Letter 2. to the editor: Andrea Keenes selective morality is once again showing through in her July 15 letter. This time she expresses her abhorrence of abortion. But how we see only what we choose to see! I wonder if any of the anti-abortionists have considered the widespread use of fertility drugs as the moral equivalent of abortion, and, if they have, why they havent come out against them, too. The use of these drugs frequently results in multiple births, which leads to the death of one of the infants, often after an agonizing struggle for survival. According to the rules of the pro-lifers, isnt this murder? North-State Record I believe that this is a false dilemma fallacy . The writer is asking the audience to accept that both abortion and the use of fertility drugs are forms of murder. It is not always true that in multiple births one of the infants dies. There are plenty of stories out there that shows many time multiple births do not result in death, we have Jon and Kate Gosslin who have twins as well as a set of sextuplets. We also have Nadya Suleman (Octomom) who gave birth to octuplets. In both cases none of the children died. Multiple births are becoming more and more common because there are people out there who have fertility issues and want to have children. This is the risk that they take when perusing this option. This fallacy is trying to lead you to believe that the use of fertility drugs is a form of murder when there is proof that not all multiple births lead to death. Where as with abortion there is one outcome and that is death. 3. In one of her columns, Abigail Van Buren printed the letter of Id rather be a widow. The letter writer, a divorce, complained about widows who said they had a hard time coping. Far better, she wrote, to be a widow than to be a divorce, who are all rejects who have been publicly dumped and are avoided like they have leprosy. Abby recognized the pseudoreasoning for what it was, though she did not call it by our name. What is our name for it? I believe that this is a begging the question. The writer is trying to compare a widows who have difficulty coping to how divorcee are treated. She is assuming that all widows have trouble coping with their losses, and she assumes that all divorcee's are treated in the manner is which she states.
5. Letter to the editor: Once again the Park Commission is considering closing North Park Drive for the sake of a few joggers and bicyclists. These so-called fitness enthusiasts would evidently have us give up to them for their own private use every last square inch of Walnut Grove. Then anytime anyone wanted a picnic, he would have to park at edge the of the park and carry everything inice chests, chairs, maybe even grandma. I certainly hope the Commission keeps the entire park open for everyone to use. I believe that this is a ad hominem fallacy. The writer feels that the park commission is considering closing North Park Drive for the sake a small part of people, and that by doing so would make it is forcing the others to give up their use of the park. When in all reality by the park commission closing the drive is more of an inconvenience than anything. They would still have access to the park they would just carry things a little farther. 6. Some Christianand othergroups are protesting against the placing, on federal property near the White House, of a set of plastic figurines representing a devout Jewish family in ancient Judaea. The protestors would of course deny that they are driven by any anti-Semitic motivation. Still, we wonder: Would they raise the same objections (of unconstitutionality, etc.) if the scene depicted a modern, secularized Gentile family? National Review I believe that this is a straw man fallacy. There are two positions but one position is flawed because no matter what race, creed, or religion is represented there is going to be someone who will object. 8. From a letter to the editor: The counties of Michigan clearly need the ability to raise additional sources of revenue, not only to meet the demands of growth but also to maintain existing levels of service. For without these sources those demands will not be met, and it will be impossible to maintain services even at present levels. I believe that this is a begging the question fallacy. It is obvious that if additional sources of revenue are not found it would not be possible for the services to be maintained at their current levels because of the growth that is taking place.
9. In February 1992, a representative of the Catholic Church in Puerto Rico gave a radio interview (broadcast on National Public Radio) in which he said that the Church was against the use of condoms. Even though the rate of AIDS infection in Puerto Rico is much higher than on the U.S. mainland, the spokesman said that the Church could not support the use of condoms because they are not absolutely reliable in preventing the spread of the disease. If you could prove that condoms were absolutely dependable in preventing a person from contracting AIDS, then the Church could support their use. I believe that this a straw man fallacy. The Catholic Church in Puerto Rico is blatantly ignoring the facts that with proper use of condoms it reduces the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy.