Which Of These Three Starements Do You Reject? (Abortion Related)

David Sklansky · #1 06-13-2007, 07:47 AM

Given my recent post about how some people won't examine their thoughts for inconsistencies, I wanted to ressurect a topic I broached before in this explicit way. But please understand that I choose this topic only because it is the best real world example of the syndrome that I can think of.

The following are three different points of view that a person can have. Aside from tortured rationalizations, it is clearly not possible to have all three simultaneously and be consistent. But some try to.

Anyway here are three statements. Logically you must pick at least one to reject.

1. If there are clinics in this country which kill mildly handicapped children brought to them by lazy parents, it is not morally wrong to bomb those clinics, risking injury or death to the killers, even if such bombings are against the law, as long as other remedies don't work and bombings do.

2. Fetuses are equally human as children in spite of their age, size, and the fact that they are inside of a mother and couldn't survive otherwise.

3. It is morally WRONG to bomb abortion clinics if there is risk of injury or death to the abortionists, even if there is no other remedy that works but bombings do.

Piers · #2 06-13-2007, 08:14 AM

Feelings as to what’s morally right and wrong are determined by an emotional response to the situation. Logic is only indirectly relevant. I see no problem with someone holding contradictory moral beliefs.

Its possible that something bad might happen as a result of holding inconsistent moral beliefs. But then the worlds a dangerous place and there is never any way to guarantee bad stuff won’t happen.

Personally I disagree with 1, agree with 3 and have no feel for 2.

darom03 · #3 06-13-2007, 08:25 AM

I have to disagree on the first two as they are actually tightly linked.

If you do not believe fetuses are equally human, then you can't logically justify statement number one.

The third one is difficult to answer. If you mean that I only have to agree that it is morally wrong to bomb clinics where abortionists are endangered, then I agree. If you mean that it is then - implicit - morally correct to bomb the clinics as long as no abortionists get hurt, then i can't answer the question as it is a false statement.

I believe in the right to abortion and does not believe that fetuses are human beings. My choices should reflect that.

kerowo · #4 06-13-2007, 08:17 AM

So either it's a human from conception or open season on tards? Or do I get to reject both 1 and 2?

You should have added a 4 where the fetus is convicted of a captial crime, then is is morally wrong to execute it?

ChrisV · #5 06-13-2007, 08:48 AM

I disagree with at least (2) and possibly (1) also.

Most pro-choice folks disagree with (2), that's really the whole point. Very few people are in favour of killing children.

eMbAh · #6 06-13-2007, 09:03 AM

The only real answer is nr 2 but I don't agree with it because you can't force young 17 year old girls to have a child against their will

bombing an abortion clinic is absurd, especially if you kill anyone

am i missing the point?

PairTheBoard · #7 06-13-2007, 09:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Logically you must pick at least one to reject.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Why must the rejection be all or nothing?

I have about a 50% rejection level for #1. About a 85% rejection level for #2. And about a 5% rejection level for #3.

Why do you think these have to be 0% or 100%? There is a limit to your ability to recognize what is and is not rational.

PairTheBoard

kerowo · #8 06-13-2007, 09:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Logically you must pick at least one to reject.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Why must the rejection be all or nothing?

I have about a 50% rejection level for #1. About a 85% rejection level for #2. And about a 5% rejection level for #3.

Why do you think these have to be 0% or 100%? There is a limit to your ability to recognize what is and is not rational.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

The following are three different points of view that a person can have. Aside from tortured rationalizations, it is clearly not possible to have all three simultaneously and be consistent. But some try to.

[/ QUOTE ]

PairTheBoard · #9 06-13-2007, 10:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Logically you must pick at least one to reject.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Why must the rejection be all or nothing?

I have about a 50% rejection level for #1. About a 85% rejection level for #2. And about a 5% rejection level for #3.

Why do you think these have to be 0% or 100%? There is a limit to your ability to recognize what is and is not rational.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

The following are three different points of view that a person can have. Aside from tortured rationalizations, it is clearly not possible to have all three simultaneously and be consistent. But some try to.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh. I see. Because you say so. yes daddy.

PairTheBoard

andyfox · #10 06-13-2007, 11:20 AM

If it's not morally wrong to bomb clinics where they're killing children, and fetuses are eqvuialent to children, then it can't be morally wrong to bomb abortion clinics.

I understand that we're often not 100% certain of the facts or how we fell about things. I'm assuming David's post assumes that we are, and that, if we are, we cannot logically hold to all three propositions simultaneously.