William Baptiste gives a perfectly logical and perfectly scientifically sound logical syllogism (described in more detail in the text below) which exposes the intellectual dishonesty of all who hold a "Pro-Choice" position against Equal Human Rights for All Humans. Pro-Choicers do not even know how to argue logically nor honestly at all, and ALL Pro-Choice "arguments" are intellectually dishonest attempts to distract away from ever engaging this perfectly sound AAA-1 syllogism of Formal Logic.
ALL Pro-Choice abortion “arguments” are intellectually dishonest uses of what the Science of Logic calls fallacies of distraction which avoid the question of the Human Rights of the humans killed in abortions . . . by using only illogical “arguments” in an intellectually dishonest attempt to “justify” being Pro-choice (and thereby supporting legal human-killing by abortion, ignorantly following the evil totalitarian Soviet and Nazi precedents), not only do Pro-Choicers not prove their case for legal abortion: they rather prove that they do not know how to argue logically nor honestly at all . . .
For now, here are some quotes adapted from material in my book manuscripts DEMOCRACY 101; PRO-LIFE EQUALS PRO-DEMOCRACY; KILLING HUMANS IS WRONG and NO FRUIT WITHOUT ROOTS ...
All Humans Have Human Rights.
Preborn Humans are Humans.
Therefore, Preborn Humans have Human Rights.
In the science of Formal Logic, there are 256 “Forms of Syllogisms,” that is, 256 possible ways to arrange the elements of a logical syllogism, only a couple dozen of which yield a valid argument. The above syllogism has the form known as an “AAA-1” syllogism, which is the first of the relatively few valid forms of logical argumentation.
If any Pro-Choice politician or voter denies the first statement (the major premise in this categorical syllogism of formal logic), they place themselves in the category of all slave-owning or Nazi bigots and of every evil criminal who like them denies that all humans have equal human rights including the Inherent Human Right to Live.
If any Pro-Choice politician or voter denies the second statement (the minor premise in this categorical syllogism of formal logic), then they place themselves in the category of the uneducated and ignorant and anti-scientific who like them do not even understand that preborn humans are human (did they fail science class from Grade 3 through high school and university? Do they not understand the human life-cycle? Do they not understand if two humans have an offspring, the offspring is human - at any age?).
If any Pro-Choice politician or voter denies the third statement (the conclusion of this categorical syllogism of formal logic), then they place themselves in the category of the unintelligent, illogical, or mentally deficient, who like them are incapable of following the perfect logic of this perfect, sound syllogism which reaches the perfectly logical and sound conclusion that preborn humans have human rights by reasoning soundly from sound premises.
So the only possible reasons that anyone is ever ‘Pro-Choice’ is because they are either uneducated/ignorant; unintelligent/illogical; or selfish/evil (and intellectually dishonest). Every “Pro-Choicer” from now on has to ask themselves, “which one am I and do I really want to stay that way now that any human-rights-educated person can ask me the same embarrassing question?” [this author charitably believes most Pro-Choicers are merely uneducated in Human Rights History and Logic, and not very familiar with the Biological Science of the human life-cycle, and will change their position to Pro-Life, as intellectual honesty demands, once exposed to the most pertinent facts around the Human Rights for All Humans Debate/the Abortion Debate. If they do not, then they declare themselves too unintelligent or too selfish/evil to support the Pro-Life Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy].
. . . to put a finer point on it, one should consider the following more detailed syllogism using the same valid logical form and yielding an equally sound logical conclusion:
All humans have intrinsic human rights their government did not give them.
Jewish, Black, and Preborn humans are humans.
Therefore, Jewish, Black, and Preborn humans have intrinsic human rights their government did not give them.
Anybody past or present who has denied Jewish humans, Black humans, or Preborn humans their intrinsic human rights or equal human rights with other humans is thinking and behaving illogically (and inconsistently, and with great bigotry).
Consider this expanded syllogism also using the same valid logical form as the above perfectly logical categorical syllogism:
All humans have intrinsic human rights their government did not give them (so government laws and policies which deny human rights to some humans must be opposed for the safety of all humanity).
Jewish, Black, and Preborn humans are humans.
Therefore, Jewish, Black, and Preborn humans have intrinsic human rights their government did not give them (so government laws and policies (past or present) which deny human rights to Jewish, Black, or Preborn humans must be opposed for the safety of all humanity.
There is no valid nor reasonable way to reject the logic of these valid, sound syllogisms and approve of legal human-killing abortion without making yourself look silly and bigoted and intellectually dishonest, if not outright evil, like all the slave-owners and Nazis and so on who also deny human rights to some humans. In fact, as discussed more below, ALL of the “arguments” proposed to “justify” de-criminalized abortion (which follows the totalitarian Soviet and Nazi precedent of de-criminalizing abortion which was first criminalized back in the 4th Century in the first legal recognition of HUMAN RIGHTS) fall under the category of what the Science of Logic calls “fallacies of distraction.” A “fallacy of distraction” is an argument that confuses and DISTRACTS FROM THE MAIN ISSUE by pointing to information that is actually irrelevant to the conclusion of the main issue, which in the abortion debate is the issue of HUMAN RIGHTS which start with THE INHERENT HUMAN RIGHT TO LIVE – an issue that is rationally settled with the valid and sound logical syllogism All humans have human rights. Preborn humans are humans. Therefore, preborn humans have human rights (and therefore killing preborn humans by abortion violates their Human Rights – which should come as no surprise to anyone who accepts the traditional Western maxim that killing humans is wrong). . . [from DEMOCRACY 101]
. . . Pro-Choicers also distract from the Human Rights issue with irrelevancies like rape. Of course we have sympathy for victims of rape, and we must, but this is irrelevant to the key question of whether humans have Human Rights or not. If humans have Human Rights, then the abortion-killing of humans is wrong, even in the rare instances where a human is conceived through a rape. As one such human woman conceived in rape has said, “I did not deserve the death penalty for my father’s rape of my mother.” Responses to the problem of rape that maintain the Inherent Human Right to Live must be sought – like combatting today’s “rape culture” with its immature and irresponsible sexual practices, fueled by women-objectifying pornography – rather than by copying Nazi War Crimes condemned at Nuremberg, such as legalized human-killing abortion.
The “rape” argument for abortion actually has elements of several kinds of logical fallacies rolled into one, it is not just a fallacy of distraction. It is a non-sequitur: it does not follow that abortion, even if it is allowed in the rare sympathetic cases of rape, should in any way justify the current abortion-on-demand, where humans are killed by abortion by any woman for any reason (even killing a unique human life just because “I had plane tickets close to my due date”). Anyone who cites the rape example when they really want abortion-on-demand (not just exceptions to the rule killing humans is a crime for rape victims) are just being dishonest and illogical. Any Pro-Choicer who would not be satisfied with an abortion law which allowed abortion in the case of rape but would not allow abortions for any reason, who brings up the rape example, is not genuinely compassionate to women, but rather is very dishonest and is scandalously misusing the great misfortune of rape victims to try to prop up their dastardly support for the Human Rights abuse of abortion for any reason.
The rape “argument” also fits the profiles of several logical fallacies of distraction and propaganda techniques. Instead of actually engaging the critical question of Human Rights of preborn humans, and dishonestly trying to avoid it, Pro-Choicers citing rape are committing “special pleading” fallacy, whereby (assuming they hold that killing humans is wrong at all) they plead a “special case” for women who have been raped. This is like saying, “The law against killing humans applies to everyone else but not to them. I know that killing humans is wrong for most people, but I think raped women should have the right-to-kill-humans when the human in question is in their womb.” As if one crime cancels out another.
The rape argument also fallaciously distracts the mind from the Human Rights question through the “emotional appeal” fallacy, shutting down the brain by appealing to the emotions (this also fits the profile of the propaganda technique known as “appeal to pity” – instead of appealing to facts and sound logic). By emphasizing the genuinely sympathetic condition of the raped woman while ignoring facts of Science and Human Rights History, Pro-Choicers dishonestly avoid engaging the issue of the human baby conceived in rape’s Human Rights. The rape argument is also a “red herring” logical fallacy or “diversion” that makes the argument about rape, instead of about the central abortion question of preborn Human Rights (when rape is not involved in the vast majority of abortions and is entirely irrelevant to the Human Rights for all humans issue raised by current abortion on demand).
All of these different kinds of fallacies of distraction involved in the rape argument have the intellectually dishonest purpose of distractingfrom and avoiding the whole question of the Human Rights of the humans undeniably killed in abortions – which is the crux of the abortion debate! But humans do have Human Rights. That is why killing humans is wrong, whether by abortion or any other means – and whether the person wanting an abortion was raped or not (most abortions are not performed for cases of rape). . .
[From PRO-LIFE EQUALS PRO-DEMOCRACY]
. . . Remember that this author charitably assumes most who identify as “Pro-Choice” merely have an uneducated ignorance of the most pertinent facts of Human Rights History (and of Science and Logic) and will be swayed by honest reason to become Pro-Life once exposed to these facts [laid out in William Baptiste's books]. But considering only the really serious Pro-Choicers who are most committed to the Pro-Choice position, it seems they are dishonestly willing to accept the manifestly unintelligent denial that preborn humans are humans apparently for the sake of whatever it is they think they gain from effectively denying in preborn humans the Inherent Human Right to Live which is actually the foundation of all Human Rights and freedoms.
This thesis seems to be supported by the testimony of a highly experienced Pro-Life activist who regularly does Pro-Life Human Rights advocacy on university campuses. He engages Pro-Choice university students in conversation frequently, and finds that they are generally perfectly willing to accept the scientifically sound Minor Premise that preborn humans are humans in other contexts, such as prenatal health care (ultrasounds, pregnant women under a physician’s care, fetal surgeries and so on). University students are not actually stupid: they do know preborn humans are humans and readily admit as much in the context of prenatal health care or of pregnant British royalty (magazine readers are also not actually stupid, which is why all the magazines write about the royal (human) baby, and not about the “fetus with no Human Rights” that the princess is carrying). But their intellectual dishonesty is revealed in how Pro-Choice university students’ brains appear to suddenly atrophy and they stammer and backpedal when the conversation turns to the abortion context. All of a sudden, a Pro-Choice university student no longer understands science and cannot accept that preborn humans are humans (with Human Rights according to the sound syllogism). This is not stupidity. It is dishonesty.
. . . In any case, the evidence from both university students and government posters recognizing and protecting some preborn human lives as precious but not all [some government signs protect preborn humans physically threatened by their mothers’ CHOICE to smoke or drink while pregnant; while there is no government attempt to protect identical preborn humans physically threatened by their mothers’ CHOICE to have an abortion while pregnant] shows that committed Pro-Choice voters and politicians actually are usually not just too stupid or unintelligent or mentally deficient to understand the Minor Premise preborn humans are humans. They actually do know deep down that abortions kill humans; but they are too intellectually dishonest to admit it or just too evil to care if humans lose their lives for the sake of their personal convenience. This means that even if they pay “lip service” to the Major Premise all humans have Human Rights, they are truly too bigoted to live by it but in fact do, like all bigots, deny equal human value and rights to some humans (preborn ones), without a shred of science or logic to justify their indefensible Pro-Choice position which ignores all Human Rights History (which is Pro-Life) as well. . .
. . . The government is not actually too stupid to know that preborn humans are humans. The government is frequently quite happy to promote prenatal human health and thereby protect precious human lives in the womb. But the typical Western government today, infected with totalitarian-oriented Pro-Choice philosophy, is intellectually dishonest and inconsistent in its application of this scientific truth it knows.
But stable governments (over humans) and stable human societies need a consistently applied understanding of human life and value. No government can actually remain value-neutral and stable governments need consistently applied values, preferably explicitly identified and embraced so they can be best maintained.
The current controversies pulling Western societies apart in two directions come from the fact we now have inconsistent, unstable “Jekyll and Hyde” governments which sometimes act as if all human lives are precious, as expected in a democracy, out of the “force of habit” of many centuries of Western ‘Pro-Life’ habits of thinking (as when governments pay for delicate fetal surgeries to save the precious human lives of preborn human babies who have health problems), and sometimes act as if human lives are not precious and can be killed when deemed inconvenient, as expected in totalitarian States (as when governments pay for abortions to kill the valueless human lives of preborn human babies the same age who are perfectly healthy). Why should humans trust governments which are so confused and inconsistent about the value of human lives? How can democracy survive governmental inconsistency in such a vital matter as whether or not human life is precious and whether or not the government is obligated to protect and serve human lives?
(It is “Women’s Rights” OR Human Rights – You Cannot Have Both Because They are Mutually Exclusive; “Women’s Rights” are Only Ever Cited to Dishonestly DISTRACT from the Human Rights of the Humans Killed in Abortions)
Listening to Pro-Choice “arguments” is like reading a logic textbook highlighting logical fallacies or errors. Pro-Choicers use distracting “red herrings” and “diversions” that take attention away from the actual heart of the abortion issue (Human Rights), diverting distractions like “women’s reproductive rights,” which logically can only exist instead of Human Rights, because they are mutually exclusive. If a woman has a “reproductive right” to kill her preborn human child, then there is no Inherent Human Right to Live, the fountain of all other Human Rights, for either the child, the women herself, nor anyone else – all of whom could have been legally killed by their mothers. And this is certainly not an “equal right” – men do not have a “right-to-kill-humans,” nor to deny Human Rights to other humans, so why should women?
Nothing is more logically self-contradictory and stupid than to speak of a “Human Right to abortion” which kills humans, violating their Human Rights. Thus, as a rule you never hear a Pro-Choicer speak of “women’s reproductive rights” and “Human Rights” at the same time, because that would expose their deceit. Rather, committed Pro-Choice politicians are so intellectually dishonest they will practically scream “women’s reproductive rights” in attempt to avoid ever seriously engaging the question of Human Rights, which is the actual crux of the abortion debate – and on which basis they would lose the abortion debate, since humans have Human Rights, and preborn humans are humans.
. . . Why would we de-criminalize the “crime against humanity” of abortion which was condemned as such at Nuremberg after World War II, back when the Nazi atrocities (including legal abortion) had made everyone more highly aware of Human Rights (and how they can be violated) than Western society had ever been?
Even if some people get criminally desperate enough to steal for sympathetic reasons (like feeding their poor family), it would be foolish to de-criminalize stealing for everybody, such that no-one’s property is safe, just to prevent a few sympathetic desperate criminals from harming themselves while committing their crime (say, by falling from of a third story window they were breaking and entering). It is just as foolish to de-criminalize human-killing abortion for everybody, such that no-one’s inherent Human Rights are intact, and our society is exposed to ‘Creeping Totalitarianism,’ just to prevent a few sympathetic but criminally desperate women from risking self-harm while killing their own children.
This bad logic has already resulted in millions of people who were not criminally desperate at all (and so would not have risked harming themselves while committing a crime against humanity), and/or who have no sympathetic circumstances at all, now easily and legally hiring a “hitman” to kill their human child by abortion for reasons as thin as “I had plane tickets around my due date” or as bigoted as “my family didn’t want to have a girl.”
It is in any case the logical fallacy of “false dilemma” (also known as “false binary” or “either/or fallacy”) to claim that abortion “must” be legal “or else” many women will die from illegal abortions – as if there were no intermediate options or alternatives. This argument is also a logically fallacious “appeal to emotion” (and propagandist “appeal to pity” instead of to facts and logic) while turning off the brain’s ability to seek alternatives.
There are surely very many ways that a democratic society which assumes every human life is equally precious can build various social supports which prevent precious pregnant women from becoming criminally desperate enough to risk self-harm while killing their precious human baby. We can start by developing services which connect the long waiting lists of infertile and other couples wanting to adopt with the unhappily pregnant. In any case, against all human ingenuity for problem-solving the false logic of the “illegal abortions” false dilemma implies we “must” alleviate the distress of the sympathetic few criminally desperate by any means necessary, even by means of de-criminalizing human-killing abortion which was criminalized for good reason in the 4th Century – because humans are precious not cheap (and have Human Rights). . .
. . . The 2500-year-old Hippocratic Oath, Foundational to the Medical Profession, Specifically Prohibited Abortion and in Fact There Is No Such Thing as a “Medically Necessary Abortion” – A Medical Procedure to Save the Precious Mother’s Life that the Precious Baby Will Not Survive (as an Unintended Side Effect) Is Simply a Matter of the Rare Case Where Medical Science Cannot Save BOTH Precious Mother AND Precious Baby, and One or the Other Will Die Due to the Limits of Medical Science (Either One a Human Tragedy). It is Completely Unnecessary and Completely Illogical to Legally Devalue Preborn Human Lives Through Legalized Abortion (Thereby Legally Eradicating the Inherent Human Right to Live Which Grounds Democracy) to “Cover” this Rare Sympathetic “Hard Case” . . .
. . . Intellectually Dishonest Pro-Choicers Only Ever Bring Up Sympathetic But Rare “Hard Cases” Like Rape and the Misnamed “Medically Necessary” Abortions for the Intellectually Dishonest Purpose of Misusing Rare Sympathetic Cases as a “Springboard” to Current Legal Abortion On Demand, Which Does Not Logically Follow (Even If Abortions were Legal for These Rare Sympathetic Cases, as Long as Humans Have Human Rights it Must Be Admitted that Abortion on Demand Always Treats Preborn Fetal-age Humans Unscientifically and with Great Bigotry, as If They Were Not Humans, and Valueless, without the Human Rights which Humans Have) . . .
. . . Against the mountain of evidence from the disciplines of Human Rights History, Science, and Logic that Pro-Life = Pro-Democracy, Pro-Choicers only use distractions and invalid arguments to dishonestly avoid even engaging the critical question of the inherent Human Rights of preborn humans; they refuse to even discuss the very crux of the abortion debate. Pro-Choice “arguments” read like a Logic textbook’s examples of bad reasoning, with Pro-Choice voters and politicians primarily using logical fallacies of distraction distracting away from the crux abortion question of preborn Human Rights, such as the above-refuted rape or so-called “medically necessary” arguments or the “red herring” of “women’s rights.” So-called “women’s rights” which as human-killing abortion supporters define them are completely incompatible with Human Rights, because they effectively mean a “woman’s right-to-kill-humans” which effectively cancels out the Inherent Human Right to Live. By using only these and other equally illogical “arguments” all in an intellectually dishonest attempt to “justify” being Pro-Choice (and thereby supporting legal human-killing by abortion), not only do Pro-Choicers not prove their case for legal abortion: they rather prove that they do not know how to argue logically nor honestly at all.
Female Gendercide: Legal Abortion Has Brought Back the Ancient Deadly Misogynistic Bigotry Against Females, Who are Now Once Again Killed Just for Being Females (Now by Abortion; Before by Infanticide) – The Refusal of Pro-Choice So-Called “Feminists” (and their male “Women’s Rights” Supporters) to Fight This Affront to Genuine Women’s Rights (which are Human Rights) for the Sake of Keeping their Pro-Choice Abortion “Women’s-Right-to-Kill-Humans” Exposes that Such “Pro-Choice Feminists” (and their male “Women’s Rights” Supporters) are Not Interested in Genuine Women’s Rights at All
. . . Note that so-called feminist Pro-Choice abortion advocates (and the men who also champion “women’s rights” to abortion) have opposed some nations’ attempts to legally restrict gender-selective abortions, which there is public support for because of how obviously bigoted against women such abortions are. Why would “feminists” and male supporters of “women’s rights” oppose something so obviously in favor of genuine women’s rights as criminalizing misogynistic gender-selective abortions which kill baby girls just because they are girls? Because these Pro-Choicers are not interested in genuine women’s rights which are part of Human Rights, but only in a “woman’s-right-to-kill-humans” by abortion, which (as all human-killing) violates Human Rights.
These Pro-Choicers are smart enough to realize that if they support restrictions on bigoted abortions of female humans for being female, eventually more people are more likely to bring up the question of why only female preborn humans should be protected from bigotry which would kill them in the womb (i.e., why human-killing abortion should be legal at all) – while being too bigoted themselves, against preborn humans, to give up their own murderous bigotry – not even in support of genuine women’s rights not to be killed just for being female (this shows their highest value is human-killing, or at least personal convenience even at the cost of human lives, and not actual women’s rights at all).
Deep down, these Pro-Choice feminists know that if they support restrictions on bigoted abortions of female humans for being female, then they are actually acknowledging the (scientifically undisputable) humanity of female preborn humans (which they usually deny out of ignorant bigotry against preborn humans, without any scientific reason, just in order to keep human-killing abortion legal). These Pro-Choice abortion-advocating feminists and male supporters of “women’s-rights-to-kill-humans” are just too intellectually dishonest and inconsistent to support genuine women’s rights by supporting restrictions on bigoted and misogynistic sex-selective abortions of baby girls just for being baby girls, because it would mean facing their own bigoted intellectual dishonesty that insists on a “right-to-kill-humans” by abortion which is completely inconsistent with any concept of Human Rights under which the only genuine“ women’s rights” are to be found. . .
[from PRO-LIFE EQUALS PRO-DEMOCRACY]
"Logic needs to be compulsory in high schools to ensure future voters and future politicians both know how to think clearly, logically and with intellectual honesty, so they can vote and govern intelligently and not be so easily fooled (even by textbook logical fallacies) into destroying the foundations of their own Freedom. When citizen voters and politicians know neither The Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy, nor how to think clearly, consistently, and logically (nor how to avoid logical fallacies of reasoning), Free Democracy is sure to fail and not last."
- William Baptiste, Founder, Human Rights and Freedoms Forever!
William Baptiste Human Rights & Freedoms Forever!
E-Mail: INFO@WilliamBaptisteHumanRightsAndFreedomsForever.com - To become a "Volunteer Democracy Leader" in your city, e-mail VOLUNTEER@WilliamBaptisteHumanRightsAndFreedomsForever.com - To book William Baptiste as a speaker, e-mail BOOKINGS@WilliamBaptisteHumanRightsAndFreedomsForever.com - for more donation options, e-mail DONATE@WilliamBaptisteHumanRightsAndFreedomsForever.com
Copyright © 2019-2021 William Baptiste Human Rights and Freedoms Forever! - All Rights Reserved.
HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION for LASTING FREE DEMOCRACY