Any logical fallacy in Pete Buttigieg's rhetoric on abortion?

Dr Bo gave you a solid answer. No argument here, so there's no fallacy.

[To TrappedPrior (RotE)]

Buttigieg's argument is not explicit but clearly implied in his words. Let me distill his argument out of his rhetoric here: Where to draw the line on abortion in a generalized legal sense doesn't matter, because each pregnant woman as the person whose well-being is affected the most should be entitled to draw the line individually . Basically, Buttigieg attempted to invalidate the necessity of generalized rules by implying that individualized decisions are sufficient and are mutually exclusive with generalized rules. What Buttigieg overlooked is the two are not mutually exclusive. One can make individualized decisions under the confinement of generalized rules, just like the decision on self-defense must fall within the legal boundary of self-defense in the concerned jurisdiction in order to be legitimate. If you agree to my extraction of Buttigieg's argument from his rhetoric, can you help to name the logical fallacy involved in the argument? Thanks!

Hi Dr. Bo, will you please take a look at my new analysis below that indicates Buttigieg committed the Red Herring Fallacy? I'd like to know if my analysis makes sense. Thanks!

Fallacies apply to arguments. If there is no argument, there can be no fallacy. Granted, there are implied arguments, which if we are claiming, should be clear. In an opinion, like Buttigieg's, if we can reasonably find one or more premises and a conclusion (connected by reasoning, flawed or solid), then we can say this is an implied argument and look for fallacies.

It is good practice to restate an opinion or claim in argument form to the person who made it and ask for confirmation, but in cases like this where confirmation is not practical, we risk creating a strawman ourselves. Typically, in such situations, I prefer to leave it as opinion and avoid the possible strawman. But let's take that risk.

Let's look at the statement again:

I think the dialogue has gotten so caught up on where you draw the line,

The use of "I think" here is a good indicator of opinion. But even an opinion can be an argument...

that we've gotten away from the fundamental question of who gets to draw the line, and I trust women to draw the line when it's their life.

Is the "fundamental question" about who gets to draw the line? One could say this begs the question , (fallacious tactic not necessarily applied to just arguments), but we are still working under the context of an opinion here, so if Buttigieg thinks this is the fundamental question, so be it.

... That decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made.

If I were to create an argument from this to repeat back to Buttigieg for his confirmation, it would go something like this:

The government's involvement in a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy will not add value, medically or morally (P). Therefore, the government should not be involved in that decision (C).

If one were to accept the premise (P) then the conclusion follows.

Now to your point...

We can't call a "strawman" unless we know the argument being made - the specific one Buttigieg is responding to. He seems to specifically addressing those arguing about where to draw the line. As for as your "generalized line," I am not understanding what you saying here. To me, the fact that the line is generalized is irrelevant since he is specifically addressing who draws the line .

Perhaps someone else might understand what you are arguing better than I am and can offer feedback.

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Thanks for your detailed reply! By "generalized line", I mean a legal limit (either case law / ruling like Roe v. Wade or statute passed by a legislature) applicable to all pregnancies in the jurisdiction. Is it just me, or Buttigieg's rhetoric is clearly against legal rules and advocating individual decision-making by each pregnant woman?

As to your repeated emphasis that Buttigieg uttered an opinion, I think we should not give politicians easy passes. Politicians seldom follow logical forms in their rhetoric, and more often than not, there was no debate in the context of an interview or a speech. However, as long as a political rhetoric contains supporting evidence or a hint of reasoning as justification, I believe we ought to put it under the microscope of logical analysis. Otherwise we would be too lenient on political rhetoric and doing the public a disfavor. Also, the starter "I think" should not relieve him of logical fallacy; otherwise anyone can remember to add "I think" before saying anything and then be free from logical fallacy :)

Had Buttigieg spoken fewer words and simply stated his stance on the abortion issue, I would have taken it as an opinion without smelling something fishy logically. However, not only did he add a whole sentence against the government establishing rules on abortion, but also his first sentence contained an implicit reasoning: because the pregnant woman's life is affected, she, and not anyone else, should be the one entitled to make a decision on abortion.

I tend to think the logical fallacy Buttigieg committed is he threw out a red herring (pregnant women's well-being) to invalidate the government's establishment of legal limits on abortion. There is also an implied false dichotomy here, in that Buttigieg made a pregnant woman's personal decision and a legal rule mutually exclusive, whereas the two can both work together in reality: the government establishes a line, within with a pregnant woman is legally permitted to make a personal decision, and beyond which the decision must be more involved and not up to the pregnant woman alone.

Is it just me, or Buttigieg's rhetoric is clearly against legal rules and advocating individual decision-making by each pregnant woman? 

I don't see it that way. To me, he is advocating for the legal rule to be that women have the right to choose, not that each woman can choose what the law is.

 Politicians seldom follow logical forms in their rhetoric, and more often than not, there was no debate in the context of an interview or a speech. 

As this hip kids say, "true dat." I agree that opinion can also be analyzed logically, but stated opinions are in a different category than claims. For me at least, Republican or Democrat, it is the claims of the truth that need our attention.

but also his first sentence contained an implicit reasoning: because the pregnant woman's life is affected, she, and not anyone else, should be the one entitled to make a decision on abortion. 

I don't see this either. It is not because the woman's life is just "affected"; it is because it is perhaps the biggest event in a woman's life and her health and even life is at risk.

 in that Buttigieg made a pregnant woman's personal decision and a legal rule mutually exclusive,

Back to what I wrote earlier, I interpret what he said as the law should be made consistent with a woman's right to choose, so there is no conflict.

Again, all this is just my take.

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Hi Dr. Bo, as far as I understand the American legal system and culture, the absence of a legal rule means decision making is up to the individual (unlike despotic traditions, where individual rights are granted by the regime, and the absence of a legally granted right means individuals don't enjoy the right by default). Therefore, in the context of American politics and jurisprudence, Buttigieg's first statement about leaving the decision to the pregnant woman already implied the abandonment of legal rules. His 2nd statement that I quoted is more explicit.

However, I'd like to point out one more thing concerning our discussion: it seems you mixed two meanings of "legal rules"... When I talked about legal rules earlier, in my context, the rules referred to the "line" or "limit", or boundary conditions of abortion (and this is because Buttigieg talked about drawing the line). In your latest reply, you used a much broader meaning of "legal rules" that encompasses the granting or acknowledgement of the right to choose. Since the discussion originated from Buttigieg's statements that I quoted, I believe we should stay with the narrower understanding and not replace it with a broader meaning of the term. In retrospect, I regret that I used the term "legal rule" that is subject to broader interpretation. Had I stuck to Buttigieg's original choice of words, our discussion would not evolve out of context.

Back to Buttigieg's rhetoric, let me rephrase my interpretation: Buttigieg abandoned legal lines/limits as the boundary condition of abortion applicable to all pregnant women, and advocated for individual decisions by each pregnant woman without being subject to legal lines/limits imposed by the government, treating individual decisions and legal limits as incompatible and mutually exclusive. Is this interpretation fair? If so, then the red herring fallacy and false dichotomy fallacy were probably committed in Buttigieg's rhetoric. 

Buttigieg said or implied nothing about making a law to grant or acknowledge a woman's right to choose, so this point is out of context.

BTW, I want to make it clear again that I am pro-choice. I just don't like logically unsound rhetoric even if it is in favor of my own stance on the issue.

This is really getting to be more about the legal system. If what you are suggesting is that Buttigieg's error is a legal one in nature, then it is not about reasoning but more about law. But if not, I still don't fully understand your argument here but as I mentioned, we probably have other contributors who do and can offer more helpful feedback for you.

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Hi Dr. Bo, I really don't believe we should stay distracted by the question of legal system. As I said earlier, I regret that I used the term "legal rule" in an earlier post. Suppose I never used this term and chose to use Buttigieg's choice of word ("line"), wouldn't our discussion be much cleaner and clearer? Your website is a forum about logic, so let's make the context less murky and stick to the original question, instead of derivations because of my choice of an imprecise term.

In Buttigieg's rhetoric, he implied throwing away the whole category of arguments on where the government should draw the "line" (i.e. boundary condition) on abortion by raising another argument that the pregnant woman should be the one to draw one's own line.

I don't believe it is necessary for us to drill into Buttigieg's reasoning on why each pregnant woman can draw the line better than the government (my summary about "life is affected" was too simple and supplemented by your comment earlier), because this argument by itself is not where I smelled something fishy logically. Instead, the fishy thing is Buttigieg wanted the government to be out of the business of drawing the line. I think this intention of Buttigieg is something we can agree on, because in your earlier comments, you interpreted Buttigieg's stance as having a legal right to choose, not as having a legal boundary condition, beyond which the choice is not unilateral.

So, does a better position to draw the line mean exclusion of a inferior position to do so? Logically, of course not. Superiority isn't equal to exclusiveness. However, rhetorically, Buttigieg conveyed to his audience the message of getting the government out of the business of drawing the line. This is where I believe there might be a fallacy or fallacies (red herring and/or false dichotomy).

A lot of pro-choice people like me are in favor of some legal boundary conditions on abortion (remember, Roe v. Wade contains such boundaries), and therefore feel Buttigieg's rhetoric is on the extreme side. I just want to subject his rhetoric to logical analysis to identify any logical fallacy.

I think that you need to state both the main contention and at least one premise to call it a red herring. This is because it seems like Buttigieg is not clear on why he thinks that "each pregnant woman should be entitled to draw her own line."

For example, the main contention is that generalized lines always apply. One could postulate that this is because the right to life is so important that it must have generalized lines.

But if someone tries to refute that principle by defending another principle, that would be a red herring For example, someone could argue that "each pregnant woman should be entitled to draw her own line." The principle being defended could be that the right to life does not include the right to use another person's body (see the violinist problem). Hence, going through pregnancy would be a kindness, not an obligation.

Then we have two arguments.
Argument A: life is so important that it must have generalized lines.
Argument B: the right to life does not include the right to use another person's body.

Defending B in response to A would be a red herring.  We could say argument B brings forth "the fundamental question of who gets to draw the line."

Remark: I think that the principle brought forth in the violinist problem is begging the question by way of equivocation. The word "use" seems to suggest that a baby uses a body in the same sense as the violinist uses a kidnapped body. But I cannot be persuasive because I think that my critique is not morally relevant. And I don't think I could ever be. This is where I believe that the word of God is needed. 

For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
Psalm 139:13 (KJV)

Jorge, this is a site dealing with logic and reason. Please keep magical beings out of the argument.

My beliefs are super relevant to topics like these. But you have authority here and I will respect that (with possible flaws because no one is perfect). I want to add that I really like your website and the engagement is very interesting. Good job on this idea. I'll still use your content but won't participate. 

You are more than welcome and encouraged to participate. But we don't arrive at logical conclusions by quoting the holy book of one's choice. It appears more of evangelizing then engaging in a rational conversation, especially when a holy book is quoted as the final and absolute word.

[To Jorge]

Hi Dr. Bo and Jorge,

The quote from Psalm has nothing to do with abortion or the analysis of Buttigieg's rhetoric, so I'd rather treat it as decorative trivia and not as part of the discussion.

Hi Jorge,

Since you expanded the discussion to points not covered in Buttigieg's rhetoric, I'd like to point out that you still left out the important issue of viability. By definition, abortion is to kill the fetus in the womb, but if the same fetus could be viable after an induced labor, the majority of Americans still believe abortion should be illegal in this case according to various polls. Leaving it entirely to the pregnant woman regardless of viability is clearly a minority, if not fringe, opinion.

If the red herring fallacy requires more qualifiers than what we can derive from Buttigieg's rhetoric, then besides a false dichotomy possibly between a boundary condition drawn by the government (or occasionally by citizens' initiative) and a pregnant woman's personal choice, I think another possible fallacy in the rhetoric is non sequitur, or invalid inference. No matter how unclear the rhetoric was, Buttigieg still delivered the message that the pregnant woman was in a better position to made a decision, so let the decision be made by her and not interfered in by anyone else including the government. The inference from a better position to exclusiveness in decision making is invalid.

Yes, I also feel Buttigieg implicitly created a false dichotomy in his rhetoric. 

Does the red herring fallacy contain a false dichotomy? By throwing out a red herring, the arguer attempts to make the other argument invalid, i.e. forming a dichotomy between two arguments and misleading the audience into thinking: now that we have a valid new argument, the old one can be abandoned! But both may actually be valid or conditionally valid (and can serve as each other's condition).

[To Colt]

Hi Colt! A red herring could contain any content (including additional fallacies like the one implied here) that argues a position with irrelevant or misleading information. I think for us to feel confident slapping a possible “red herring” implication on the aforementioned talking point here-we may need more contextual information about his speech as the red herring requires a reference frame. 

Buttigieg began his rhetoric with these words: "I think the dialogue has gotten so caught up on where you draw the line..."  These words outlined the reference frame: others are debating where to establish a legal boundary condition of abortion. Then he threw out a red herring, trying to make the establishment of a broadly-applicable legal boundary condition irrelevant.

[To Colt]

That’s a fair way to view it for sure. It could be argued there is some  relevancy with the frame as you see it—but as with most political speech—it’s frustratingly sloppy.  

It was me who raised the issue of self-defense... Buttigieg never did so. Had I supported legal boundary conditions of self-defense while buying into Buttigieg's rhetoric, I would have committed special pleading. But there is a grain of subjectivity here. To me, self-defense to protect one's own life is a very strong analogy of abortion to preserve a woman's well-being, and with this view as the context, I would become inconsistent and logically fallacious by supporting Buttigieg's rhetoric while supporting legal boundary conditions of self-defense.

Those who support both may simply argue that there is no (or weak, at most) analogy between self-defense to protect one's own life and abortion to preserve a woman's well-being. Then the question is shifted to whether the analogy is strong or very strong as I see it, or not so as the other side sees it.