Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?

[doucy]

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.

[luckyme]

[ 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

[furyshade]

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

[MiloMinderbinder]

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

[vhawk01]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Easily close enough. EASILY.

And I agree with the OP.

[Caesar88]

[ 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.

[vhawk01]

[ 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.

[Siegmund]

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.

[tame_deuces]

Wealth != body

[JayTee]

[ QUOTE ]

Wealth != body

[/ QUOTE ]

wealth = property

body = property

agree or disagree?