Media Reaction to the Born Alive "Mistatement"

I watched Hannity & Colmes this evening and the subject of Obama's mistatement was brought up. The hosts had two speakers on taking sides either pro or con Obama regarding this discussion. What ensued, I can only call a critical thinker's nightmare - or a critical thinking Blogger's cannon fodder! Hannity summarized the same comments I made regarding Obama's claims that he would have voted for the Federal bill had he been in office when it was passed, and the claim that the reason he did not vote for, and later killed the 1095 bill in the Illinois State senate was because it did not contain the same neutrality clause. Sean Hannity was holding copies of both clauses in his hand during this and says "I have both of them right here. They are exactly the same".

Hannity then pointed out that even his campaign spokesperson had come out and said Obama's claim was a mistatement. To which Hannitiy asks his pro-Obama guest; "So, he lied?" The guest replies that no, Alan Keyes lied. and besides, the state of Illinois already had a "botched abortion" law on the books! And also, the Illinois bill did not have the same neutrality clause in it as the Federal bill. Now I am not going to go through the whole exchange, you can probably get transcripts from www.hannity.com if you really wanted to hear the whole mud bath, but I do want to point out some of what got my teeth on edge.

Both Colmes and the pro-Obama guest continue to state emphatically that the two clauses are not the same. Shouting it louder and louder in an attempt to drown out the other guest and Hannity's statement " I have both of them right here. They are IDENTICAL! This is indesputable". When this tactic does not work, the pro-Obama guest says "Come on, do you really think Obama wanted Stanek's baby to die?" Colmes immediately jumps on that wagon with a similar question, which he asks over and over as if saying so would make us believe that this was the opposition's position. Colmes repeatedly asks "Do you really think Obama wants to kill babies?"

The first issue is the claim that two documents which are obviously identical are not. This is an error in observation fallacy known as an inductive hyperbole. The individual is stating a position more strongly than the evidence supports. In this case, the individual is shouting a position that the evidence indisputably contradicts. How hard-headed do you have to be to ignore evidence that was so crystal-clear that Obama's own campaign spokesperson had to come out and issue a statement indicating that Obama's claim the Illinois bill was not the same as the Federal bill was a "mistatement" and that the two were, in fact, identical?

The second issue I have is the clever use of a "post hoc ergo procter hoc" argument that if one believes that these two bills are identical, that one must believe Obama wants babies to die! No one thinks this is the case - Ok, there are probably a few nut-cases that do but not any reasonable person. By posing such an obsurd question, the individual forces the other to concede the point by agreeing that this must not be true. It then stands to reason that the previous is also not true. Therefore, if Obama does not want babies to die, he must not have mistated his reason for not voting for and then later killing this bill. Therefore, Obama did not lie, and anyone who says he did must be the liar. Apparently, no other reason could possibly exist!

The third issue I have was the false statement that Illinois already has laws on the books that make the need for this law irrelevant. First, this is only intended to draw attention away from the argument at hand, which was why Obama "mispoke" regarding his reasons for not voting for this bill. Second, the statement does not prove out as Illinois did not have such laws on the books This is why Christ Hospital was not found not to have committed any illegal act by leaving live babies from induced premature labor (not a "botched abortion", but an actual live birth) in a utility closet to die without any care at all. You may recall the case in California where a girl left her newborn baby in a dumpster to die just hours after birth. She was prosecuted for her acts. Apparently, the same acts performed in an Illinois Hospital are not criminal.

This was the reason for this bill. The individual who stated that laws on the books were already adequate - Oh, Obama has used this line too, when it suited him - is counting on no one being able to call him on this argument. If you do, he will just find another fallacy to divert your attention.

These are the failures in logic that we are inundated with every day by the media and few are ever called out. Hannity did his best to present his case. Part of that case, I believe was that the far Left cannot and will not admit they are wrong, even when the evidence is staring them in the face!

I know, the same can be said of the Right as well, and I welcome my readers - all 4 of you - to provide any example of this you may wish. I am and always will be a Conservative (which puts me on the Right) but that does not mean that I cannot accept the fact that logic fallacies are used by both sides. Provide an objective argument and point out the fallacy I will gladly discuss it here on my site! Remember, use critical thinking and reason in your posting. If you see that I have not done so, by all means, call me on it; right here, where everyone can see it and I will objectively defend my position or admit my fault, which ever the case may require.