What fallacy (if any) does the following argument commit?

"If a woman gives birth to a child, she is responsible for its care. Responsibilities are things we accept voluntarily. On the other hand, some children are born as a result of problems with birth control methods or even rape, and these are tragic situations over which a woman obviously has no control. Still, these circumstances are not the fault of the child. That's why abortion should be forbidden, because there is always more at stake than the interests of the mother."

Select one:

Oa. Fallacious appeal to culture

Ob. The fallacy of inconsistent premises

Oc. Fallacious appeal to tradition

Od. Fallacious appeal to pity

Oe. None

Question

What fallacy (if any) does the following argument commit?

"If a woman gives birth to a child, she is responsible for its care. Responsibilities are things we accept voluntarily. On the other hand, some children are born as a result of problems with birth control methods or even rape, and these are tragic situations over which a woman obviously has no control. Still, these circumstances are not the fault of the child. That's why abortion should be forbidden, because there is always more at stake than the interests of the mother."

Select one:

Oa. Fallacious appeal to culture

Ob. The fallacy of inconsistent premises

Oc. Fallacious appeal to tradition

Od. Fallacious appeal to pity

Oe. None

Ask a Philosopher · Accepted Answer

Alas, the argument presented doth tread upon treacherous grounds, for it doth commit the fallacy of inconsistent premises. Verily, the premise doth proclaim that a woman is responsible for the care of a child born from her womb, and that responsibilities are willingly accepted. Yet, in the very same breath, it doth acknowledge that some children are conceived in dire circumstances beyond the woman's control, such as through the misfortune of failed birth control or the horror of rape. The argument doth waver in its stance, for it doth absolve the child of blame in such tragic instances, yet it doth ultimately conclude that abortion should be forbidden, citing stakes greater than the mother's interest. In this contradiction, the argument doth falter, for it cannot hold both the premise of voluntary acceptance of responsibility and the exemption of blame for the child in instances of uncontrollable circumstances. Thus, it doth fall prey to the fallacy of inconsistent premises, where the premises of the argument cannot coexist harmoniously. Methinks, in matters as weighty as the morality of abortion, a steadfast and coherent argument is required to navigate the complexities of human existence and the ethical quandaries that beset us.