07 Dec 2014 Q&A No comments

Can you tell me who (if anyone) is supposed to read the gospel and give a homily at Communion services?

Full Question Can you tell me who (if anyone) is supposed to read the gospel and give a homily at Communion services? Answer According to Sunday …

Read more

21 Feb 2015 Articles Comments (7)

Are There Souls of Men in Hell Right Now?

It has become fashionable in some Catholic quarters these days to question where there are now or will ever be any souls populating hell. Hell, it is taught, is…

Read more

28 Nov 2014 Q&A Comments (2)

Are prayer chain e-mails considered superstition?

Full Question While preparing for confession, I happened to read a pamphlet for examination of conscience. One of the questions under the First Commandment…

Read more

09 Oct 2015 Middle East News No comments

Patriarchate pleads for calm in Jerusalem

The Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem has appealed for calm in the Holy Land. “Heavily concerned with the more recent wave of violence which blows over Israel …

Read more

04 May 2016 United Kingdom Comments (1)

Northern Irish bishops urge faithful to vote for candidates opposed to abortion

Elections to Northern Ireland's power-sharing assembly take place on Thursday Northern Ireland’s Catholic bishops urged Massgoers to support candidates opposed…

Read more

29 May 2015 Exhortations Resources No comments

There but for the grace of God: What Pope Francis thinks of prisoners

Pope Francis seems to describe his life in the Vatican almost as if he were in prison -- at least as far as his freedom of movement goes. But that is not the fi…

Read more

25 Jul 2016 Uncategorized Comments (25)

Virgin Mary appears in Africa; some say its a warning

Catholics in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are returning to church in droves, at least in one town. The Virgin Mary may have appeared to people in the bo…

Read more

06 Apr 2015 Q&A Comments (5)

Is Easter a pagan holiday?

Full Question A publication I read claims Easter has its roots in a pagan holiday and rituals and as such ought not to be observed by Christians. Colored e…

Read more

11 Apr 2015 Q&A Comments (1)

Is it wrong to use sex-selection methods to avoid passing on a serious illness?

Full Question I am a carrier of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, which means if I have a boy there's a good chance he will have this terrible disease. I want t…

Read more
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

Seven Deadly Fallacies

We are rational animals. This is not a matter of debate. In fact, it explains why people have developed a long list of invectives for those whose thoughts and actions deviate noticeably from a rational standard: airhead, blockhead, knucklehead, lunkhead, dimwit, moron, idiot, lamebrain, dumbbell, dolt, not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and so on, ad infinitum.

Nonetheless, when seemingly responsible people argue for abortion—repeatedly, passionately, and under sophisticated auspices—the degree of irrationality in these arguments is often overlooked and ignored. That’s because human beings are also highly distractible and therefore easily taken in.

Logic is the tool that exposes the rationality or the irrationality of an argument. Following are seven popular irrational argumentations (logical fallacies) that are used to justify abortion.

1) Mistaking the Qualified for the Absolute

While it is true that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius, this is never an absolute statement. Water boils at this temperature at sea level—not so at other altitudes. “Exercise is good,” is an unqualified statement. If one is recovering from triple bypass surgery, certain forms of exercise are not good.

Similarly, choice—the most effective ploy in the pro-abortionists arsenal—is a notion that is taken as absolute but needs qualification. Even pro-choicers are not pro-choice about domestic violence, slavery, racism, or driving under the influence. Mothers Against Drunk Driving are a case in point. They do not advise, “Don’t drink,” but “Don’t drink and drive.”

In a New York Times editorial, Faye Wattleton, former president of Planned Parenthood, stated, “The right to abortion . . . shouldn’t be a political football that candidates can kick around at will.” But choice, she seems to forget, is an act of the will. If women can choose abortion, why can’t politicians (and voters) choose to make it an election issue? Ms. Wattleton tries to qualify choice when it comes to politics, but not when it comes to abortion. In the final analysis, what does being “pro-choice” really mean?

2) Double Standard

Howard Fast (d. 2003), author of some 42 novels, argued that pro-lifers are insincere because their concern for life does not continue beyond birth: “I have never heard a right-to-life voice raised in protest against 60,000 innocents murdered by the death squads of El Salvador.” Responding to this charge, William F. Buckley, Jr. had this to say:

The lifers are, by Mr. Fast and others who think as he does, encumbered by the responsibility for everything that happens to the fetus after it materializes into a human being in the eyes of the law. And if you aren’t around to see to it that at age 14 the kid is receiving the right education, ingesting the right food, leading a happy, prosperous life, why, you had no business bringing him into this world. You are a hypocrite to the extent that you support life for everyone who suffers in life. It is only left for Mr. Fast to close the logic of his own argument, which would involve him in a syllogistic attempt along the lines of: Everyone suffers. No one not living suffers. Therefore, no one should live. (Column, National Review, February 24, 1989)

In other words, according to Mr. Fast, pro-lifers are responsible for everything while pro-abortionists are responsible for nothing.

Another aspect of the double standard is to acknowledge a right to life for most people who have passed the infancy stage but withhold that right not only from the unborn, but from infants up to some arbitrarily established age. For philosopher Mary Ann Warren, the age is nine months after birth; for Peter Singer, it is 28 days post partum. Michael Tooley and others offer different cutoff ages.

The reasoning behind this double standard is that the unborn and neonates are alleged to be merely potential human beings or beings who lack a sufficient degree of consciousness to be identified as human persons. Such reasoning, however, is without merit. The unborn and neonates are not “potential” human beings, but human beings with a great deal of potential (a feature that characterizes all human beings). In addition, consciousness does not characterize the essence of the human being. This erroneous notion goes back to Descartes’ Cogito (“I think; therefore I am”).

3) Hasty Generalization

We commonly hear the assertion that abortion is a complex issue that women never treat lightly. In fact, pro-choice proponents allege that women “agonize” over their decision to abort. “It’s never simple,” says novelist John Irving. To the contrary, syndicated columnist George Will correctly points out that most Americans “are uneasy about the promiscuous creation and destruction of life, often for frivolous reasons of negligence and convenience” (Suddenly: The American Idea Abroad and At Home 1986-1990, 316).

It is well documented that many women who have had an abortion admit that they never gave abortion a second thought. These women testify that since abortion is their “right,” their decision was made simple by that very fact. In the words of author Suzanne Gordon: “I am a very liberated woman. My decision to have an abortion was made without the slightest trace of emotional conflict. I had no qualms that what I was about to do would make me feel any less a woman” (“Abortion: Thoughts on a Not-So-Simple Operation,” The Human Life Review, 11-12).

It is illogical to assume that because some women agonize over their decision to abort, that all women do. Many women who had abortions without giving the matter proper thought have come to regret their decision and are now active members of groups such as Women Exploited, Women Exploited By Abortion, Victims of Choice, Silent No More, etc.

4) Begging the Question

In the fallacy of begging the question, the conclusion is already assumed and not proven. It is a form of circular thinking. Consider the following example: “I know that God exists because it says so in the Bible. Furthermore, I know that the Bible is trustworthy because it is inspired by God.” Here, the assumption that God exists is used to prove itself.

Although women have a legal right (in the United States, for example) to have an abortion, this does not mean that their legal right implies a moral right. Historically, many immoral laws were changed (the Dred Scott decision, for example). To regard abortion as responsible also begs the question. All too commonly it is assumed—but not demonstrated—that a woman has a moral right to an abortion and that when she exercises this “right” she behaves “responsibly.” But in committing this fallacy, one avoids the discussion of whether, indeed, abortion is a moral right and an instance of responsible behavior, while simply assuming that it is.

5) Hypothesis Contrary to Fact

An example of this fallacy is when a baseball fan, disconsolate after his team loses, says, “The manager brought in pitcher B who promptly gave up two runs and blew the game. Had he brought in pitcher A, we would have won.” But a person is never in a position to know what would have happened if a different set of factors were brought into play.

Gloria Steinem famously proclaimed that “If men could get pregnant, then abortion would be a sacrament.” Apart from being an instance of hyperbole, the statement is completely unverifiable. The statement is also unintelligible because if men could get pregnant, they would cease to be men. Apparently, Ms. Steinem is arguing that the male disposition is such that he would not only welcome abortion, but would glorify it. Nonetheless, she is hypothesizing about a situation that is both contradictory and impossible.

At the same time, Ginette Paris, a psychologist and therapist, has produced The Sacrament of Abortion, in which she argues that from a purely pagan perspective, women should regard abortion as a sacrament.

Another common argument asserts that if a pro-life woman were in the same situation as an aborting woman, she, too, would choose abortion. This hypothetical fallacy has the additional vice of denying pro-life women their freedom to choose differently.

6) Stereotyping

Stereotyping occurs when a particular group of people is typed or classified in such as way that it represents an injustice to many of the individuals who compose that group. Stereotypic thinking usually coincides with prejudice.

People who stand up for life and oppose abortion are routinely classified as right wing, judgmental, religious fanatics, being anti-choice, lacking in compassion, fetus freaks, fascistic, totalitarian, misogynistic, and so on.

Comedian George Carlin once closed a television program by remarking that pro-life women are all so unattractive that no one would want to get them pregnant in the first place. Stereotypic thinking can be cruel as well as unjust. T. S. Eliot illustrated this in a poem: His character J. Alfred Prufrock is the victim of “the eyes that fix you in a formulated phrase” and is left “formulated, sprawling on a pin.” Stereotypic thinking can be an instance of psychic violence. About the only thing one can say about all pro-life people is that they are pro-life.

7) Accident

The fallacy of accident confuses some accidental feature with that which is essential. People have been known to bet on a horse because they liked its name or the colors of the jockey’s attire. These are hardly logical reasons for waging a bet since they are wholly unrelated to the factors that will determine the outcome of the race.

The fallacy of accident abounds in pro-abortion rhetoric. The unborn are judged inferior to the born because of such accidental features as: 1) place of residence; 2) stage of development; 3) whether or not they happen to be wanted by their mother.

At the same time, defenders of the unborn are discredited because they are: 1) men; 2) Christian (especially Catholic); 3) not poor.

This fallacy is a form of ignoring the issue in which the essential elements are set aside, and the argument focuses exclusively on peripheral aspects that are not germane to the issue at hand.

No Wisdom, No Dialogue

“I had a lover’s quarrel with the world” is the epitaph that Robert Frost chose for his gravestone. G. K. Chesterton advised that “one should never let a quarrel get in the way of a good argument.” Quarrelling has its roots in the ego. The ego, which has such a powerful avidity for itself, is nothing more than a fountainhead of pride which, to cite Chesterton once more, is “the falsification of fact by the introduction of self.” Defending the lives of others, while exposing oneself to contempt, vituperation, slander, and illogic seems to be rather selfless. Right-to-life people have never tired of constructing clear-headed logical arguments in defense of life. In this regard, they are apostles of good will. But their critics show signs of ill will.

The ego is in love with the self and the self alone. From its narrow perspective, the right to an unencumbered life for the self trumps the right to life for the unborn. Bearing and rearing a child is thus seen as an intolerable inconvenience and the supreme encumbrance.

Little logical debate goes on between pro-life and “pro-choice” sides. When argument is met by quarrelling, there can be no logical resolution of the conflict. The difference between pro- and anti-abortion proponents runs far below the surface of a logical debate both for the individuals involved as well as for all others who make up the human family. The abortion stakes are high and its implications are far-reaching. Egocentrism is the great enemy of civilization.

What kind of society do we want? Do we want one that consists of quarrelling individuals who bear ill will toward their adversaries? Or do we want a civilization of civil people who understand and practice their communal obligations to others and value their individuality precisely in terms of that service to others?

Socrates stood courageously against the Sophists. He wanted to engage in a productive dialogue. As a realist philosopher, he understood that there is a common measure or source of meaning (logos) across which (dia-) we can all speak. But they could not meet on that common ground, the very ground that makes dialogue possible. The Sophists were content merely to seem to be wise. Socrates wanted wisdom and would not retreat from that ideal. Yet he found himself in the predicament of a good physician being prosecuted by a pleasing cook before a jury of ignorant children.

There is no wisdom in abortion or in its defense. Because the Sophists and pro-abortionists both reject wisdom, they also reject that which provides substance for logical argumentation. This is a crucial rejection, especially on a subject as fraught with moral import as abortion. In the absence of wisdom, there can be no fruitful discussion. Choice without wisdom has no touchstone to give it justification. A skilled surgeon in the possession of the most highly refined surgical instruments and an expertly trained staff cannot perform surgery without a patient. Logic needs something to sink its teeth in. Logic itself will not unearth truth, but it cannot operate in its absence. It has been said that there can be no real dialogue unless three are present: two who are engaged in dialogue and the silence that encompasses them both to quiet their egos and point to a wisdom beyond themselves. Pure choice is a metaphysical orphan, deprived of underlying wisdom, bereft of logical defense.

By: Donald DeMarco



  1. Patrick Gannon Reply

    What’s never discussed in these articles is what happens to the aborted or miscarried fetus, which is not able to be baptized as Catholic doctrine insists is necessary for salvation. Since Limbo has been closed – where does the aborted fetus go? Heaven or Hell?

    If Bible God sends it to Hell, indeed a great harm is being done – but who could worship a being that would do such a thing? Who is really imposing the harm when sending a completely innocent fetus to eternal torment? Bible God is. If the fetus goes to heaven, what’s the harm – it accomplished instantly what the rest of us have to struggle to do. That might not be fair, but I don’t see any harm or crime to the aborted fetus in that case.

    I fail to understand why abortion is so bad.

  2. thomraff Reply

    See my comment on the post “Beware Fair-Minded Words.”

  3. Gallibus Reply

    Why don’t we call murder a ‘late abortion’? That way we could terminate at will, especially rotten politicians who don’t care about life in any case.

  4. Patrick Gannon Reply

    A little research indicates that I was incorrect in asserting that Limbo had been closed. As I understand it, the church permits people to believe what they want with regard to Limbo, but the official doctrine according to the Catechism, is that baptism is necessary for salvation and those who die prior to baptism have only a “hope” for salvation. So, either they go to Limbo, which is still separation from God, or to Hell where we are permitted to “hope” that they aren’t punished to the same extent as someone with mortal sin (like masturbation).

    The idea that an all-powerful god would do such a thing should be abhorrent to any rational human being.

    1. Victoria Purvis Reply

      @Patrick, yes, you’re totally right that it is abhorrent. However, there is also the age of reason to consider. Children can’t go to Confession before a certain age because they don’t understand their sins completely. In the same way, unborn infants don’t understand sin, nor have they committed any even as they are touched by original sin, and therefore cannot be held accountable in the same way as adults who understand what they have done wrong through reason and their conscience. Also, there is the understanding (I can’t remember the reference in the catechism for this) that if you have never ever heard about Jesus AND have lived a virtuous life according to your conscience and done your best to do what is right, then God is merciful and will bring you to heaven. (This is negated if you have ever heard of Jesus, Christianity, etc.) So, while Christianity, and specifically Catholicism, show the most sure way to Heaven through baptism and all the sacraments and we would certainly like to spread that through the world, God does not condemn those who cannot be responsible for never following Jesus – such as an unborn infant.

      1. Patrick Gannon Reply

        Victoria, the RCC clearly believed that unbaptized children went to Hell; otherwise why would they have invented Limbo as an alternative to Hell in the first place? Limbo was designed to remove the pain of Hell from these innocent souls, because they had never committed a mortal sin, but a) Limbo was only a theory and never became official doctrine, and b) the unbaptized souls were still not permitted into heaven because they retained the sin of Adam – the stain of original sin.
        The Church allows you to “hope” that God doesn’t really have this hangup about original sin, but they can’t do away with original sin or they are left with nothing. Many Protestants are not as hung up over original sin as Catholics, and they go with the ‘age of reason’ justification you mention, but for Catholics that applies perhaps to mortal sins, but not to original sin. You must be baptized. Here are the words:
        1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
        Now, I grant you that the RCC put a couple weasel words in there with which to justify the “hope.’ They mention that baptism is necessary for salvation “for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.” That would seem to leave some wiggle room open, but it is countered by very direct statements, a) “The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.,” and b) The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude..” The Church has a large document about “hope,” but the default, or starting position is that there is no salvation without baptism. They lay down the law and then allow you to hope they don’t really mean it – in which case, what good is the law?
        If it turns out that God can actually erase original sin from their souls and let them into heaven, then why can’t He do that for everyone? You mentioned the repulsive idea that one might be saved if one never heard of Jesus before, but if they have heard of him, then they are doomed if they did not convert. It reminds me of a story of an Inuit man living in the far north who said to the Catholic missionary – ‘You mean that if you had never told me about Jesus I would have been saved? Then why did you tell me about him?’ Clearly he understood that his position had not improved by learning about something he now had to believe in or face eternal doom, when he could have simply gone on in ignorance and been saved. What kind of god would make up such idiotic rules?
        So, Victoria, you are allowed to “hope” that Catholic God is not “abhorrent.” But that’s all they give you… a little hope… Why do they want you to have to “hope” that God is not “abhorrent?”

        1. Tom Rafferty Reply

          There was no “Original Sin.” Science shows that humanity evolved from a group, as do all species. Thus, there could not have been an Adam and Eve. No Adam and Eve, no “Original Sin”, no need for a Savior. Oh, what’s that? Adam and Even are metaphorical? I guess Jesus was metaphorical as well. Carry on with your silly discussion.

          1. Patrick Gannon

            I”m not sure of your point, Tom. I agree – there was no original sin, and DNA evidence indicates that humans evolved from a group of parents, and you draw the correct conclusion – without original sin, there is no need for a savior. That is correct, and that is the problem for Christianity and why so many Christians try to drown out the reality of evolution, just as they once tried to drown out Galileo for asserting that we are not the center of the universe. Jesus thought Adam and Eve were real people and that the earth was really created in 6 days. He was a Jew, and that’s what almost everyone thought in those days. Personally I don’t think Jesus ever entertained the idea of dying for original sin. He may have thought he was going to be the Jewish messiah and that Yahweh was going to pull him down off that cross at some point, but the idea of original sin came from Paul a couple decades after Jesus died, when he asserted that sin entered the world through one man, Adam. As you correctly noted, there was no Adam, thus no original sin, thus no need for salvation.
            It’s upsetting because it goes against long held beliefs, but when you stop and think about it, it’s wonderful news. We don’t have to be afraid anymore. Now we might be upset with those who made us afraid in the first place, but we’ll just have to work through that, and stop passing the fear on to the next generation, and the organized religions that profit on selling needless fear will fade away.

          2. thomraff

            Patrick, my only point is that Christianity is based on a myth and this post is discussing something as if someone can verify its truth. Limbo? Hell? SMH

          3. Patrick Gannon

            Ah Tom; sorry I couldn’t tell if you were being sarcastic or were making fun of me. Yes, in one way, it is a silly discussion, but what most Catholics lack is information. I was one, so I know. Catholics seldom read the bible, and I certainly wasn’t encouraged to do so as a child, and for good reason – it’s one of the fastest ways to create an atheist or agnostic. Many don’t know their own catechism, and while it’s true that Limbo and Hell are myths, I think there’s some value in pointing out that their god, (if He was real) apparently sends completely innocent unborn children there. Catholics don’t know that Jesus wasn’t born of a virgin (the Hebrew word ‘alma’ was incorrectly translated to ‘virgin’ instead of ‘young woman’ in Greek. They don’t know that there is zero evidence for The Exodus out of Egypt – it never happened. Most Catholics don’t know that the only conquest of Canaan was by Persians, not a bunch of Hebrews running out of Egypt. Most don’t realize that a couple popes have grudgingly accepted evolution, and that’s a big deal, because once you get rid of Adam and Eve, where does original sin come from? Few know that four different words were translated to the word “Hell” which itself has pagan origins. My goal is to share information. I’m sorry I didn’t pick up on your sarcasm, and you are absolutely correct in stating that there is no way to verify gods or afterlives.

          4. Tom Rafferty

            Glad you are clear on my intent, Patrick. BTW, I am 71 yo and was a very Devout Catholic until about 15 years ago. I was a skeptic in all but religion since college, but it took the internet to cancel out religion. Peace.

    2. Bocephus Reply

      Patrick, you are a shining example of how “a little learning is a dangerous thing.” If you actually want to understand the Catholic Church’s stance on these issues, rather than a relying on your own rather hackneyed, if possibly well-meaning, attempts to decipher the Catechism of the Catholic Church (a document that admittedly requires a degree of both intelligence and patience to properly wield), I would suggest Fr. Francis A. Sullivan, S.J.’s “Salvation Outside the Church?” It will put to rest the many fallacious ideas you have on the Church’s beliefs.

Leave a Reply

  1. most read post
  2. Most Commented
  3. Choose Categories