Kelly McParland said in the National Post today that a reader suggested that he must be a religious fanatic, because he didn't support abortion.
His reader said that the vast majority of people who oppose abortion are "fundamentalist religious wackos". McParland said that religion had nothing to do with it. I agree.
But this kind of "reasoning" has never failed to puzzle me. How does the belief, that the killing of a defenceless human is wrong, make a person into a "fundamentalist religious wacko"?
In any event, let's go with the reader's assumption. Let's assume for argument sake that those opposed to abortion are in fact FRWs.
For many FRWs, this is what is called a moral question or an ethical question. Morally, FRWs object to this kind of behaviour. When an act is morally objectionable, FRWs believe it is wrong.
Maybe I should use mathematical constructs to describe this logic for McParland's reader.
if a = b and b = c then a = c
or
If "killing defenceless human being" = "immoral"
and
If "immoral" = "don't do it"
Then "killing defenceless human being" = "don't do it"
See how it works? It's easy.
And the best part of morality is that, it isn't just for FRWs. Anyone can use it.
If one frames the opponent in any argument as some sort of nut job, the onus on the insulting party to prove ANY point is moot. Basically, call a pro-lifer a racist and one doesn't have to come up with a coherent counter-argument. It's the antithesis of logic and pro-abortionists love it.
ReplyDelete