Like what you read?

Official Comments Policy:

This is my blog and I reserve the right to delete any comments that don't abide by these rules and/or don't contribute to the overall intellectual atmosphere of the blog. I don't mind comments from people who disagree with me, as I am very much open to reconsidering or revising anything that I write.

1. No swearing or otherwise profane language.
2. No insults or otherwise abusive language, toward me or any other commenter.
3. No spamming or trolling.

Saturday, May 31, 2014

Arguing Over Terms

Recently I was involved in an on-line discussion (it was more of an argument, really) regarding whether pro-life people should be using the term "unborn" in our discussion or "preborn" exclusively. The short answer is it really doesn't matter what terms you use. Arguing over terms is really just unhelpful -- it's best to use terms that both sides are comfortable with so that you can get on with the real discussion: abortion is immoral because the procedure kills an innocent human being. Arguing over terms is not helpful.

Read the rest at the Life Training Institute blog.

Friday, May 30, 2014

A Lament Regarding Pro-Choice Bloggers

There's a one-sidedness when it comes to abortion blogs. I see many pro-life bloggers who are using the science and philosophy well to support their position. And then when I look up pro-choice blogs, I usually see the following: "Hey, look at what this stupid anti-choicer just said [provides link]. This is bull!" Then they completely ignore all the evidence presented by said pro-lifer and high-five each other on how rational and logical they're being.

Read the rest at the Life Training Institute blog.

Monday, May 26, 2014

Fallacy Monday: Non Sequitur

Follow the following links to the different parts in this series: IntroductionAd HominemStrawmanBegging the QuestionSlippery Slope, and Equivocation.

The term "non sequitur" is a Latin term that simply means "it does not follow." A non sequitur is committed when an argument does not follow logically from its premises. This is obviously fallacious since in order for an argument to succeed, it must be both valid and sound (see the introduction for a refresher on the difference).

Read the rest at the Life Training Institute blog.

Monday, May 19, 2014

Fallacy Monday: Equivocation

For the previous parts in this series, see the IntroductionAd HominemStrawmanBegging the Question, and Slippery Slope articles.

The fallacy of equivocation is essentially made when you use a term in the premises in your argument in two different ways. For example, take the following argument from the linked webpage:

P1: Brad is a nobody.
P2: Nobody is perfect.
C: Therefore, Brad is perfect.

Read the rest at the Life Training Institute blog.

Friday, May 16, 2014

Did Washington Post Check the Science?

So Republican Senator Marco Rubio is in the public consciousness right now for some comments he made about the scientific consensus being that life begins at conception. This is true, but I'll get there in a moment. The Washington Post, taking Rubio as his word, decided to take him up on that challenge. Or at least they think they did. Now, Rubio's comments came after a question he was given regarding climate change. It is beyond the scope of this article to talk about that topic or Rubio's comments regarding it.

Read the rest at the Life Training Institute blog.

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Who is Misrepresenting Whom:

My friend Kristine Kruszelnicki of Pro-Life Humanists fairly recently posted an article to Hemant Mehta's blog ("The Friendly Atheist") making a secular case for abortion. Since then, irrational atheists (note: I'm not calling all atheists irrational, I'm speaking of only the atheists who have responded to this article, in articles of their own or in the comments) have been illustrating that atheism isn't so much about free thinking as it is dogmatism. Ironic, no? Apparently one cannot be pro-life and an atheist. Any atheist who is pro-life must, apparently by definition, be religious in disguise, an accusation I see hurled at Secular Pro-Life pretty often.

Read the rest at the Life Training Institute blog.

Friday, May 9, 2014

Being Pro-Life Requires Action

I was watching a video today by Hemant Mehta, who goes by the moniker "Friendly Atheist" on his blog. The gist of his video is whether or not one can be pro-life and atheist. I've heard many atheists claim that one can't be pro-life and be an atheist, and when Kristine Kruszelnicki of Pro-Life Humanists wrote an article for Mehta's blog last month, atheists went bananas in the comments section, offended at the very idea one could be an atheist and pro-life. How do atheists expect me to believe that atheism isn't a religion or a belief system if they keep adding rules for atheism? I thought the only thing one needed to be an atheist was to not believe in God or gods.

Read the rest at the Life Training Institute blog.

Wednesday, May 7, 2014

Book Review: Waiting for Eli by Chad Judice

Full disclosure: Arcadian House Publishing has sent me a free copy of this book to review.

Waiting for Eli is the story of a father, Chad Judice, and his wife, Ashley, who is pregnant with their second son who has spina bifida, a debilitating disorder which often causes the person with it to be paralyzed, develop water on the brain, etc., and many are miscarried during pregnancy. More distressingly, more than 50% of children given this diagnosis are aborted. This is a story of the journey that Eli's parents took through the entire pregnancy, preparing for Eli's birth and for his life with spina bifida.

Monday, May 5, 2014

Fallacy Monday: Slippery Slope

It's been two weeks since my last part in this series. The month of April was incredibly busy for me but now I'm back with a new installment in this series. Here are the links to the introduction to this series, to the Ad Hominem fallacy, to the Strawman fallacy, and to the Begging the Question fallacy.

A slippery slope argument is an argument that you start with one thing, and another, related thing will happen, and eventually it will snowball into something horrible. The reason that this type of argument can be fallacious is because it is often just a form of fear mongering. But like most fallacies, this type of argument is not always fallacious. What's important is whether or not you have warrant for the slippery slope.

Read the rest at the Life Training Institute blog.

Friday, May 2, 2014

Do Aborted Babies Go to Heaven?

I see this argument thrown around occasionally, especially by atheist pro-choice people. It's not a serious objection. It's merely meant to trap religious pro-life people. The argument goes like this: If babies who are aborted go to Heaven, then why do you oppose abortion if those babies are going to a better place? I've even seen one atheist pro-life person assert that if she was religious, she wouldn't have any reason to oppose abortion because they went to Heaven. She'd find some other cause to join because abortion wouldn't be that bad. Needless to say, there is absolutely no substance to this argument at all.