LOGICAL FALLACIES

FALLACY DEFINED

 A fallacy is a deceptive argument; that is, an argument that seems to be conclusive but is
actually not inclusive. Either its sequence appears to be valid but is actually invalid, or else
its premises seem to be true but are actually false.
 The word fallacy is derived from the Latin word fallo which means, “I deceive.” An
appearance of validity and truth is essential to a fallacy, for it would deceive no one unless
it at least seemed to be valid and true.

TYPES OF FALLACIES:

The following are some of the popular fallacies arranged in alphabetical order:

a. ACCIDENT / SWEEPING GENERALIZATION / DICTO SIMPLICITER

A sweeping generalization applies a general statement too broadly. If one takes a general rule,
and applies it to a case to which, due to the specific features of the case, the rule does not apply,
then one commits the sweeping generalization fallacy. This fallacy is the reverse of a hasty
generalization.

Examples:

1. "Christians generally dislike atheists. You are a Christian, so you must dislike atheists."
2. Birds normally can fly.
Tweety the Penguin is a bird.
Therefore, Tweety can fly.

b. ACCENT

Accent fallacies are fallacies that depend on where the stress is placed in a word or sentence. The
meaning of a set of words may be dramatically changed by the way they are spoken, without
changing any of the words themselves. Accent fallacies are a type of equivocation.
Examples:

1. I resent the letter.

2. I hate to see you go.
3. Suppose that two people are debating whether a rumor about the actions of a third person
is true. The first says, “I can imagine him doing that; it’s possible.”
The second replies, “Yes, it’s possible to imagine him doing that.” This looks like
agreement.
If however, the second person stresses the word imagine, then this appearance vanishes;
“Yes, it’s possible to imagine him doing that.” This now sounds like a pointed comment
meaning that though it may just about be possible to imagine him doing that, there’s no
way that he would actually do it.

c. AMPHIBOLY / AMPHIBOLOGY

Amphiboly is syntactical ambiguity. It consists in using a phrase whose individual words are
univocal but whose meaning is ambiguous because the grammatical construction can be
interpreted in various ways.

Examples:

1. Oracle: If Croesus wages war against the Persians, he will destroy a mighty kingdom.
2. The anthropologists went to a remote area and took photographs of some native women,
but they weren't developed.
3. Lost: An umbrella of an old woman with two broken ribs.
4. Headline: Helicopter powered by human flies
5. “Three times six plus two equals twenty.”
“You are wrong; it equals twenty-four.”

d. COMPLEX QUESTION / LOADED QUESTION / PLURIUM INTERROGATIONUM

The fallacy of many questions consists in asking either a multiple question as though it were a
single question – or a question involving a supposition as though it involved no supposition –
and then demanding a simple yes or no for an answer and thus tricking someone into making
admissions he did not intend to make.

Examples:

1. “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

This is a complex question because it presupposes that you used to beat your wife, a
presupposition that either answer to the question appears to endorse.

2. Are you going to admit that you’re wrong?

Answering yes to this question is an admission of guilt. Answering no to the question

implies that the accused accepts that he is in the wrong, but will not admit it. No room is
left to protest one’s innocence. This is therefore a complex question, and a subtle false
dilemma.

e. COMPOSITION

The fallacy of composition consists in taking words or phrases as a unit when they should be
taken separately.

Examples:

1. The human body is made up of cells, which are invisible. Therefore, the body is
invisible.
2. "Come on, you like beef, potatoes, and green beans, so you will like this beef, potato, and
green been casserole." This is fallacious for the same reason that the following is
fallacious: "You like eggs, ice cream, pizza, cake, fish, jello, chicken, taco sauce, soda,
oranges, milk, egg rolls, and yogurt so you must like this yummy dish made out of all of
them."
3. Sodium and Chloride are both dangerous to humans. Therefore any combination of
sodium and chloride will be dangerous to humans.
4. "Every player on the team is a superstar and a great player, so the team is a great team."
This is fallacious since the superstars might not be able to play together very well and
hence they could be a lousy team.
f. CONSEQUENT / AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT

The fallacy of the consequent consists in inferring that an antecedent is true because its
consequent is true, or that a consequent is false because its antecedent is false. This fallacy is
based on the mistaken opinion that the relationship of an antecedent and its consequent in regard
to truth and falsity is always reciprocal and can be reversible.

The fallacy of affirming the consequent is committed by arguments that have the form:

(1) If A then B
(2) B
(3) Therefore: A

The first premise of such arguments notes that if a state of affairs A obtained then a consequence
B would also obtain. The second premise asserts that this consequence B does obtain. The faulty
step then follows: the inference that the state of affairs A obtains.

Examples:

1. If Fred wanted to get me sacked then he’d go and have a word with the boss.
There goes Fred to have a word with the boss.
Therefore: Fred wants to get me sacked.
2. If Zeus was a real, historical figure, but the Catholic Church covered up his existence,
then we wouldn’t have any evidence of a historical Zeus today.
We don’t have any evidence of a historical Zeus today.
Ergo, Zeus was a real, historical figure, but the Catholic Church covered up his
existence.
3. If James was President, then he was over 35.
Therefore, if James was over 35, then he was President.

g. DIVISION

The fallacy of division is the converse of the fallacy of composition and consists in taking
separately what should be taken together as a unit.
Examples:

1. All in this room weigh about two tons;

But Mary is in this room;
Therefore, Mary weighs about two tons.
2. "The ball is blue, therefore the atoms that make it up are also blue."
3. "Bill lives in a large building, so his apartment must be large."
h. EQUIVOCATION / FALLACY OF FOUR TERMS

The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a term is used in two or more different senses
within a single argument.

For an argument to work, words must have the same meaning each time they appear in its
premises or conclusion. Arguments that switch between different meanings of words equivocate,
and so don’t work. This is because the change in meaning introduces a change in subject. If the
words in the premises and the conclusion mean different things, then the premises and the
conclusion are about different things, and so the former cannot support the latter.

Examples:

1. What is natural is good;

But to make mistakes is natural;
Therefore, to make mistakes is good.
2. "What could be more affordable than free software? But to make sure that it remains free,
that users can do what they like with it, we must place a license on it to make sure that
will always be freely redistributable."
3. “He who violates a law should be punished;
But when we illustrate fallacies we violate many laws;
Therefore, when we illustrate fallacies we should be punished.”

i. FALSE CAUSE / NON CAUSA PRO CAUSA / POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC

The fallacy of false cause refers to various fallacies arising from a confusion of causal with non-
causal relationships.
The Latin phrase “post hoc ergo propter hoc” means, literally, “after this therefore because of
this.” The post hoc fallacy is committed when it is assumed that because one thing occurred after
another, it must have occurred as a result of it. Mere temporal succession, however, does not
entail causal succession. Just because one thing follows another does not mean that it was caused
by it.

Examples:

1. "I took an aspirin and prayed to God, and my headache disappeared. So God cured me of
the headache."
2. I had been doing pretty poorly this season. Then my girlfriend gave me this neon laces
for my spikes and I won my next three races. Those laces must be good luck...if I keep on
wearing them I can't help but win!
3. The picture on Jim's old TV set goes out of focus. Jim goes over and strikes the TV
soundly on the side and the picture goes back into focus. Jim tells his friend that hitting
the TV fixed it.
4. Night comes before day; therefore, night causes day.

j. FALSE DILEMMA / BLACK AND WHITE FALLACY / EITHER-OR FALLACY

This fallacy involves a situation in which two alternative points of view are held to be the only
options, when in reality there exist one or more other options which have not been considered.
The two alternatives presented are often, though not always, the two extreme points on some
spectrum. Instead of such extreme simplification and wishful thinking, considering the whole
spectrum, as in fuzzy logic, may be more appropriate.

Usually, the False Dilemma fallacy takes this form: Either A or B is true. A is not true. Therefore,
B is true.

Examples:

1. "Mark is late for work. Either his car has broken down, or he has overslept. We
telephoned and learned he isn't at home, so his car must have broken down."
2. Senator Jill: "We'll have to cut education funding this year."
 Senator Bill: "Why?"
Senator Jill: "Well, either we cut the social programs or we live with a huge deficit and we
can't live with the deficit."
3. Bill: "Jill and I both support having prayer in public schools."
Jill: "Hey, I never said that!"
Bill: "You're not an atheist are you Jill?"
4. "Look, you are going to have to make up your mind. Either you decide that you can
afford this stereo, or you decide you are going to do without music for a while."
5. The Bulldogs are the first-place team, so either we beat them tonight and gain a little self-
respect, or we lose like everyone expects us to, and hide our faces in shame!

k. FIGURES OF SPEECH

The fallacy of figures of speech is a special type of false analogy that consists in wrongly inferring
similarity of meaning from similarity of word structure.

Examples:

1. What is immaterial is not material and what is insoluble is not soluble. Therefore, what
is inflammable is not flammable.
2. To rewrite is to write again.
To replay is to play again.
Therefore to request is to quest again.

l. GAMBLER’S FALLACY

The gambler’s fallacy is the fallacy of assuming that short-term deviations from probability will
be corrected in the short-term. Faced with a series of events that are statistically unlikely, say, a
serious of 9 coin tosses that have landed heads-up, it is very tempting to expect the next coin toss
to land tails-up. The past series of results, though, has no effect on the probability of the various
possible outcomes of the next coin toss.

Examples:

1. Jane and Bill are talking:

Jane: "I'll be able to buy that car I always wanted soon."
 Bill: "Why, did you get a raise?"
Jane: "No. But you know how I've been playing the lottery all these years?"
Bill: "Yes, you buy a ticket for every drawing, without fail."
Jane: "And I've lost every time."
Bill: "So why do you think you will win this time?"
Jane: "Well, after all those losses I'm due for a win."

2. Joe and Sam are at the race track betting on horses.

Joe: "You see that horse over there? He lost his last four races. I'm going to bet on him."
Sam: "Why? I think he will probably lose."
Joe: "No way, Sam. I looked up the horse's stats and he has won half his races in the past
two years. Since he has lost three of his last four races, he'll have to win this race. So I'm
betting the farm on him."
Sam: "Are you sure?"
Joe: "Of course I'm sure. That pony is due, man...he's due!"

m. HASTY GENERALIZATION / CONVERSE ACCIDENT

A hasty generalization draws a general rule from a single, perhaps atypical, case. It is the reverse
of a sweeping generalization.

Examples:

1. My atheist neighbor is a criminal. Therefore atheists are criminals.

2. "Jim Baker was an insincere Christian. Therefore all Christians are insincere."
3. Sam is riding her bike in her home town in Maine, minding her own business. A station
wagon comes up behind her and the driver starts beeping his horn and then tries to force
her off the road. As he goes by, the driver yells "get on the sidewalk where you belong!"
Sam sees that the car has Ohio plates and concludes that all Ohio drivers are jerks.
4. Smith, who is from England, decides to attend graduate school at Ohio State University.
He has never been to the US before. The day after he arrives, he is walking back from an
orientation session and sees two white (albino) squirrels chasing each other around a
tree. In his next letter home, he tells his family that American squirrels are white.
IGNORATIO ELENCHI / IRRELEVANT CONCLUSION

This is the most general fallacy of irrelevance. Any argument in which the premises are logically
unrelated to the conclusion commits this fallacy.

The fallacy consists in proving a conclusion other than the one that should be proved. It is called
by various names; for instance, “the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion,” ”ignorance of the question,”
“ignoring the issue,” and “missing the point.”
The fallacy gets its name from the Latinized form of the Greek word, elenchus, which means
“refutation.” In order to refute a statement, you must establish its contradictory. Now if you
establish something other than the contradictory of the statement to be refuted, you are said to be
“ignorant of the refutation.”

Subtypes of Ignoratio Elenchi:

n. RED HERRING / CHANGING THE SUBJECT

Red herring or sometimes referred to as “changing the subject” is as much a debate tactic as it is a
logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an
arguer from his argument by introducing another topic. This can be one of the most frustrating,
and effective, fallacies to observe.

Examples:

1. He wasn’t guilty. He was nice to all the kids and very athletic. We played basketball and
water-skied with him and had wonderful times. He’d do anything for everybody.”
2. Another example, a Christian may begin by saying that he will argue that the teachings
of Christianity are undoubtedly true. If he then argues at length that Christianity is of
great help to many people, no matter how well he argues he will not have shown that
Christian teachings are true.

o. ARGUMENTUM AD ANTIQUITATEM / APPEAL TO TRADITION

An appeal to antiquity is the opposite of an appeal to novelty. Appeals to antiquity assume that
older ideas are better, that the fact that an idea has been around for a while implies that it is true.
This, of course, is not the case; old ideas can be bad ideas, and new ideas can be good ideas. We
therefore can’t learn anything about the truth of an idea just by considering how old it is.

Examples:

1. "For thousands of years Christians have believed in Jesus Christ. Christianity must be
true, to have persisted so long even in the face of persecution."
2. “This brand is definitely the best because it is the original and we’ve been using it for the
past ten years.”

p. ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM / APPEAL TO THE STICK / APPEAL TO FORCE

An Appeal to Force happens when someone resorts to force (or the threat of force) to try and
push others to accept a conclusion. This fallacy is often used by politicians, and can be
summarized as "might makes right." The threat doesn't have to come directly from the person
arguing. An Appeal to Force happens when someone resorts to force (or the threat of force) to try
and push others to accept a conclusion. This fallacy is often used by politicians, and can be
summarized as "might makes right." The threat doesn't have to come directly from the person
arguing.

Examples:

1. "... Thus there is ample proof of the truth of the Bible. All those who refuse to accept that
truth will burn in Hell."
2. "... In any case, I know your phone number and I know where you live. Have I
mentioned I am licensed to carry concealed weapons?"
3. "You know, Professor Smith, I really need to get an A in this class. I'd like to stop by
during your office hours later to discuss my grade. I'll be in your building anyways,
visiting my father. He's your dean, by the way. I'll see you later."

q. ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM / ATTACKING THE PERSON / AGAINST THE MAN

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the

basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.
Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making
the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of
the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or
argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the
following form:

Person A makes claim X.

Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or
actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being
made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Examples:

1. “His opinion is absolutely worthless; why, he didn’t even finish high school.”
2. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is
wrong.
Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

r. ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM / APPEAL TO IGNORANCE

Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's
argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently,
when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.

Examples:

1. "Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."

2. This is evidence that must be accepted because it cannot be refuted.
3. "No one has ever proven that UFOs exist. Therefore, they don't exist."
4. If I were adopted, then I would know about it by now.
I don't know that I'm adopted.
Therefore, I wasn't adopted.
s. ARGUMENTUM AD MISERICORDIAM / APPEAL TO PITY

An appeal to pity attempts to persuade using emotion--specifically, sympathy--rather than

evidence. Playing on the pity that someone feels for an individual or group can certainly affect
what that person thinks about the group; this is a highly effective, and so quite common, fallacy.

This type of argument is fallacious because our emotional responses are not always a good guide
to truth; emotions can cloud, rather than clarify, issues. We should base our beliefs upon reason,
rather than on emotion, if we want our beliefs to be true.

Examples:

1. "I did not murder my mother and father with an axe! Please don't find me guilty; I'm
suffering enough through being an orphan."
2. "Augusto Pinochet is an old, dying man. It is wrong to make him stand trial for alleged
offenses."
3. "Think of all the poor, starving Ethiopian children! How could we be so cruel as not to
help them?"

t. ARGUMENTUM AD NOVITATEM / APPEAL TO NOVELTY

An appeal to novelty is the opposite of an appeal to antiquity. Appeals to novelty assume that the
newness of an idea is evidence of its truth.

That an idea is new certainly doesn’t entail that it is true. Many recent ideas have no merit
whatsoever, as history has shown; every idea, including those that we now reject as absurd
beyond belief, were new at one time. Some ideas that are new now will surely go the same way.

Examples:

1. Religion is old-fashioned; atheism is a much more recent development. Therefore,

atheism is true.
 2. "BeOS is a far better choice of operating system than OpenStep, as it has a much newer
design."
3. A made up advertisement: The Sadisike 900 pump-up glow shoe. It's better because it's
new.

u. ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM / APPEAL TO POPOLARITY / BANDWAGON

Appeals to popularity suggest that an idea must be true simply because it is widely held. This is a
fallacy because popular opinion can be, and quite often is, mistaken. Hindsight makes this clear:
there were times when the majority of the population believed that the Earth is the still centre of
the universe, and that diseases are caused by evil spirits; neither of these ideas was true, despite
its popularity.

Examples:

1. Most people believe in a god or ‘higher power’. Therefore, God, or at least a higher
power, must exist.
2. "For thousands of years people have believed in Jesus and the Bible. This belief has had a
great impact on their lives. What more evidence do you need that Jesus was the Son of
God? Are you trying to tell those people that they are all mistaken fools?"
3. White lies are all right because everybody tells them.
4. Everyone is selfish; everyone is doing what he believes will make himself happier. The
recognition of that can take most of the sting out of accusations that you're being
"selfish." Why should you feel guilty for seeking your own happiness when that's what
everyone else is doing, too?

v. ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM / APPEAL TO SHAME / MISPLACED

AUTHORITY

The fallacy is an appeal to misplaced authority. It aims at overawing people by appealing to the
dignity of those who hold an opinion rather than to their special competence in the matter under
discussion.

Examples:

1. Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God.

 2. Joey de Leon advised us not to support Charter Change for it would simply worsen the
situation.
3. According to Kris Aquino, Kissa Papaya is the leading brand among papaya soaps.

w. NON-SEQUITUR

It is the Latin for “it does not follow.” In a sense, every invalid argument is a non sequitur, just as
every invalid argument is also an ignoratio elenchi; but the name “non sequitur” is generally
restricted to a series of true but unrelated propositions that simulate the structure of a syllogism.

Examples:

1. "Since Egyptians did so much excavation to construct the pyramids, they were well
versed in paleontology."
2. Cows give milk;
But sheep have wool;
Therefore, goats chew cud.

x. PETITIO PRINCIPII / BEGGING THE QUESTION / CIRCULAR REASONING

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is
true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. It is the fallacy of assuming,
when trying to prove something, what it is that you are trying prove.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly
or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply
assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in
particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."

Examples:

1. "Government by the people is ideal because democracy is the least inadequate form of
government."
2. “Miracles are impossible because they simply can’t happen.”
 3. Of course hydrogen burns; it’s combustible; isn’t it?
4. Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."
5. Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference."
Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."
Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"
Bill: "Certainly. I can vouch for her."

y. SLIPPERY SLOPE / CAMEL’S NOSE

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow
from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases,
there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason
is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument"
has the following form:
Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must
inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in
cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and
another.

Examples:

1. "We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of
literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!"
2. If you buy a Green Day album, then next you’ll be buying Buzzcocks albums, and before
you know it you’ll be a punk with green hair and everything.
3. "We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging
$40,000 a semester!"
 4. "If we legalize marijuana, then more people would start to take crack and heroin, and
we'd have to legalize those too. Before long we'd have a nation full of drug-addicts on
welfare. Therefore we cannot legalize marijuana."

z. SUPPRESSION OF FACTS / SUPRESSED EVIDENCE / SLANTING

The fallacy consists in selecting only the facts that favor an opinion and suppressing, or
ignoring, all facts that are against it. By a careful selection of quotations you can often give
the impression that a writer holds an opinion that is just the opposite of what he really holds.

Example:

“The prison in question is at the General Security Services headquarters, which was
inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children—toddlers up to
pre- adolescents—whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out
politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I'm not
going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used
by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace.”
Exercise on Logical Fallacies:

Suppose you are in a hospital engaged in a serious and heated debate about the merits or
demerits of mercy killing or euthanasia. The patient is your uncle on your father’s side. He has
been in a coma for almost five months. Because of your compassion for your uncle, you
proposed euthanasia by giving the following reasons:

1. It is certain that the patient is terminal.

2. The patient is suffering and is in terrible pain.
3. The patient is not in control of his faculties.
4. The patient is being kept alive by artificial means – life support system.
5. There is no known medical option to relieve his suffering.
6. The family has suffered long and hard enough.

You conclude that it is in the best interest of the patient to remove the life support system from
him so that nature can take its course. This is the humane and kind thing to do! The argument
you have composed is obviously very strong; the six premises provide a very strong support for
the claim of the conclusion to remove the life support system.

Analyze the following reactions of your relatives and try to identify the fallacy they committed:

1. “I understand why you are proposing to murder your Uncle Fred. You have never been
close to him. You are closer to you other uncles, especially on your mother’s side. Now I
know you hate your Uncle Fred. You have an evil mind and a heart of stone.” – Tita Bella
2. “If you persist in this line of reasoning I will disinherit you, throw you out of the house,
stop your schooling and not talk to you ever again. You are putting me in a bad light with
my brothers and sisters by suggesting that your Uncle Fred be murdered.” - Daddy
3. “What happened to you my son? Don’t you have any compassion for your Uncle? Think
of his six children. What will happen to them without their father? Is there no pity in your
heart? Life is the most precious possession of a human being. So long as a person is alive,
 there is a chance that he might live. A miracle might happen. Are you depriving you uncle
of this chance?” – Mommy
4. “Son there is always hope. You are big enough and intelligent enough to know that
nobody has succeeded in disproving the existence of miracles, so therefore, miracles exist.
You should not deny your Uncle Fred his miracle of life.” – Tio Paeng
5. “Can you imagine what will happen if we follow as you suggested; remove the life support
system and let your uncle die? Son, we are Catholics – we value human life more than any
material things in the world. Are you suggesting that we abandon this time honored
traditional value and murder your Uncle Fred? – Tio Peta
6. “If we remove the life support system, do you think the Catholic Church will allow such a
cruel decision? Surely not! The church believes in miracles. The Church will tell you that
a medical breakthrough can happen anytime that will cure your uncle. Let us continue
hoping and have faith in our church.” – Tio Chay
7. “How can you even make such a proposal? If we allow you to do it to your Uncle Fred,
you will do it also to me, to your mother, to all your relatives and friends – where will it
stop! Are we going to kill everybody who outlived his/her usefulness – the terminally ill,
the aged, the cripple and the infirm? What about fatally deformed infants! Are you going
to deprive them all of their right to life? I hope you see now how wrong your proposal is!”
– Lola
8. “Removing the life support system of your Uncle Fred is wrong because it is wrong to take
the life of another human being even if the motive is to alleviate pain and suffering. Only
God has that right!” - Yaya
9. “Either you do not value human life or you love your Uncle Fred; it seems to us that you
do not love your Uncle Fred. Therefore, you do not value human life.” – Brother Mikaela