Fallacies In Grant's Abortion And Rights

In the 1986 article on “Abortion and Rights”, written by George and Sheila Grant they argue their position on abortion and the rights of the woman and the fetus. The evidence put forth by George and Sheila Grant to support their conclusion will be analyzed in this paper. The use of fallacies in the article will be examined in order to see if the evidence is indeed supportive of their claim. The presence of a false premise, the use of ad hominem arguments, appeal to pity, appeal to tradition, appropriate authority, disputable claims, slippery slope and hasty generalizations strengthen or weaken the credibility behind Grant’s arguments. This paper will analyze these fallacies and come to a conclusion of whether or not these fallacies have a weakening

George and Sheila use appeal to pity to distract the reader and bring out strong emotions from the reader. This is evident when they say, “Are you human in the fullest sense of the word? ... Here is the crunch; as the foetus loses out on this ethic, so will all the weak, the aged, the infirm, and the unproductive. If we come to believe that we are not creatures, but accidents, rights will no longer be given in the very nature of our legal system.” They come to this conclusion based on the various definitions of the word ‘human’. Joseph Fletcher’s list of human characteristics goes as follows, “self awareness, a sense of time, self control, capability of relating to others, the ability to communicate, a concern for others, control over existence, and a balance of rationality and feeling.” The fact that many people lack some of the qualities associated with being ‘human’ must mean that we are not ‘human’ in the fullest sense of the word. This claim causes the reader to sympathize with the fetus on the basis that they themselves may not be considered ‘human’ in all senses of the word. The reader is now distracted form the main argument of abortion and rights and focused on the definition of being ‘human’. This does not strengthen the Grant’s argument because it only serves to distract from the

Appropriate authority is defined as, “ a reliable source of credibility for our ideas. When we think of authorities who can add credibility, we tend to think of two kinds of people. The first kind is the expert…” The Grant’s try to put in the eyes of the reader that Doctor Morgentaler is an inappropriate authority when it comes to abortion based on his justifications. “The Canadian abortionist, justifies himself by asserting how very small the foetus is at early stages, as if size were an argument” The Grant’s do not present this information in an effective way. The justification made by the doctor is vague and does not offer enough detailed information to understand what he meant when he mentioned that the fetus is very small at the early stages of conception. This missing information could show why size could be used as a justification; perhaps at a certain size the fetus is not at all human, however this information is still unclear. Dr. Morgentaler is an appropriate authority in this matter, but no informative and helpful information in understanding abortion was given, therefore not helping Grant’s