Based on scientific fact he argues that if abortion kills an innocent human being, then it should be illegal for the same reasons it’s illegal to kill a 1 year old or a 5 year old or a 20 year old. Mr.. Solomon further supports his conclusion with a philosophical stance about the value of the unborn. He uses the acronym SLED, explaining that the difference in size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency does not determine or make the unborn any less valuable than that of a born child.
His premises of science and philosophy were clearly stated and undoubtedly supported his conclusion in a logical manner that abortion is murder, and therefore should be illegal. Professor Chadwick, on the other hand, a proclaimed preschooler, argued that abortion should remain legal because we cannot deny the woman a right to choose. She makes a point in the beginning of her argument that arguments have to consistent to be considered valid.
With that said, I found her argument to be extremely inconsistent, providing room to say that her argument was In fact, Invalid. She went on to explain that a precipice believes that the fetus and the woman are one person. Because of that abortion Is not considered murder rather, the termination of a pregnancy where a woman Is carrying a potential child with potential rights. Within minutes of this statement she also agreed with Mr.. Solomon that a fetus Is a human being. How can she believe both? Inconsistency!
Professor Chadwick continued her support of legal abortion with the premise that If made Illegal, then rich women will have access to safe abortions In alternate places and that poor women will seek out unsafe, unhealthy abortion options. She also gives several example stories of women who would be put at risk of they continued their regnant as reason to support the legality of abortion. She seemed to build her stance on the separation of mother and fetus, or lack of separation, on a straw man fallacy against Mr..
Solomon. Red herring fallacy was also committed wealth her argument against Mr.. Solomon. She dwells on the government Involvement and victims of rape rather than on the argument of life and the unborn. While both arguers were devoted to their position on the legality of abortion, I found Mr.. Solomon to provide a deductive argument that clearly made his point; abortion should be Illegal. I would have to side him for this reason. Professor Chadwick unfortunately employed several fallacies wealth her argument against Mr..
Solomon, allowing room for question of the soundness to her argument. Professor Chadwick, on the other hand, a proclaimed pro-choicer, argued that extremely inconsistent, providing room to say that her argument was in fact, invalid. One person. Because of that abortion is not considered murder rather, the termination of a pregnancy where a woman is carrying a potential child with that a fetus is a human being. How can she believe both? Inconsistency! Professor
Chadwick continued her support of legal abortion with the premise that if made illegal, then rich women will have access to safe abortions in alternate places and pregnancy as reason to support the legality of abortion. She seemed to build her fallacy against Mr.. Solomon. Red herring fallacy was also committed within her argument against Mr.. Solomon. She dwells on the government involvement and While both arguers were devoted to their position on the legality of abortion, I abortion should be illegal. I would have to side him for this reason. Professor Chadwick unfortunately employed several fallacies within her argument against Mr..