Great Beethoven fallacy

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(probably needs some additional stuff, like the actual logical fallacy it's in volation of)
 
m (Footnotes: Please correct me if I put in the wrong fallacies (or omitted any) used by this argument.)
Line 30: Line 30:
 
==[[Godwin's Law|Counter-argument]]==
 
==[[Godwin's Law|Counter-argument]]==
 
In 1888, the mother of [[Adolf Hitler]] made the decision to not terminate her pregnancy.  Explain that benefit in that, pro-lifers!
 
In 1888, the mother of [[Adolf Hitler]] made the decision to not terminate her pregnancy.  Explain that benefit in that, pro-lifers!
 +
 +
==See also==
 +
* [[False analogy]]
 +
* [[Red herring]]
 +
* [[Texas sharpshooter fallacy]]
  
 
==Footnotes==
 
==Footnotes==

Revision as of 18:55, 8 February 2012

One of many articles on

Abortion

Icon hanger.svg
Medically approved
In the back alley

The Great Beethoven Fallacy is a rhetorical argument sometimes used by pro-life proponents.

Contents

The argument

The argument of the anti-abortionist was created by Maurice Baring, a prominent Roman Catholic. It was passed down to British MP Norman St. John Stevas and referenced (but not used) by Peter[1] and Jean Medawar.

Imagine two doctors in a hypothetical discussion:

Doctor 1: "About the terminating of pregnancy, I want your opinion. The father was syphlitic, the mother tuberculous. Of the four children born, the first was blind, the second died, the third was deaf and dumb, the fourth was also tuberculous. What would you have done?"

Doctor 2: "I would have terminated the pregnancy."

Doctor 1: "Then you would have murdered Beethoven."

Other variations of this story are known to exist on the internet, which can kind of give you an idea as to its veracity.[2] This seems exactly like the kind of story that gets share around Facebook.

The truth

In his book The God Delusion, which details the fallacy, Richard Dawkins notes that robbing a human embryo of its potential through abortion is "a rhetorical argument whose extreme stupidity is its only defence against a charge of serious dishonesty". He goes on to state that the question, and the legend behind the tale, are entirely false, noting that Beethoven was the oldest surviving child of his parents (being only second to one who died in infancy—which was common at the time), was not disabled as a child (though deaf with old age), and neither parent had syphilis nor tuberculous at the time of his birth.

Why even as a hypothetical it's bunk

The Medawars point out the following:

The reasoning behind this odious little argument is breathtaking fallacious, for unless it is being suggested that there is some causal connection between having a tubercular mother and a syphilitic father and giving birth to a musical genius the world is no more likely to be deprived of a Beethoven by abortion than by chaste abstinence from intercourse.

Furthermore, it is equally ridiculous to suggest that the decision to terminate a pregancy, regardless of the outcome, has any bearing on the potential for the future.

Similar

In 1987, the mother of Tim Tebow, against the advice of doctors, chose not to terminate her pregnancy. Whether this will ultimately a benefit to the Denver Broncos remains to be seen—it certainly wasn't the case in 2011, and one would have to be pretty pompous to argue that his presence, for good or for ill, would be a benefit to humanity at large.

Counter-argument

In 1888, the mother of Adolf Hitler made the decision to not terminate her pregnancy. Explain that benefit in that, pro-lifers!

See also

Footnotes

  1. who won the Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine in 1960.
  2. Yes, even Snopes gets in on this one.
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support