An Acorn is Not Equal To A Fetus

A writer for the Chicago Sun-Times, Neil Steinberg, has a problem with anti-abortion legislators refusing to allow the health care bill to go forward with language that makes tax dollars available for abortions.

Hard to believe, I know.

In order to illustrate his disdain with the opponents of the health care bill, Steinberg decides to abort logic:

As happens when twisting language, the “saving babies” metaphor leads to ironies. For instance, if health-care reform sinks — as it seems to be — part of the scuttling will be due to timid politicians loathe to do anything that seems to support abortion. The result? Millions of actual children living in the real world right now will continue to be denied basic health care — some fatally — in the name of protecting embryonic potential children. It’s like letting a forest burn down for the sake of a bag of acorns.

Emphasis. It’s mine.

Once again it becomes necessary for me to educate the liberal masses on logic and its many fallacies. This time, we’ll discuss the weak analogy, also known as the false analogy or the faulty analogy.

Here’s how it works:

Trending: The 15 Best Conservative News Sites On The Internet

A is like B.
B has property P.
Therefore, A has property P.
(Where the analogy between A and B is weak.)

In this instance, Steinberg wants us to believe that a fetus is like an acorn. An acorn is just the potential of a tree, but not really a tree and not really worth anything, yet. Therefore, a fetus is just the potential of a human, but not really a human and not really worth anything, yet.

In Steinberg’s mind, there is no difference between the worth of an acorn and the worth of an unborn child. The analogy is weak because to any rational person, an unborn child is far more important than an acorn.

For example, when you walk under an oak tree and hear the crunch of the acorns under your shoes, there is little reaction to its destruction. Now picture yourself walking across a lawn of aborted babies and hearing the crunch of their bones.

See a difference?

Let’s get real for a minute.

What we are talking about is forcing Person A to surrender his property to the government, who will then turn over said property to Person B. Person B then takes the property to the clinic and pays for an abortion.

What opponents of this are saying is, “No. You will not take the property of my constituents and use it to pay for something that a majority of Americans see as morally wrong.”

Find me a poll that shows a majority of Americans see the destruction of acorns as morally wrong and we can talk.

Besides the weak analogy, Steinberg is just plain wrong. Behold, facts:

The Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA or Public Law 111-3) reauthorized the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). CHIPRA finances CHIP through FY 2013. It will preserve coverage for the millions of children who rely on CHIP today and provides the resources for States to reach millions of additional uninsured children. This legislation will help ensure the health and well-being of our nation’s children.

The children will be covered. Steinberg’s logical failures, however, are exposed, as is his contempt for human life.

Cross posted at All American Blogger.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!