Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?

[doucy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I said "if you are against A because it is coercive, then you should be against everything that is coercive."

[/ QUOTE ] This argument, while not as completely and obviously groundless and question begging as your explicit OP, fails as well. It presupposes that there is only one good thing or value in the world, namely lack of coercion. In A's case, the other values to be gained from using coercion may be low, but in the case of B, other values gained from using coercion may be high, and hence we may favor using coercion in case B without any inconsistency, because the tradeoffs between values makes using coercion worthi it in case B.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the values gained from using coercion are relevant, then you must mention them in order for the statement to be completely true.

If your stance is "I am against A because it is coercive, and because the values gained from using coercion are low" that's not the same as "I am against A because it is coercive." I don't see any problem with assuming that lack of coercion is the only good thing relevant to the discussion.