|
|
#22
10-29-2007, 11:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
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". 
|
|
#23
10-29-2007, 11:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#24
10-29-2007, 11:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#26
10-29-2007, 11:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#27
10-29-2007, 11:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#28
10-29-2007, 11:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
