Red Herrings, but we are not dogs

[ 7 ] August 8, 2012 AD |

“No, you can’t deny women their basic rights and pretend it’s about your ‘religious freedom’. If you don’t like birth control, don’t use it. Religious freedom doesn’t mean you can force others to live by your own beliefs.”

Thank you for the lesson, Mr. President, but that is not the issue. Did you see the ever so hidden red herrings?  The fish supposedly were used to trick dogs in training.  It masked the scent and led them astray.  Good thing we are not dogs.

 

“… you can’t deny women their basic rights…”

Though not technically a red herring, it is a logical fallacy. This fallacy is called “Question-Begging.” He assumes that women’s rights are being denied. I would like to know which one is being rejected. If he means that contraception is a basic right, then he needs to also show how this is so. I wouldn’t normally care to dissect a quote like this, but the repercussion is large. If his statement is true, then I am at worst a terrorist if I know what I am doing or at least a stupid person as I have been called for not agreeing with a person. By the way, one way to end a conversation with me is use ad hominen attacks.

“If you don’t like birth control, don’t use it.” 

I like birth control and by this I mean by following nature.  Having conjugal relations with my wife is marital blessing. This blessing shares a two-fold end: unitive and procreative. God has endowed man and woman with His image and part of that is the incredible gift of the intellect and reason. So whether I want 20 kids or for “reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable”, I am still favoring birth control. Birth control is not the issue.

As a Catholic, I don’t want birth uncontrol, but birth control according natural law as designed for the human person. Natural Family Planning is the only method approved by the Church to control births when necessary.  It respects our natural design of our bodies and allows the human person to use reason and intellect to read biological signs.  These signs can also inform a couple that something may be wrong internally.  Whereas NFP is nature’s design to regulate births, it is exactly not one thing: contraception.  Contraception is birth uncontrol.  Maybe it can regulate a birth, afterall some pills act as abortafacients,  but it does not allow the person any control.  It actually takes control out of the hands of a person because you give the fertile power away to a dose of hormone.  The control part is exactly what a person loses.

 

“Religious freedom doesn’t mean you can force others to live by your own beliefs.”

Did you see that? Another red herring was snagged and misleads away from the true argument.  Ok, so maybe it is a straw man, regardless I need to make a wicker basket out of it.

I have yet to find a better definition of religious freedom than the Church’s.

“’Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits.’”  This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it “’continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it.’” CCC2106

We simply cannot force anyone to follow our teachings. It must be an assent of the will, an act of love. But the President’s redefinition of freedom makes us trespassers of religious freedom. Since when does not wanting to pay for contraceptives force anything on another person? We are not saying “You cannot use it because I am forcing you by following your every move and if I see a contraceptive then I will take it from you.” That is force. Rather, we are saying, “Look, this goes against our 2,000 year old teaching and we don’t want to pay for it.” It is not saying another person cannot pay for it for themselves. We aren’t forcing anyone to live by our beliefs. Our position actually respects the other person’s choice even though I disagree with their use of the product.

The more I read or hear the arguments, I begin to wonder if these are honest mistakes or a planned strategy to mislead others to misunderstand.  What are your thoughts?  What other logical fallacies are you seeing in this debate?

For those that learn by video, here is a pretty good source for logical fallacies.

 

Tags: ,

Category: Politics

About the Author ()

J.Q. lives in the country of Texas with his wife Denise, a Southern Belle from Trinidad and Tobago, and his three children. He holds two graduate degrees from Our Lady of the Lake University in San Antonio, an MBA and Master of Science in Organizational Leadership, and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Franciscan University of Steubenville. Having taught for five years in Catholic education, he now works in the construction industry in Victoria, TX. He is a parishioner of Holy Family of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus Parish in the Diocese of Victoria.
  • http://listeningfortheshepherd.blogspot.com Thomas

    *applauds*

    Though I’m finding it increasingly difficult to respect the president despite my disagreement with many of his views. His statements above are nothing but a repeat of the rhetoric of those whose critical thinking skills are seriously lacking.

  • J.Q. Tomanek

    Thomas, Thanks. I visited your blog. I, too, am a big fan of the Online Etymology ;) I find it so frustrating to counter people comments regarding politics because so many attribute to the Church that which she doesn’t teach or mean in her statements. The homosexuality teaching comes to mind as well.

  • http://www.fumblingtowardgrace.com Sarah

    I think the thing that gets me so riled up is when they insist on calling hormonal birth control, sterilization, and the morning after pill “preventative health care”. What disease does do these things prevent, pray tell? Oh, if by disease you mean the perfectly normal functioning of a healthy female body then yes, they prevent “disease”. It’s a word game about which Mr. Orwell would be very impressed.

  • J.Q. Tomanek

    Sarah, exactly. I remember a professor in college always used to warn us, “If you repeat a lie big enough and enough times, then people start to believe it.” We are not in a war on women, rather it is a war on words. In business, advertisers shoot for getting a product in front of you 17 times because studies show that it takes about 17 times for a consumer to remember the product. We all know it is not preventative health care, but if you repeat a lie big enough…

  • dsrtrosy

    Actually, Thomas, fallacious arguments are NOT rhetoric. Fallacious arguments are anti-rhetorical. We have lost the meaning and usage of rhetoric in this country and it has led to all kinds of abuses of language and persuasive arts.

    JQ, I don’t necessarily agree with your (or your church’s) position, but I do agree that using a prescribed form of birth control (I will use that in the vernacular) is not something I, as a taxpayer, wish to provide. I am a woman, a business owner, a follower of Jesus, a progressive thinker, and very much against paying for anything that is voluntary. I don’t pay for another woman’s plastic surgery, so I shouldn’t pay for her voluntary hormone therapy. Neither my rights nor hers are denied.

  • Paul

    As a left-leaning Catholic, I find myself at the heart of many such conversations. It’s often very lonely bc so many “good” Catholics don’t recognize my faith bc of my support of the President. I hope that will not happen here. I signed the petition to end the HHS mandate. I am pro-life. However, I still support the President’s healthcare plan because of what I attribute to the greater good. I have had a wealth of people try to convince me of my wrongness on this matter. My wife and I use NFP. The difficulty with having the ‘tried and true’ Catholics understand the President’s statement come from an inability (not necessarily a bad one) to view a topic from a secular perspective. As a person of faith, when you go to the Planned Parenthood website its sounds very down on having babies. However, ask youself what are the answer’s to the following questions are: “Am I ready to be a parent?” “Am I as prepared as I can be?” “Am I less unprepared for the inevitable difficulties associated with raising a child?” “Am I financially and/or mentally mature enough to provide for this child?” My answer’s are highly defined by having faith the our Lord, and my trust in Him and His teaching will carry me through. My answer is “It doesn’t matter because I trust in the Lord and the life he blessed me with.” How does someone without faith answer that question? It now is a matter of planning as much as possible. And yes, what the Church doesn’t like is copulation without the possibility of a child. The planning is exactly that. So when you say how is it preventative healthcare, it’s more like preventative life-option care. It very clear that those who follow NFP have way bigger households than those who don’t. Why? Because the don’t actually avoid sex during the ovulation period. The self-control isn’t always there. I guess I don’t understand why we can’t seem to understand that lack of self-control when you don’t have prayer to lean on. Unitive and procreative, yes. I agree. But sometime you just want unitive. Don’t get me wrong, I wish people would pay for there own contraceptives, but I also know how many “unwanted children” are out there. I’ve met many of them. Refute the term “unwanted” without using theology. It’s pretty hard. That’s what a president must do. Thanks for the article and the comment space. God Bless.

  • http://www.ignitumtoday.com/2012/08/08/red-herrings-but-we-are-not-dogs AC

    {catching up} Bravo on the post

«
»