To the Editor:
I read the recent guest column by Abigail Marsh '99 with a mixture of amusement and disbelief.
I was amused by the accusations against a D columnist for 'logical fallacies' in the context of a piece that itself is a shining example of ad hominem argument. "We" all know that the ad hominem fallacy is common enough these days, especially on the pages of The D, so I hope that I do not 'intellectually insult' your readership in criticizing Ms. Marsh's piece on the grounds of fallacious argument. After all, "we" all want logic on our side, so accusations of fallacies get tired pretty quickly.
But enough about amusement, and on to disbelief. Ms. Marsh criticized Conor Dugan '00 for "scaling new heights of ridiculousness." Her evidence in support of this charge? Not Mr. Dugan's assertion that human persons possess some sort of intrinsic dignity that cannot be attacked merely by virtue of being human. Rather it was the 'intellectually insulting' suggestion by Mr. Dugan that "we," that is, Mr. Dugan and his readership, hold fervently to this belief (i.e. that human persons possess some sort of inviolable dignity). Ms. Marsh focuses on Mr. Dugan's attribution of this belief to others as the height of presumption. This is where disbelief 'ought' to enter.
For surely "we" want to hold that the human person has an inviolable dignity, don't "we?" After all, it is this very belief that grounds the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights, to pick a nontrivial example. If "we" don't recognize that human persons possess some sort of dignity merely by virtue of being human, "we" better come up with some sort of justification that "we" can accept for human rights laws, because "we" enforce human rights laws and extend their reach daily.
Surely it wouldn't be insulting to suggest that "we" need to further probe the relationships among human dignity, human rights laws, and the present laws on abortion? I think "we" can handle it.
