Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
 

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.

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

[ QUOTE ]
It seems perfectly analogous.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are no perfect analogies.
The role of analogies in argument is to highlight the nature or portion of the nature of a situation you are highlighting. Nothing carries over from one to another.
They can give you a hint to how to approach another situation or inspire a different viewpoint on it, but there is no argument that takes on the conclusions from an analogy.

luckyme

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

by your logic pro-lifers should be against the death penalty, why is it okay for the government to force a woman to have a baby then let a judge decide if a man should be given the death penalty or not. just because the two scenarios deal vaguely with the same point doesn't make the analogous

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

Yes, because one's body and one's wages are "perfectly" analogous.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, because one's body and one's wages are "perfectly" analogous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Easily close enough. EASILY.

And I agree with the OP.

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

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

Sure there is. I have no idea how you came to this conclusion as it seems to be pretty ridiculous. However seeing as how you have, here are some of the many reasons why you can be pro-life and not anti-tax.

[ QUOTE ]
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."

[/ QUOTE ]

I've known women that have had abortions, and heard about others, and in all cases, none of them were arguing for the abortion because they were "forced to give their bodily resouces to the foetus." They had one because they had never wanted it in the first place, or because they were raped, or because it would shame their parents, etc. The bodily resources argument, although sound for legality, is bureaucratic and devoid of emotion. Probably the only woman in the world who would have an abortion because the foetus was 'sucking her resouces dry' would be Paris Hilton.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't, because they are completely separate concepts. Having an abortion is done when a woman reaches her emotional cusp and decides it is the only option. It is a decision based mostly on emotion. Paying taxes is different. You pay taxes, in theory, because it is the right thing to do; you are being forced to give something back (as you probably wouldn't if you weren't forced). It is a decision based on logic and reasoning. WHEN YOU LEARN THE CONCEPTS BEHIND BOTH IDEAS, YOU LEARN THAT THEY ARE INHERENTLY DIFFERENT AND COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE. So much so that they cannot be used in your analogy.

However most obvious reason would be that you would have heard about it by now, instead of inventing the idea yourself. Have you heard of an anti-tax group, or at least one that is linked to pro-choice groups? I'm going to guess you haven't, probably because I don't think any exist. If your connection between these two groups is anything more than your own strange logical reasoning, the proof would lie in said group's existence. If it doesn't exist, then neither does the truth behind belief.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

Sure there is. I have no idea how you came to this conclusion as it seems to be pretty ridiculous. However seeing as how you have, here are some of the many reasons why you can be pro-life and not anti-tax.

[ QUOTE ]
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."

[/ QUOTE ]

I've known women that have had abortions, and heard about others, and in all cases, none of them were arguing for the abortion because they were "forced to give their bodily resouces to the foetus."

[/ QUOTE ]

You should have stopped posting in this thread right after this comment, because clearly the OP was not for you, or you didn't understand it.

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

I do believe there are a lot of people, both pro-choice and not, who are anti-tax.

There is a strong parallel, yes, and it is this: many of the people who want abortions and who want to not pay taxes have selfish reasons for their position, in addition to the lofty ideals they espouse. Some are sincere about the ideals, some less so.

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

Wealth != body

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

[ QUOTE ]

Wealth != body

[/ QUOTE ]

wealth = property

body = property

agree or disagree?

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

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

[ QUOTE ]

Wealth != body

[/ QUOTE ]

you get wealth by performing labor. I would assert labor is a bodily resource.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right, the word "support" should have been "necessitate". In order for that to be the case, reason A will have to be something absolutist so as to disallow for any exceptions. E.g. "it is ALWAYS immoral to make anyone provide resources for anything else".

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

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that the majority of the people who are anti-abortion hold that view due to religious grounds. They believe that at conception, god has infused the fetus with a soul and that it is a sin to terminate the life that god has created.

When considering those with the above beliefs, you cannot possibly consider abortion to be in any way analogous to taxation.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that the majority of the people who are anti-abortion hold that view due to religious grounds. They believe that at conception, god has infused the fetus with a soul and that it is a sin to terminate the life that god has created.

When considering those with the above beliefs, you cannot possibly consider abortion to be in any way analogous to taxation.

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP was about people who are pro-choice, not anti-abortion.

EDIT: and it wasn't even about ALL pro-choicers. It was only referring to those pro-choicers who subscribe to the first belief I mentioned in the OP.

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

Pro-choice
Pro-taxes
pro-death penalty

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not really the point though. Sure, tamedeuces is allowed to logically disagree. What was asked of him is if he ACTUALLY disagrees. IOW, do you ACTUALLY disagree that wealth=property=body, in the sense that anything that hurts your property is equivalent to it hurting you? Its more of a "what are the premises with which you see the world" kind of question. Its logically consistent to believe we do not have individual property rights. What JayTee was asking is if anyone actually DOES believe that. It leads to all sorts of complications and most people will claim they do, in fact, believe in self-ownership of body and property. At THAT point, they are being logically inconsistent if they don't agree with the OP.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Pro-choice
Pro-taxes


[/ QUOTE ]

plz to be explaining how/why people should have less control over their money than they should over their bodies.

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

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reason C is self-ownership and that is clearly the basis for the pro-choice position outlined in the OP. And it leads to both A and B, and X and Y. But some people get lost along the way.

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

If someone steals money from you it can be replaced. If someone steals body parts from you they cannot be replaced.

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

"I own myself" leads to neither X nor Y.

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

[ QUOTE ]
If someone steals body parts from you they cannot be replaced.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do fetuses steal body parts? Nutrients can be replaced.

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

[ QUOTE ]
If someone steals money from you it can be replaced. If someone steals body parts from you they cannot be replaced.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your argument is "money can be replaced, therefore people should not have as much control over their money." You'll have to explain because I don't follow.

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

[ QUOTE ]
If someone steals money from you it can be replaced. If someone steals body parts from you they cannot be replaced.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I punch you it will heal. This seems completely irrelevant though.

Also, how does money get magically replaced? If I have to work more to earn more money it is not being replaced. I am just getting more, new money. That money is gone. You've taken it from me, and I will never get it back. This impacts my happiness to varying degrees, depending on how much you took, just like a physical assault would.

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

[ QUOTE ]
"I own myself" leads to neither X nor Y.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesnt?

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

Can you explain how it does?

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

I'm pro choice because I believe people should have very strong rights over their own body.

I'm pro tax because I don't believe people have very strong rights over every cent of the income they earn, since

- that money is gained in large part from interacting with society, and
- society itself has costs (current, future and historical) which go into providing this person with income.

Besides, taxation has a legitimate basis. If you don't think laws make it legitimate, then consider that the government could easily charge a road/water/electricity levy for land it legitimately owns (since most land under AC definitions of ownership was legitimately acquired by the private corporation that is the government). Such a levy could be made equivalent to taxation.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Can you explain how it does?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you own yourself, you cannot be forced to submit your body for any other purpose. IOW, taxation and pro-life arguments seem to rest on the assumption that someone else is ENTITLED to your body. This is at direct odds with the idea that I own my own body. If I have self-ownership, no one else can be ENTITLED to my body, which leads to X and Y.

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

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pro choice because I believe people should have very strong rights over their own body.

I'm pro tax because I don't believe people have very strong rights over every cent of the income they earn, since

- that money is gained in large part from interacting with society, and
- society itself has costs (current, future and historical) which go into providing this person with income.

Besides, taxation has a legitimate basis. If you don't think laws make it legitimate, then consider that the government could easily charge a road/water/electricity levy for land it legitimately owns (since most land under AC definitions of ownership was legitimately acquired by the private corporation that is the government). Such a levy could be made equivalent to taxation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure they could do that and then we could refuse to pay it for about 15 seconds until the government went bankrupt and had to sell us their land. Except they've already sold us their land. So no worries. They may have acquired it and owned it once but they do not any longer.

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

[ QUOTE ]
If you own yourself, you cannot be forced to submit your body for any other purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. That probably means my concept of ownership is much weaker than yours.

[ QUOTE ]
IOW, taxation and pro-life arguments seem to rest on the assumption that someone else is ENTITLED to your body.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you agree that money is part of your body. Most would not agree.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Sure they could do that and then we could refuse to pay it for about 15 seconds until the government went bankrupt and had to sell us their land. Except they've already sold us their land. So no worries. They may have acquired it and owned it once but they do not any longer.

[/ QUOTE ]
How you could refuse to pay it? If the private corporation called government holds legitimately owned lands (roads) then according to AC stupidity, they could legitimately shoot anyone who goes on their road without permission - or require them to sign a taxation contract. People would have no choice but to pay. Thus you have taxation with perfect moral legitimacy under AC philosophies.