why should we consider the development of hands and feet any differently than we consider the development of any other part of the human body? I'm sorry, but the "slippery slope" argument does not apply here. The only things "added" to a growing unborn child are oxygen and food. Those same things are added to each of us daily. Mike Dolan Bell Labs Rm 1B-226 Naperville-Wheaton Road Naperville, IL 60566
tim (02/01/83)
Really, I'm sorry to post another anti-abortion-legislation article, but I can't help myself when I see blatant falsehoods and idiocies. In particular, I can't stand seeing people trying to use logic to fit their preconceptions, then deliberately ignoring the point of refutations. I am referring to the recent argument that a fetus must be human, because a baby is human, a baby 5 mins. before birth is human, etc. The point that was supposedly made was that since there is no clear dividing line, the fertilized egg must be human. The obvious refutation was given, phrased in terms of beards in one case and paint in the other: if you slowly add black paint to white, you eventually get black paint, and since there is no clear dividing line, black=white. A classic reduction to an absurdity, and utterly irrefutable. So what does the original poster do? He says that a baby isn't paint, and that that refutes the argument! Aaargghh! Can this person really have the sense to be a computer scientist? Specifically, he said this: Mr. Knight alludes to "adding" tiny bits of black pigment to white paint to gradually turn it black. I specifically state that the only things that the unborn child gets from its mother during the nine months of pregnancy are food, oxygen, waste removal, and physical security. Nothing else is added. If the addition of food or oxygen to a growing unborn child can "gradually turn it human", then at what point can we say that a born child achieves humanity? For that matter, how can we say that we ourselves have achieved humanity, for we all continue to eat and breathe. Gee, what a huge difference. I could write a program that understands analogies better than that. OK, guy, here's another one. A black graphics display is obviously black. The same display lightened by the smallest possible amount is also black. Another step leaves it still black. Etc. Therefore, when we have done 100,000 steps like this the screen must still be black, right? Clearly false; it is white, and black does not equal white. There is nothing added here. Now do you understand that the argument has nothing to do with the particular case for which it is stated? ["Printf doesn't apply here. I want to print something with a character that's not in their example."] Then he changes the subject so as to apply the old straw horse technique. "This is what you really meant to say, but you're obviously wrong." From Mr. Knight, I am sure you would get a hearty round of thanks for telling him what he really meant to say. Good thing that we have people like you around to tell us these things. Sorry for the flames, but few things infuriate me more than logic from conclusion to premise. The original poster has obviously made up his mind on emotional grounds, and promulgated this fallacious chain of reasoning in hopes of convincing others. (I would rather believe that than that anyone could really buy such a hokey line.) Tim Maroney duke!unc!tim
ajmitchell (02/02/83)
One point that should be made that Mike Dolan seems not to mention is that time can (and in this case should) be considered an object in a logical argument. Just like food and oxygen, the unborn is receiving the most important single item from the world -- TIME. I submit that the Slippery Slope is in fact being used here because of the gradual inclusion of time into the arguments.