Better Arguments #1: A Complex Pro-Life Question

By Chris On March 7, 2010 · 4 Comments · In Better Arguments

In order to understand the questions I’m about to pose, one must first understand the pro-life position. Even if you don’t agree with it, you should at least understand it.

The pro-life argument is simple. It based on two premises.

1. Everything conceived from a human sperm and human egg is a human being and belongs to the human family. This fact is attested to by numerous pro-life and pro abortion-choice advocates as well as nearly all embryologists.

2. All humans are equally and inherently valuable in virtue of their humanness–because our humanness is the only thing we all have in common. This is the moral conviction most of us have that says that racism and sexism are wrong.

Therefore, embryos and fetuses are as equally and inherently valuable as any other human being and may not be killed just because they are in the way.

That is the argument in a nutshell.

Now, some clever pro abortion-choicer has come up with an interesting illustration to rebut this idea.

It goes like this:

Suppose a lab is on fire and trapped inside is a two-year old toddler and a small refrigerator full of frozen embryos. Because of the imminent danger, you only have enough time to save either the toddler or the embryos. You are a pro-life person. You believe the embryos are inherently valuable human beings that are as equally valuable as the toddler. Which do you save?

How does the pro-lifer answer this question? Should he save the toddler or save the embryos?

If he saves the toddler, then the pro abortion-choicer will generally accuse the pro-lifer of being a hypocrite. He is saying all human beings at any stage of life are inherently and equally valuable. So shouldn’t he save the refrigerator full of embryos since he can save more valuable human beings that way?

But if the pro-lifer says he would save the embryos, then the pro-abortion choicer will accuse the pro-lifer of being a cruel monster. Why? Because he did not save the toddler.

It is an argument that gives emotional weight to the pro abortion-choice side. People will tend to think two things; that if the pro-life side is correct, then they could not possibly be seen as inhumane and cruel; and that they would always act consistently with their beliefs. Therefore, the pro-choicer implies with this illustration that since the pro-lifer cannot answer this question unscathed, then the pro-life position is incorrect.

But how does that cache out, really? I believe the illustration suffers from a couple of problems, but chiefly it suffers from the Fallacy of the Complex Question.

This fallacy is a way of phrasing a question or illustration that assumes something in the question itself. “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” is one of the simplest questions to suffer from this fallacy. If you say no, then the asker will say, “Well, that’s terrible that you are still beating your wife.” If you say yes, then the asker will say, “Well, that’s terrible that you beat her in the first place.” It is a no-win scenario.

So how does the burning lab illustration suffer from this fallacy? What is this illustration assuming? There are at least two series of assumptions.

1. The first series involves the first answer the pro-lifer can give; that the pro-lifer will save the toddler. If the pro-lifer saves the toddler, then it’s assumed that choosing to save the toddler is inconsistent with the pro-lifer’s beliefs (Assumption 1A). Therefore, he is a hypocrite. Really? How does he make that connection? What does he mean by hypocrite?

Well, in this case, the pro-choicer would define hypocrisy as acting inconsistently with how one believes. But everyone does that, so if hypocrisy is simply a synonym for inconsistency, then being a hypocrite is meaningless because everyone is a hypocrite. Everyone is morally inconsistent in some form. It doesn’t say anything meaningful about the pro-lifer as opposed to anyone else.

Real hypocrisy in this case would be the pro-lifer telling everyone that they are morally required to save the refrigerator and not the toddler, and then he goes and saves the toddler. But the pro-lifer isn’t saying we are morally required to save the refrigerator (Assumption 1B). It is saying that we are morally required to not kill human beings just because they are in the way and don’t look like us. But killing and saving are two different things, aren’t they? And how does one decide whom to save? On the basis of numbers alone (Assumption 1C)? Or could suffering also be a factor?

If the toddler suffers more from death by fire than the embryos, then perhaps it is more morally correct to save the toddler?*

Or, put yourself in the burning lab. Are you going to have a philosophical conversation with yourself over who to save or are you going to quickly grab the closest thing that looks like a human (the toddler) and take him to safety? Is a tense life-or-death environment such as a burning lab really the best place to test the consistency of a person’s deeply held beliefs (Assumption 1D) or is it the best place to test his instincts? Or are instinct and belief synonymous? (Assumption 1E)

Furthermore, how does choosing to save the toddler prove that the embryos are not valuable (Assumption 1F)? It doesn’t.

2. The second series of assumptions has to do with the second answer the pro-lifer can give; that he would save the refrigerator. What is assumed in this case?

First, the pro abortion-choicer assumes that the embryos are not human and/or are not as valuable as the toddler because they do not look like the toddler. They cannot suffer in the fire like the toddler. (Assumption 2A) Therefore, because the pro-lifer saved some non-valuable embryos instead of the toddler, he is cruel and inhumane. And also therefore, it is okay to get rid of embryos if they are in the way and the pro-choice position is correct (Assumption 2B–similar to Assumption 1F). This assumption begs the question of value, which is what the entire point of the debate between abortion-choice and pro-life is about; what is the unborn?

In conclusion, no matter how the pro-lifer answers the question, it has built-in assumptions about the pro-lifer and his case; most of which are assumptions that the pro-lifer doesn’t hold. Therefore, the question suffers from the fallacy of the complex question and as a result, regardless of how the pro-lifer answers, cannot say anything meaningful about the pro-lifer or his position.

This illustration can be used in a variety of ways, but it is used mainly as a red-herring; a way for the pro abortion-choicer to move from the topic of the humanity and value of the unborn to the content of the character of the pro-lifer with which he is currently engaged.

So now that you understand what is going on when the abortion choicer offers this illustration, how then does the pro-lifer counter it when it is offered?

By asking a well-placed question. I think that question is asking the abortion choicer how he would answer the question if he were a pro-lifer. It challenges him to consider what the pro-life position really is, and will show you by his response if he is really unaware that he is asking a fallacious question. You may need to ask more questions, but if he is trying to be fair, then he will realize that neither of the two options offer a fair answer for the pro-lifer and that the illustration appeals to emotion.

How would you counter it to get the other person to realize that it is an unfair question? Or is it actually unfair?

How would you answer this question? Personally, until I am in that situation, I am not sure what I would do. At this point, however, I would probably choose to save the toddler, but not because he is more valuable than the embryos, but because he will suffer more, and–to be real honest–because I would be in a very tense situation and I would probably take him because he also looks like me. Am I acting emotionally? Instinctually? Hell, yes. I’m not sure I could help that. Am I acting inconsistently? Maybe. Maybe. But this is my honest answer. I do not think it makes me a hypocrite in any meaningful way, and it is a question I struggle with and probably will for the rest of my days.

It’s not an easy question to deal with. There are no easy answers. There is no way to win.

*For you pro-lifers, keep in mind I am not offering using suffering as a criterion as the way to decide the worth or a human being. I am not stating that it is okay to kill something just because it won’t suffer. I am simply offering suffering as another criterion in which one can determine whom to save as opposed to what the pro abortion-choicer assumes in offering this illustration; that numbers are the chief determinant in this case for deciding which action will do the greatest utilitarian good.

Caleb

You’re missing the point of the question. The question isn’t a trap, as you describe, designed to make you answer incorrectly in either situation. It’s not an emotional argument either. And it’s not an attempt to question the character of the pro-lifer in question.

The situation is presented to illustrate the inconsistencies in the pro-life belief set.

You’re right in that the questioner makes an assumption that you would answer that the toddler would be the one you’d save. This result is common sense. Any person in their right mind would save the toddler. If you save the toddler, I don’t call you a hypocrite, I call you a rational, thinking human being. In this way, the question becomes a rhetorical question to illustrate a point about the truth of our value system.

Yes, it gets messy if you actually answer that you’d save the refrigerator. If one answers that way, it breaks the assumption; you then get called a monster, yes, but not because the question was set up as a trap. You get called a monster for acting in irrational ways simply to protect the justifications of an inherently flawed mindset.

Consider it this way. I ask you a rhetorical question to illustrate our values: “A building is burning, and you can only save one item. Your choices are, a newborn baby, or a stack of 100 dollar bills. Which do you save?” <this scenario is not a trap; there's an obviously correct answer, and an obviously incorrect answer, due to our shared values. It's rhetorical, and illustrative. You probably save the baby. the point we arrive at is, we value the life of the newborn more than the stack of money. NOW, if you were to answer "I'd save the stack of money," I then call you a monster, not because i trapped you into it, but because your values are so off base that the discussion is no longer illustrative, but corrective. If you answer "I save the money," we clearly now have a values disagreement, which by definition, makes you on "the wrong side."

SO, with this understanding of the nature of the question, we can look back at the question and understand the point. "Save a baby or save 1000 embryos?" The question isn't asking you to make a tough choice; it's asking you a common sense question, and by doing so, revealing an inconsistency in the belief set. Obviously, the baby is valued more than the embryos. Thus, an embryo and a human life are not on the same level.

NOW, to address one more issue that is present. "saving a life is different than choosing/not choosing to take a life." This is true. The situation isn't a metaphor for abortion, except maybe in Abortions where the mother's life is at stake, but we won't go there for now. Suffice it to say, it's not a metaphor. Separating the situation from the abortion argument, the "refrigerator vs baby" situation's SOLE and ONLY purpose is to illustrate our true assessment of value (that is to say, "Refrigerator vs baby" shows that we do not actually value embryos on the same level as humans).

Taking that understanding from "Refrigerator Vs. Baby (RvB)," we can then return to the abortion discussion.

The problem becomes, "RvB" so succinctly illustrates our true values, that pro-lifers feel it's necessary to somehow answer the question differently, outside of common sense. Maybe a pro-lifer would claim he'd save the refrigerator; we all know that's a lie. Furthermore, it's a lie designed to protect an agenda.

Summary: RvB is not an emotional argument, a metaphor, a trap, or even a question truly worth answering. RvB is a rhetorical question designed to illustrate our core values, regardless of our agendas.

****

And to give my suggested rebuttal for the entire RvB situation, you've already come across it in your blog post.

The prolife answer should be:

"I'd save the toddler. However, this is not to say that it's correct to value the toddler more than the embryo. My answer implies that I fall prey to the same "appearance suggests importance" thinking, just as much as any other person does. It does not suggest that the embryos should NOT be valued, it implies that I do falsely assign more value to the Toddler. If the situation was not RvB, and instead was "save your daughter or save five girls that I do not know," I'd save my daughter instead of the five other girls. This isn't to say that the cosmic value of my daughter is greater than the cosmic value of five other girls; it simply implies that my judgement is impaired by my own desires."

^in my opinion, the above answer is incorrect (I do believe we truly, and for good reason, assign more value to toddlers then we do embryos). I believe it's a sneaky way to dodge past the question. On the other hand, it does nullify RvB. The pro-choice advocate is frustratingly forced, at this point, to attempt to show in some other way that we rightfully value humans over human-embryos. The pro-choice advocate has to not only show that humans are more valuable than human-embryos, but also has to show that the value assessment is correct, and not faulty.
http://www.stormherald.com/ Chris

Thanks for posting this on my blog!

Let me see if I understand your point. The refrigerator full of frozen embryos has about the same value as a stack of one hundred dollar bills. They are valuable, but not in the same way the two year old is valuable. The two year old is valuable because it is a human being. So we are morally obligated to save the human being (the two year old). As such, the point of the illustration is to show the pro-lifer that it is more logical and moral to save the human being.

Am I understanding you right? If I am, then I think I can point out why I think the illustration still falls short of its intent.

Also, a point of clarification. I don’t want you to go away thinking that I think that everyone who presents this situation is trying to trap to the pro-lifer or is in some way disingenuous. My mention of it being entrapping is because it’s my common experience whenever pro abortion-choicers present the illustration to me. At least with the lay people. I should have pointed out in my post that I know there are people who are more involved with the philosophy of abortion who are pro abortion-choice that don’t abuse the illustration. So I fully agree with you that your intention wouldn’t be to trap me.
Caleb

You’re missing the point of the question. The question isn’t a trap, as you describe, designed to make you answer incorrectly in either situation. It’s not an emotional argument either. And it’s not an attempt to question the character of the pro-lifer in question.

The situation is presented to illustrate the inconsistencies in the pro-life belief set.

You’re right in that the questioner makes an assumption that you would answer that the toddler would be the one you’d save. This result is common sense. Any person in their right mind would save the toddler. If you save the toddler, I don’t call you a hypocrite, I call you a rational, thinking human being. In this way, the question becomes a rhetorical question to illustrate a point about the truth of our value system.

Yes, it gets messy if you actually answer that you’d save the refrigerator. If one answers that way, it breaks the assumption; you then get called a monster, yes, but not because the question was set up as a trap. You get called a monster for acting in irrational ways simply to protect the justifications of an inherently flawed mindset.

Consider it this way. I ask you a rhetorical question to illustrate our values: “A building is burning, and you can only save one item. Your choices are, a newborn baby, or a stack of 100 dollar bills. Which do you save?” <this scenario is not a trap; there's an obviously correct answer, and an obviously incorrect answer, due to our shared values. It's rhetorical, and illustrative. You probably save the baby. the point we arrive at is, we value the life of the newborn more than the stack of money. NOW, if you were to answer "I'd save the stack of money," I then call you a monster, not because i trapped you into it, but because your values are so off base that the discussion is no longer illustrative, but corrective. If you answer "I save the money," we clearly now have a values disagreement, which by definition, makes you on "the wrong side."

SO, with this understanding of the nature of the question, we can look back at the question and understand the point. "Save a baby or save 1000 embryos?" The question isn't asking you to make a tough choice; it's asking you a common sense question, and by doing so, revealing an inconsistency in the belief set. Obviously, the baby is valued more than the embryos. Thus, an embryo and a human life are not on the same level.

NOW, to address one more issue that is present. "saving a life is different than choosing/not choosing to take a life." This is true. The situation isn't a metaphor for abortion, except maybe in Abortions where the mother's life is at stake, but we won't go there for now. Suffice it to say, it's not a metaphor. Separating the situation from the abortion argument, the "refrigerator vs baby" situation's SOLE and ONLY purpose is to illustrate our true assessment of value (that is to say, "Refrigerator vs baby" shows that we do not actually value embryos on the same level as humans).

Taking that understanding from "Refrigerator Vs. Baby (RvB)," we can then return to the abortion discussion.

The problem becomes, "RvB" so succinctly illustrates our true values, that pro-lifers feel it's necessary to somehow answer the question differently, outside of common sense. Maybe a pro-lifer would claim he'd save the refrigerator; we all know that's a lie. Furthermore, it's a lie designed to protect an agenda.

Summary: RvB is not an emotional argument, a metaphor, a trap, or even a question truly worth answering. RvB is a rhetorical question designed to illustrate our core values, regardless of our agendas.

****

And to give my suggested rebuttal for the entire RvB situation, you've already come across it in your blog post.

The prolife answer should be:

"I'd save the toddler. However, this is not to say that it's correct to value the toddler more than the embryo. My answer implies that I fall prey to the same "appearance suggests importance" thinking, just as much as any other person does. It does not suggest that the embryos should NOT be valued, it implies that I do falsely assign more value to the Toddler. If the situation was not RvB, and instead was "save your daughter or save five girls that I do not know," I'd save my daughter instead of the five other girls. This isn't to say that the cosmic value of my daughter is greater than the cosmic value of five other girls; it simply implies that my judgement is impaired by my own desires."

^in my opinion, the above answer is incorrect (I do believe we truly, and for good reason, assign more value to toddlers then we do embryos). I believe it's a sneaky way to dodge past the question. On the other hand, it does nullify RvB. The pro-choice advocate is frustratingly forced, at this point, to attempt to show in some other way that we rightfully value humans over human-embryos. The pro-choice advocate has to not only show that humans are more valuable than human-embryos, but also has to show that the value assessment is correct, and not faulty.
http://www.stormherald.com/ Christopher Walker

Thanks for posting this on my blog!

Let me see if I understand your point. The refrigerator full of frozen embryos has about the same value as a stack of one hundred dollar bills. They are valuable, but not in the same way the two year old is valuable. The two year old is valuable because it is a human being. So we are morally obligated to save the human being (the two year old). As such, the point of the illustration is to show the pro-lifer that it is more logical and moral to save the human being.

Am I understanding you right? If I am, then I think I can point out why I think the illustration still falls short of its intent.

Also, a point of clarification. I don’t want you to go away thinking that I think that everyone who presents this situation is trying to trap to the pro-lifer or is in some way disingenuous. My mention of it being entrapping is because it’s my common experience whenever pro abortion-choicers present the illustration to me. At least with the lay people. I should have pointed out in my post that I know there are people who are more involved with the philosophy of abortion who are pro abortion-choice that don’t abuse the illustration. So I fully agree with you that your intention wouldn’t be to trap me.

Better Arguments #1: A Complex Pro-Life Question

Links

Featured Novel

Tags

Meta

StormHerald.com