Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
 

I don't agree with this analogy.

The government provides services to the society, and to finance them it needs money/taxes.

The baby doesn't provide any service to its mother.

Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree with this analogy.

The government provides services to the society, and to finance them it needs money/taxes.

The baby doesn't provide any service to its mother.

[/ QUOTE ]

The government provides services to society, and to man them it needs more workers.

Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Wealth != body

[/ QUOTE ]

wealth = property

body = property

agree or disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]


This statement is not necessarily true:
A is X
B is X
A is B

So there is no 'logical fallacy' in disagreeing with the OP. You can choose freely without being wrong.

Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe not ALL pro-choicers, but at least the vast majority of them.

One of the major justifications for abortion is something along the lines of "it is immoral to force a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will. Mothers should not be forced to give their bodily resources to the fetus, even if revoking those resources will result in the fetus' death." Fair enough.

But if that is a person's stance, then that person should also believe that government-imposed taxation is immoral. ie, "it is immoral to force people to pay taxes to the government. Citizens should not be forced to give their money to the government, even if revoking that money will result in the government's collapse." It seems perfectly analogous.

Is there any way a person can subscribe to the former belief, while rejecting the latter belief? It would seem hypocritical to me but perhaps someone can rationalize it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The above is actually the hardcore libertarian position and I don't think you'll hear very many liberals using it. The normal pro-choice position is that the fetus is not a person and that its death is not relevant. Liberals believe that it can be moral to compel someone to do something if it is necessary for the welfare of another person or other people. The fetus not being a person, there is no case for the government to use compulsion. There is nothing inconsistent about this.

Liberals have similar opinions on issues like gay rights and drug use - that is, that compulsion is not justified - but tend to be in favor of using government compulsion to solve problems where peoples welfare is at stake - health, social security, occupational health and safety, etc.

Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The above is actually the hardcore libertarian position and I don't think you'll hear very many liberals using it. The normal pro-choice position is that the fetus is not a person and that its death is not relevant. Liberals believe that it can be moral to compel someone to do something if it is necessary for the welfare of another person or other people. The fetus not being a person, there is no case for the government to use compulsion. There is nothing inconsistent about this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Dead on. There's also the similar barbaric/civilised argument:

Anyone who believes taxes are a prerequisite of a civilised society and that forcing a women to have a baby is barbaric can be pro-chice and pro-taxes. Its a pretty common view.

chez

Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Wealth != body

[/ QUOTE ]

wealth = property

body = property

agree or disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]


This statement is not necessarily true:
A is X
B is X
A is B

So there is no 'logical fallacy' in disagreeing with the OP. You can choose freely without being wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

^^^^^
This is exactly right.

There seems to be a tendency to paint everything into two worlds, and make a conclusion from that. Of course that just isn't true.

Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
 

To make this claim logically you have to take the approach:

People believe in X, because of reason A
Reason A supports Y
Therefore people who believe in X should believe in Y

The approach the OP took was:
People support X, because of reason A
Reason A is similar to reason B
Reason B supports Y
Therefore people who believe in X should believe in Y

It's not logically sound and not very convincing. If you think reason A and reason B are both the result of a common reason C then you need to explain reason C and explain why you think pro-choicers are basing their position on it.

Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
 

An example would be "no one should be forced to give up resources against their will".

Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
 

One of the assumptions I made in the OP (in hindsight I guess I should have mentioned it) is that people have (or should have) equal control over their bodies as they do over their money. If you believe that people should have less control over their money than they should over their bodies, then the two scenarios are probably not analogous to you. But I think you would be hard-pressed to prove that.

Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
 

[ QUOTE ]
To make this claim logically you have to take the approach:

People believe in X, because of reason A
Reason A supports Y
Therefore people who believe in X should believe in Y

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not valid either. There may be a reason B against supporting Y that doesn't apply to X (or applies relatively weakly)

chez