There are many different arguments against abortion, but most of them have a similar structure.

Generally, they start with the nature of the unborn. The claim is made that the unborn is a particular kind of thing (e.g. a living human being, or a living human being that can feel pain, or a living human being that could survive outside its mother).

Pro-life arguments then assert that things of this kind have a right to life. It is stated that it’s morally wrong to kill a living human being, or a living human being that can feel pain, or whatever kind of thing the unborn has just been claimed to be. An intermediate conclusion can now be drawn: The unborn has a right to life.

Abortion, of course, kills the unborn, so it’s a small step from there to another intermediate conclusion: Abortion involves the violation of a right to life.

That isn’t quite it though. To be complete, pro-life arguments have to weigh the unborn’s right to life against whatever women’s rights might be violated by prohibiting abortion (e.g. the right to decide what happens to one’s body, or the right to reproductive freedom), and assert that the right to life takes precedence.

If you have to choose between killing someone (on the one hand) and denying someone reproductive freedom (on the other), then the right thing to do is to deny someone reproductive freedom (or so goes the argument).

Only then can the conclusion be drawn: Abortion is immoral.

So a rough summary of the pro-life argument could go like this:

(R) The unborn is a being of type x.
(R) Everything that’s a being of type x has a right to life.
Therefore: (IC) The unborn has a right to life.
(R) Abortion kills the unborn.
Therefore: (IC) Abortion violates a right to life.
(R) The right to life takes precedence over any rights violated by prohibiting abortion.
Therefore: (C) Abortion is immoral.

There was a documentary about religious fundamentalists on Channel 4 last night. It included two clips of pro-choice protesters chanting. In both cases, the chants completely misrepresented the pro-life position.

I know that expecting tight logic from a demo chant is probably a bit optimistic, but it irritated me anyway.

The first chant, coming from pro-choice campaigners trying to disrupt the pro-life March for Life rally, was “March for life, that’s a lie. You don’t care if women die.”

This is, presumably, a condensed version of the argument that if abortion is prohibited then some women will go to illegal abortion providers, putting their safety at risk (and that abortion should therefore be legal so that we can make it as safe as possible).

Accusing those who believe that abortion should be prohibited of not caring if women die seems a bit strong, though.

A pro-life campaigner may well care if women die, but think that protecting the lives of unborn children is more important than protecting the lives of mothers trying to kill them. I strongly suspect that this point of view is far more common than the view that it doesn’t matter at all if a woman having a back-street abortion dies, that the chant misrepresents pro-lifers, that it’s attacking a straw man.

The second chant, “Women’s rights are human rights”, seems just as unfair to the pro-life point of view.

The accusation here is that the pro-life position doesn’t take women’s rights seriously, that it treats them as less than human.

The pro-choice argument doesn’t work by denying women rights, though; it works by attributing to the unborn a right even more fundamental than those women’s rights that are broken by prohibiting abortion. Again, then, the chant attacks a straw man.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that the pro-life argument is sound, just that these chants are no good as responses to it.

So what should pro-choice protesters chant?

“It’s just a bunch of cells” (to the tune of the football chant “You don’t know what you’re doing”, presumably) would be to the point, denying that the unborn is the kind of thing that has rights that we ought to protect.

“Women’s rights come first” would also work, challenging the idea that it’s more important to protect the unborn’s life than it is to protect its mother’s freedom.

I’m sure that a pro-choice protester (who would have much more motivation to do this than me) could come up with something catchy that makes these kinds of point.

Logical chants are clearly possible; are they really too much to ask for?

Today will see the first national teachers’ strike for 21 years. Around 8000 schools will be disrupted, either partially or fully closed.

Teachers are skilled professionals. They do a tough job, working long hours and often enduring difficult working conditions. They also play a key role in society, so it’s important to attract good staff to the profession.

On the other hand, teachers are already well paid. According to Jim Knight, the Schools Minister (admittedly not a neutral source), the average salary for a teacher is £34000.

So there’s an interesting argument to be had about teachers’ pay.

However, for the most part that isn’t the argument that’s being had. Instead, the argument from the NUT (the teachers’ union that’s called the strike) that we’re hearing most is all about past levels of pay. Christine Blower, the NUT’s acting head, put it like this:

What we’re saying to the government is, if you really do value teachers, then make sure that they’re paid at least at the level of inflation - which we take to be the RPI [Retail Price Index], which is 4.1%.

The NUT’s argument is that the 2.45% pay rise that teachers have been offered is below the rate of inflation. If teachers’ pay rises more slowly than the rate of inflation, then their salaries will buy less than they used to; in real terms, teachers will have had a pay cut. And the NUT won’t stand for a pay cut.

There’s nothing in that argument about why a pay cut for teachers would be such a terrible thing, though. It doesn’t argue that teachers deserve more than they’ve been offered, or that a fall in teachers’ pay would hit recruitment, or anything like that. Instead, it’s a straightforward appeal to history, arguing that next year’s pay should be the same (in real terms) as last year’s pay.

Appeals to history are, of course, fallacies. That things were a certain way before doesn’t prove either that it was right that they were that way or that they should continue to be that way. The NUT needs to shift their focus to a better argument.

It probably wouldn’t be a great idea to try to explain that to your teacher, though. Except, perhaps, your Critical Thinking teacher.

We hear a lot about climate change and what we need to do to reduce carbon emissions and so preserve the environment.

One suggestion is that we should replace fossil fuel consumption with biofuel consumption, moving from burning coal and oil to burning ethanol and biodiesel.

Biofuels are liquid fuels made by fermenting plant material such as corn and rapeseed. Although they release carbon when burned, this is carbon aborbed by the plants when they’re grown. Fossil fuels, on the other hand, release into the atmosphere carbon which would otherwise be stored in coal and oil desposits underground. The impact on the environment of burning biofuels is therefore less than the impact of burning fossil fuels.

Or is it? Critics of biofuels point out that to fully understand their environmental impact we need to think more carefully than this.

The process of growing the crops used to make biofuels can be polluting, as can the process of converting the crops into fuel. Areas of rainforest, which act as a carbon sink, are being destroyed to make room to grow biofuel crops; whatever carbon would have been absorbed by the rainforest but now isn’t is a carbon cost of biofuel production.

It may well be that all things considered, biofuels are greener than fossil fuels, at least when they are produced in the right way. What we can’t do, though, is generalise from biofuels being greener than fossil fuels in one way (whatever carbon is emitted into the atmostphere when biofuels are burned is first absorbed when the biofuel crops are grown) to the conclusion that they are greener than fossil fuels full stop.