"The slippery slope fallacy is to assume that just because there is vagueness or inability to find a clear distinction point, that there is no distinction between opposite sides"
In many instances, the "extreme pro-life" side does not grant that there is vagueness in the determination that a zygote is a human life. Is the man-made zygote human? Yes. Is a zygote life? Yes. The moral value of the zygote is determined by those criteria. Moral value does not get assigned to the zygote via some foggy definition of personhood.
So they don't grant the vagueness in the question of "Is this human life?" (it's a solved problem), and they do grant that there are distinctions between a zygote and an adult. However, they do not grant that there is a moral distinction. Why must they? Is a 50 year old human and life? Yes. Is a 1 day old entity both human and life? Yes. Where is the inconsistency?
I do not see how this group has engaged in a fallacy. I see how maybe a fallacy has been committed if Mark Changizi uses his personal standards and makes them the standards of the group he disagrees with.
IF one argues “A zygote is a full human life cuz where’s the line after conception?!”, THEN that’s a fallacy. AND, that is almost ALWAYS the argument I hear from laymen. If YOU don’t use that fallacious argument, great. But don’t pretend that it’s not common.
If the argument you are hearing is that, “X is true because I'm unable to explain Y”, then I agree it's a lousy argument. Maybe your pro-life bubble is different than mine.
No. It’s “A zygote must be treated as a person cuz there is no non-arbitrary line after conception.” I myself used to make that fallacious argument as a young man.
"The slippery slope fallacy is to assume that just because there is vagueness or inability to find a clear distinction point, that there is no distinction between opposite sides"
In many instances, the "extreme pro-life" side does not grant that there is vagueness in the determination that a zygote is a human life. Is the man-made zygote human? Yes. Is a zygote life? Yes. The moral value of the zygote is determined by those criteria. Moral value does not get assigned to the zygote via some foggy definition of personhood.
So they don't grant the vagueness in the question of "Is this human life?" (it's a solved problem), and they do grant that there are distinctions between a zygote and an adult. However, they do not grant that there is a moral distinction. Why must they? Is a 50 year old human and life? Yes. Is a 1 day old entity both human and life? Yes. Where is the inconsistency?
I do not see how this group has engaged in a fallacy. I see how maybe a fallacy has been committed if Mark Changizi uses his personal standards and makes them the standards of the group he disagrees with.
IF one argues “A zygote is a full human life cuz where’s the line after conception?!”, THEN that’s a fallacy. AND, that is almost ALWAYS the argument I hear from laymen. If YOU don’t use that fallacious argument, great. But don’t pretend that it’s not common.
If the argument you are hearing is that, “X is true because I'm unable to explain Y”, then I agree it's a lousy argument. Maybe your pro-life bubble is different than mine.
No. It’s “A zygote must be treated as a person cuz there is no non-arbitrary line after conception.” I myself used to make that fallacious argument as a young man.
Mark, while looking into this video I found that YouTube had unsubscribed you from my subscriptions. Just an fyi..
Ugh. Yeah. They’ve censored me for a year there. Almost no growth.
We all are out here doing what we can. This is something that will not be won by a few but by the many working together.