hehe, carat, the things in bold are somewhat conservative in nature (prostitution and drugs notwithstanding)...

10/9/2005 9:28:13 PM

^Yes, I agree that limiting taxation and giving people more choices on how their money is used is conservative. That's why I'm a Republican I suppose. But, I'm at the pretty far left on "social issues."

The article is generally lame because it makes such vast generalizations with absolutely no illustrative examples. I just found it funny that I am truly "pro-choice" by the author's definition. Ironically, my stance on abortion is the only thing that I waffle on. Is it okay to be unsure about that, or must I take sides?

10/9/2005 10:19:22 PM

i demand the right to not have my dna used in any woman's body, even if I ACCIDENTALLY allow her to have it

10/9/2005 10:50:06 PM

i demand the right for all these little unborn babies to actually get a chance to live without a feminazi exterminating them

10/9/2005 11:13:21 PM

Quote :

" Babies piled in Dumpsters, Abortion on demand, Oh, sweet land of liberty; your house is on the sand. [...] We've voted in a government that's rotting at the core, Appointing Godless Judges who throw reason out the door. Too soft to place a killer in a well-deserved tomb, But brave enough to kill a baby before he leaves the womb. You think that God's not angry, that our land's a moral slum? How much longer will He wait before His judgment comes?"

-- Former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice and Gubernatorial candidate Roy Moore

10/9/2005 11:19:43 PM

you demand the right to use my DNA without my permission? I demand your heart on a stick!

10/9/2005 11:35:32 PM

Quote :

"the topic is "pro-choice people are logically inconsistent.""

If that is the topic then I am off topic if i say anything to argue that they are logically consistent, please state your argument clearly. Not ONLY that, but you have narrowed to the argument to considerations to rights of baby, rights of woman arguments. I was trying to intorduce an argument that pro-choice other than rights of the mother.
I thought you refused to steer in that direction because it somehow fell out of the rights domain that you started this thread. After reading more, it seems worse, that this isn't a matter of hand picked issues to argue with, you outright deny the claim

We do not have enough people to raise these kids properly, so instead of letting hundreds of thousands of children starve to death, we should let women abort children.

Do you deny this claim? Is it in my immagination that these are connected? You claim that in reality it is that elusive red harring. Does this mean that if we outlaw abortion conditions for the children of low income families (incusive of single parents) not degrade? In fact, i want to hear straight from you if the following classifies as that red harring you have enlightened us on.

If all abortion is outlawed in this country, conditions for the children of the nation will on the whole degrade greatly.

Do you consider that to
1. Be false
2. Be irrelevant, and irrelevant of what
a. our current discussion, it's true but doesn't have a place in a rights argument
b. something else, maybe you think it, as a policy issue, has nothing to do with the socioeconomics of the nation. That sounds like crap to me, but it's the only thing i can come up with your pounding of red herring.
3. Be true and pertinant. It's not the end of the world, I admit it when i see a single valid argument for pro-life, one good point doesn't make it the better of the two.

It seems to be well accepted amongst the posts here that the foster system in our nation is poor. That is evidence, its dissputable, its not relevant unless you accept some of the claims i have made above.

Maybe I should start from here.

Quote :

"Running in and saying "NUH UH! PRO-LIFERS ARE INCONSISTENT TOO!!!!" is irrelevent"

I am defending pro-choicers, saying that they are not inconsistent, not saying that pro-lifers are inconsistent. If you say that the pro-choicers have that position on a stance of rights of the woman, you are overgeneralizing and outright putting words in my mouth.

Here is an example of putting words in someone's mouth.

Quote :

"Pro-lifers don't give a fuck about orphanages FROM THE STANDPOINT OF ABORTION! Neither to Pro-Choicers. Its irrelevant."

Here was your evidence of why it was irrelevant.

Quote :

"Is the foster care system fucked up? Yes. Would it be fucked up if abortion were illegal? Yep. But its also fucked up with abortion legal."

Why is it irrelevant to say that it would be more fucked up if abortion were illegal? Can you not allow an argument in some terms of severity? If y changes f(y) changes, but f(y) doesn't change sign, so it is a red harring to say f(y) is related to y. THAT is fallicious, an incorrect application of red harring.

from the link

Quote :

"Exposition: This is the most general fallacy of irrelevance. Any argument in which the premisses are logically unrelated to the conclusion commits this fallacy. "

Lets form a red harring out of a previous statement.
We do not have enough people to raise these kids properly, so instead of letting hundreds of thousands of children starve to death, we should let women abort children.

You can say that we are not responsible for the welfare of future people of this nation, therefore the conclusion is not a valid product of the premise. Then we would have a red harring, but I would DISAGREE with with the statement "we are not responsible for the welfare of future people of this nation". You can say the welfare of the future people of the nation is not to be considered in the discussion of rather we should or should not allow abortions, but WHY is that irrelevant? that doesn't make any sense.

The only way i can still make sense of your employment of red harring is that you consider the abortion debate to be a confined issue, only relating to the fetus and mothers rights during the time of pregnancy. That would be a point where I disagree. I think there are many many factors that must be considered to make any kind of educated stance, the conditions of the child being one of those factors.

10/10/2005 2:38:42 AM

Quote :

"f that is the topic then I am off topic if i say anything to argue that they are logically consistent"

no, you wouldn't be off topic to argue that. Arguing the converse is not off topic, my friend.

Quote :

"I was trying to intorduce an argument that pro-choice other than rights of the mother."

no you weren't. your argument was "LISTEN TO THIS BITCH AS SHE RAMBLES ABOUT SOMETHING OFF TOPIC!" again, attacking pro-lifers is not part of the topic.

Quote :

"We do not have enough people to raise these kids properly, so instead of letting hundreds of thousands of children starve to death, we should let women abort children."

please, continue talking about something other than the topic...

Quote :

"I am defending pro-choicers, saying that they are not inconsistent, not saying that pro-lifers are inconsistent."

ummmm. how does coming in and saying "PRO LIFERS NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT THIS, DID THEY?" doing anything other than attacking pro-lifer's logical consistencies?

Quote :

"If you say that the pro-choicers have that position on a stance of rights of the woman, you are overgeneralizing and outright putting words in my mouth. "

I'll admit, that could be a bit of a strawman on my part, but we could also say that Kris is advancing this idea quite nicely himself... It is fair to say that many pro-choicers look at abortion as a "women's rights over their body" thing... Everything else does seem to be extraneous to that. But hey, find me several sources that show pro-choice advocates equally supporting other notions, and I'll yield.

Quote :

"Why is it irrelevant to say that it would be more fucked up if abortion were illegal?"

it is, at best, an aside. The reason is simple: in introducing the topic of the foster system, you are talking about something which is wholly unrelated except for one small potential link. Like I said, the system is fucked, even with abortion. Thus, abortion's legal status has no bearing on the foster system being fucked up. If, however, the legal status of abortion actually could fix the foster system (which it obviously hasn't), then bringing it up might be a valid point for abortion's continued legal status. But, abortion hasn't solved that problem, and it likely never will. The fucked up foster care system exists irrespective of abortion. Thus, the solution to the foster care system lies outside of abortion. Thus, bringing up the foster care system is irrelevent. Seriously, if you want to talk about it so much, start a new topic. I'll gladly discuss it ad nauseum with you.

Quote :

"If y changes f(y) changes"

actually, no it doesn't. If f(y) is NOT based on y, then a change in y has no effect on f(y). For instance: f(y) = 3x. Yes, 3x. Add one to y. What is f(y+1)? 3x.

Quote :

"so it is a red harring to say f(y) is related to y"

nope. see my above explanation. a red herring is bringing in something seemingly related, but thats not actually relevant to the topic. When a red herring exists, the function f does not actually depend on y.

Quote :

"Not ONLY that, but you have narrowed to the argument to considerations to rights of baby, rights of woman arguments."

I'll admit, I erred slightly in my description to you of this discussion, and I'll apologize. I tried, in later posts, to show that, but I suppose I was not all that clear on that. Let me reiterate that this discussion is about the logical consistency of the pro-choice stance. You'll notice that I originally attacked that very point as it was made by the thread's creator. I offered my own thoughts on why their argument was inconsistent, and, quite frankly, the actual rightness or wrongness of abortion is not an actual topic of contention in the thread. Its been hit on briefly, but on the whole, we have been discussing the actual viewpoint of one side of the abortion issue, not whether that viewpoint is actually correct or if it should be correct.

Quote :

"WHY is that irrelevant? that doesn't make any sense."

the reason it is irrelevent from the standpoint of abortion is, again, what are the direct parts of the abortion equation? Mother, fetus, doctor, father. Society doesn't really factor into the equation of abortion in general. Yes, there are times where it does, but if we are to believe that abortion is about little more than a woman's body (as pro-choicers would likely argue), then society really is not affected by it. Is society really affected if a woman decides to shower one day and not the next? No, not really. Some people might be grossed out if she stinks, but thats really not a problem for society.

Like I said, it seems that you have an interesting take on this... start a new topic. I'll happily discuss it with you there. This topic is about logical consistency in the pro-choice camp's argument. The rightness or wrongness of abortion is not relevant to this discussion, though.

But hey, you do bring up a good point: when is a called out logical fallacy not actually a fallacy? I saw a website a little while ago that actually gave examples for each fallacy listed that explained how to show you aren't guilty of the fallacy. I'll look for it and pm you the link, k?

10/10/2005 8:16:54 AM

Quote :

"t is, at best, an aside. The reason is simple: in introducing the topic of the foster system, you are talking about something which is wholly unrelated except for one small potential link. Like I said, the system is fucked, even with abortion. Thus, abortion's legal status has no bearing on the foster system being fucked up. If, however, the legal status of abortion actually could fix the foster system (which it obviously hasn't), then bringing it up might be a valid point for abortion's continued legal status. But, abortion hasn't solved that problem, and it likely never will. The fucked up foster care system exists irrespective of abortion. Thus, the solution to the foster care system lies outside of abortion. Thus, bringing up the foster care system is irrelevent. Seriously, if you want to talk about it so much, start a new topic. I'll gladly discuss it ad nauseum with you."

The status of the foster care system isn't directly what we're concerned with. You've stated a couple of times that, in your words: "The fucked up foster care system exists irrespective of abortion." Sure. I'm not arguing the source of the issues in the foster care system. I've not argued at any point on how to fix the system.

In a discussion on the logical inconsistancies of Pro-Choice banter, I'm putting forth the Pro-Choice argument that abortion should not be made illegal, because the quality of life for the children subsequently "forced" to be born would across the board be horrible. That statement isn't guarenteed, I'll be happy to agree with that. But what I was originally trying to make a point of, is that if the foster system sucks balls now, and you take 300,000+ new orphans and dump them in the system every year, most of those kids lives is going to suck more balls.

I feel like Pro-Lifers need to address this issue, as it is a valid concern put forth by the Pro-Choice side of the argument. Most Pro-Lifers seem to ignore it. By ignoring it, they make it look like they don't give a shit about the kids after their born. I've personally never had a single Pro-Life advocate come up to me, give me the Pro-Life line for about 4 or 5 minutes then tastefully tag on their personal idea of how society is going to foot the bill for these 800,000 new kids a year. As a Pro-Choice advocate, I don't have to do that because they'd be aborted.

10/10/2005 8:56:08 AM

Quote :

"The rightness or wrongness of abortion is not relevant to this discussion"

This would be the key. I knew you comming from somewhere, but i just couldn't get it from what you had said so far. My arguments led there and i was happy. But before arguing more, I think it's worthwile to say that arguments for pro-choice extend further than what is covered right here. I think that helps the "pro-choice is not inconsistant argument".

To narrow down to the argument of "Women should have control of their own bodies, therefore we should allow abortion", I see as many flaws in that argument as flaws in the first post here. I am a big user of utilitarian ethics, which doesn't even have anything to say about that statement. An in fact, bring it out of the lawmaking picture, I, and almost all pro-choices, pro-lifers, whoever think that on a personal level avoidance of abortion is a good thing.

I can't say that anything about connecting the abortion to sin taxes, and other choice related policy issues is valid. That is a huge generalization of "pro-choicers", if you wanted to attack democratic pro-choicers, well... that's pretty much what the topic is. Lets say we have a libertarian. Hell, they DO want to legalize drugs, deal away with sin taxes, and want to give people more personal choice in most all arenas, including abortion. There is nothing inconsistant with that.

Also, the general claim that "someone who supports this should support this one too" is a huge mistake in general. I've watched too many political commentary shows that boiled down to one guy saying to the other "thanks for telling me what I believe... fucker". While it is established that someone who is pro-choice in regards to abortion can be aginst a tax on fast food b/c it's unhealthy, it's also quite possible and acceptable for the abortion pro-choice to be for a tax on unhealthy food. The issues are quite different, it sounds an oddball combination, but arguing that women should have the right to decide to abort and that the govnt. should encourage production of healthy food is quite doable. The act of abortion doesn't greatly harm the womans body, while greesy food slowly kills people who eat it like smoking. Some counter arguments for the 2 are the fetus rights (for instance) in the first, and the rights of McDonalds in the second. I can hold the choice rights of a woman high, the human rights of a fetus low, and the choice rights of McDonalds low, no problem. It is not the slippery-slope of death to be in favor of personal rights, but strict on what corporations are allowed to do (democrats aren't a contradiction by just their existance). Going to issues like prostitution, I can argue that prostitution brings pain and suffering to women of the nation and legalization would worsen things (utilitarian, and i'm not saying this one isn't disputable, but suffice this to qualify as consistant in one individuals beliefs), while abortion doesn't make anyone suffer (again, things can change depending on where you place the value of the life of the fetus, i'm assuming next to nothing). If you can see more than one layer to the complexity of these issues, in terms of strictly consistancy, I don't think you can get too far. Not to mention that it is a basis error to assign issues that you think someone holds as call them inconsistant, you're the one who picked those.

10/10/2005 9:12:22 AM

Quote :

"But what I was originally trying to make a point of, is that if the foster system sucks balls now, and you take 300,000+ new orphans and dump them in the system every year, most of those kids lives is going to suck more balls."

and that is irrelevant to the discussion of "are pro-choicers logically consistant?" start a new topic. its a good topic.l so go start the damned thing!

Quote :

"I feel like Pro-Lifers need to address this issue, as it is a valid concern put forth by the Pro-Choice side of the argument."

great, start a new topic!

Quote :

"To narrow down to the argument of "Women should have control of their own bodies, therefore we should allow abortion", I see as many flaws in that argument as flaws in the first post here."

well, then show me what other major points Pro-Choice advocates have. Actually debating the merits of how the foster care system is affected by abortion doesn't actually show that Pro-Choice advocates bring that up as a main issue. Like I said, show me several prominent pro-choice advocates whose main argument isn't "its a woman's body." Show them to me. If you are trying to say that there are more arguments on the pro-choice side, you've got to back it up. Simply bringing up your own argument is anecdotal, at best.
Furthermore, although I don't put much stock in the labels themselves, it is worth noting what the label pro-choice advocates give themselves: Pro Choice. Nowhere in that label does it say anything about the foster care system or anything other than the mother's right to choose. And while you could point out the apparent inconsistency of the Pro-Life side of the house with respect to executions and such, that would be an example of tu quoque and as such doesn't actually address the point of the meaning of "pro-choice."

Quote :

"I can't say that anything about connecting the abortion to sin taxes, and other choice related policy issues is valid."

Normally, no, but in a discussion about how "pro" choice a "pro-choicer" is, its actually quite relevant. To the issue of abortion being legal, itself? Not relevant at all, because its another example of tu quoque, only this time from the Pro-Life side.

Quote :

"well... that's pretty much what the topic is."

yes, it could appear that way, but you could also come in and defend pro-choicers as well, which is the obvious other side of the discussion to take...

Quote :

"Also, the general claim that "someone who supports this should support this one too" is a huge mistake in general."

damn skippy its stupid. Thats why its also a logical fallacy. But, the initial claim in this discussion is not general. Its "pro-choice isn't really about 'choice.' here's why." But yes, his logic is still flawed, as I pointed out in my first few posts...

Quote :

"If you can see more than one layer to the complexity of these issues, in terms of strictly consistancy, I don't think you can get too far."

yes, and no. if the issue in question was about an overall guiding principle in life, then you can see a lot of connections. If pro-choicers were really all about choice, then we could logically extrapolate different opinions they should have. However, they aren't really about choice in general, just choice when it comes to abortion. Maybe you should attack his argument concerning the oft-used appeal by pro-choicers to personal choice, as that is a statement upon which his whole post is based.

Basically, he says this:
"Pro choicers often appeal to the concept of personal choice to support their claims that abortion should be legal. If we take this notion of personal choice to actually be important to them, then lets look at some logical consequences of that belief."

then he goes on to try and show how choice isn't really important. I suppose his ultimate goal is to trash Pro-Choicers in general by showing them to be logically inconsistent, or even full of shit with their cries of "personal choice." There's not much else topicwise that he can logically argue without falling into several logical fallacies.

Quote :

"Not to mention that it is a basis error to assign issues that you think someone holds as call them inconsistant"

true again, but if he is questioning whether they are really for "choice," then its pretty much OK to say that they should support issues that are indicative of supporting "choice"...

10/10/2005 11:00:28 AM

Quote :

"The same goes for abortion. if the mother is actually the only party involved, then yes, its her damned decision. However, if anyone else is involved, then its not as simple a matter."

Now explain to me how that justifies forcing her to do something she doesn't want to with her body.

Quote :

"I would say that that is likely the whole problem inherent in the discussion of abortion. Thank you SO MUCH for finally hitting on that problem!"

Thanks for not addressing my question. Telling me what my question was does not qualify as a proper response.

Quote :

"No due process has been given TO THE FETUS."

Yes it has, the fetus has no due process. If the mom wants an abortion it is legal for her to do so.

Quote :

"Rights were denied to blacks, and they were denied without due process, thus such laws were illegal."

No, the the laws allowed for it, so due process was served. Thus if at the time, killing your slave was legal, killing that slave wouldn't have technically been murder, because the law allowed for it.

LOOK AT YOUR ARGUEMENT HERE AGIAN: You are saying that completely legal abortion is somehow illegal killing. You lose.

Quote :

"So, I suppose Jim Crow laws were legal because they were laws, and were thus legal, right?"

Yep. The law doesn't allow for you to interpret it yourself and apply it as you see fit. That's why we have judges.

Quote :

"Where ANYWHERE in the legal system has the actual matter of the LIFE and RIGHTS of the fetus been discussed?"

The same place where the life and rights of semen and periods is discussed. It's just silly.

Quote :

"Therefor, are not those who feel the fetus's rights are being ignored obligated to speak up?"

They are, but that doesn't justify you using the word murder incorrectly.

Quote :

"Thats great. But, he stated his beliefs were the reason that his views on abortion, and those of the current laws, are logically consistent"

Where did he state that? I recall him saying "Yes".

Quote :

"So I guess blacks really were subhumans pre-civil rights legislation then, right?"

According to the law.

10/10/2005 12:55:12 PM