Kill all toddlers? Hey, sounds like a plan.
Oh, you want a serious opinion? Boo :(
I think my position is starting to become one of… Hmm… I’m thinking about this… Well, I think I just concluded that anyone who doesn’t have an abortion is a god-damned saint (though not actually damned, since she didn’t have an abortion).
But I don’t know, I think I have to think a bit more on my rationale, though my position is clear: pro-choice and anti-death penalty.
I’m pretty much pro-choice (and a Catholic, imagine that) but this is so silly.
Did the lady who wakes up with the violinist not have her choice prior to this fateful morning? Did she not sleep with that same violinist, knowing that in the very near future she might very well wake up with a violinist attached to her for the next 9 months. Or something. Point: does the decision to conceive not even come into the equation.
Sorry, never heard this argument before and found it more than a little stupid.
You should read Thomson’s entire essay, about twenty pages. This was just the introductory which took the extreme view of abortion (that all abortions are impermissable because the foetus has a right to life) to it’s logical conclusion. It is not a wasteful diversion because the premisses are clearly spelled out. If you believe everyone has the right to life, and that this right to life overrides another person’s right to their own body, you would be violating your own beliefs, acting immoral so to speak, if you unplugged that said violinist from your body. Because if you believe that all human beings have a right to life, and if you are willing to give that right to foetuses you must also give it to violinists.
The simple question, as you put it, might not be able to answer with facts alone, but this is not as much a matter of facts as it is a matter of logical consistency within one’s viewpoints. It is a matter of taking a belief and testing it’s logical ramifications, and as Thomson’s essay points out rather vividly, the absolute right to life is not logically plausible because no one would be willing to live up to the full extent that belief.
Kalle is arguing from extremes here, which is a solid debate tactic. Take a proposition and extrapolate it to its ultimate extremes to see if it’s still palatable. Given human nature, such an extrapolation is certain to happen in real life sooner or later.
Ah, ok. That makes more sense than what you wrote above.
I’m pretty much pro-choice (and a Catholic, imagine that) but this is so silly.
Did the lady who wakes up with the violinist not have her choice prior to this fateful morning? Did she not sleep with that same violinist, knowing that in the very near future she might very well wake up with a violinist attached to her for the next 9 months. Or something. Point: does the decision to conceive not even come into the equation.
Sorry, never heard this argument before and found it more than a little stupid.[/quote]
Your point is well taken, though you do not seem to consider the possibility of pregnancy due to rape, which is what this example most closely resembles, and is something that you must seriously consider if you want to argue right-to-life.
No absolute right is logically plausible. It just so happens that life is about as absolute as you can get. If someone violates your right to live, there is little recourse available to you…
Ad absurdio reductum. A tactic I am quite fond of, as so many arguments made in today’s polarized climate fail that simple test.
Ad absurdio reductum. A tactic I am quite fond of, as so many arguments made in today’s polarized climate fail that simple test.[/quote]
Isn’t it Reductio Ad Absurdum? My latin’s a bit rusty, but that’s what it said in my logics text book.
I just use “fancy talkin’”.
You’re probably right. I couldn’t remember whether it was RAA or AAR, so I went with the one that seemed to flow better in my head. It’s been a long time since I had my last logic or debate class. ;)
I’m pretty much pro-choice (and a Catholic, imagine that) but this is so silly.
Did the lady who wakes up with the violinist not have her choice prior to this fateful morning? Did she not sleep with that same violinist, knowing that in the very near future she might very well wake up with a violinist attached to her for the next 9 months. Or something. Point: does the decision to conceive not even come into the equation.
Sorry, never heard this argument before and found it more than a little stupid.[/quote]
It is stupid, and useless. Excepting cases of rape, which most pro life people (and let’s get over the silly assumption that right-wing fundies who also oppose contraception make up a majority of pro-life people) make excpetions for, along with cases of incest and where the mother’s life is endangered, women who become pregnant willingly engage in activities that they know can result in prenancy, especially if they fail to use sufficient methods of birth control. A more fitting example would be that one of the violinist’s admirers had allowed himself to be conjoined with the artist to save his life, but had changed his mind later. Actually to make it even more realistic we’ll say the fan agreed to draw straws over the matter and came up with the short one. After the fact, does this person get to change their mind, knowing that seperation will kill the violinist with an absolute certainty? I should say not, had the person not wanted to be in such a situation, they had every opportunity to avoid it and now they should live with their choice.
That’s the whole thing with the abortion debate, if you don’t want to be pregnant, then don’t get pregnant! Birth control is practically ubiquitous, and the most sure fire method is even free (abstaining) and even if you don’t have any on hand and can’t resist the urge, there are morning after pills!
Here’s another thing I’ve never been able to figure out: let’s assume you’re pro-life, but make an exception in case of rape. What possible justification can there be for the rape exception? You’re still, in your opinion, killing a kid; why does it matter how the kid was conceived?
Huh? I bet it makes a huge difference to the rape victim. If the pro-lifers are feeling compasion for rape victims, then they’re feeling compasion for rape victims. What’s not to understand?
You should read Thomson’s entire essay, about twenty pages. This was just the introductory which took the extreme view of abortion (that all abortions are impermissable because the foetus has a right to life) to it’s logical conclusion. It is not a wasteful diversion because the premisses are clearly spelled out. If you believe everyone has the right to life, and that this right to life overrides another person’s right to their own body, you would be violating your own beliefs, acting immoral so to speak, if you unplugged that said violinist from your body. Because if you believe that all human beings have a right to life, and if you are willing to give that right to foetuses you must also give it to violinists.
The simple question, as you put it, might not be able to answer with facts alone, but this is not as much a matter of facts as it is a matter of logical consistency within one’s viewpoints. It is a matter of taking a belief and testing it’s logical ramifications, and as Thomson’s essay points out rather vividly, the absolute right to life is not logically plausible because no one would be willing to live up to the full extent that belief.[/quote]
See, while I understand that taking an argument to its logical extremes is a valid debate tactic, that’s all I feel it is. Beyond that, I find it to be a useless excercise for making forward progress on something. If the goal is to debate for its own sake, great, but it seems odd to mix a case by case judicial system (albeit with some dependence on precedent) with a balls out logial extreme litmus test. What it all boils down to is beliefs and surprise surprise, they probably won’t stand up against extreme logical tests (I personally feel they don’t have to, a reason why I feel it’s a waste of time to argue the existence of God).
I believe a woman has a right to choose even though killing the baby is wrong. The woman’s choice supercedes the baby, even though I would never have one myself (if I were a woman) nor would I want my fiancee to have one. I believe a woman who is raped absolutely should be afforded an abortion if she wants one.
So what would I gain from reading a 20 page exercise in taking a position to its extreme, and most likely, inapplicable conclusion (because it is so extreme)?
My beef is that people have beliefs on these issues, then spooge logic all over the place trying to make it make sense. I don’t feel abortion opinions come the other way around.
The question is still does the mother’s right to choose supercede the baby’s right to be born. The question doesn’t require an examination of extremes to reach an answer because I bet the extreme’s make both positions look ridiculous. I believe it’s personally acceptable to be pro-life and still tell the violinist to go fuck himself.
edit: also, just because the premises are spelled out clearly (and I bet most people could probably poke dozens of holes in the premises to begin with) doesn’t mean the example isn’t a waste of time. I would bet that it still is. Also, the violinist example truly fails to capture the relationship between the fetus and the mother.
Huh? I bet it makes a huge difference to the rape victim. If the pro-lifers are feeling compasion for rape victims, then they’re feeling compasion for rape victims. What’s not to understand?[/quote]
Yeah, but the “compassion for the decisions of the rape victim” and “abortion kills a child” principles seem to be in conflict for the pro-lifer. If they’re just drawing a ethical tradeoff “line in the sand” between the wishes of the woman and the child’s right to existance, ok. They normally call pro-choicers who talk like lots of names, so I’m guessing not.
If your beliefs are so internally inconsistent that they cannot stand up to a simple logical examination then they are so arbitrary that they are likely not much use defending any kind of position.
So what would I gain from reading a 20 page exercise in taking a position to its extreme, and most likely, inapplicable conclusion (because it is so extreme)?
Quite a lot, I’d suspect. There is far more to read than the extreme example I gave here, she also takes up the question of why women should be able to have abortions even if they willingly had sex for instance. I probably should have spelled it out more clearly, but the example given is the introductory example where Thomson takes on the most extreme anti-abortion advocates and their view that abortion is always impermissable. She takes on the more moderate anti-abortionists later on, do not think that the example I gave is the culmination of her essay because it is not.
My beef is that people have beliefs on these issues, then spooge logic all over the place trying to make it make sense. I don’t feel abortion opinions come the other way around.
Beliefs you cannot defend are pointless. Yes, you can feel whatever you want on any given matter, that is your right, but if you want to say that you have a certain set of beliefs that guide your actions you should be willing and able to defend those beliefs or acknowledge that your actions are just arbitrary I-do-what-feels-best-at-the-moment actions.
The question is still does the mother’s right to choose supercede the baby’s right to be born. The question doesn’t require an examination of extremes to reach an answer because I bet the extreme’s make both positions look ridiculous. I believe it’s personally acceptable to be pro-life and still tell the violinist to go fuck himself.
Personally acceptable? Yes.
Logically inconsistent and morally hypocritical? Yes.
Most humans are moral hypocrites. I don’t mind that, to each his own, but it gets them in trouble when they try to defend a position claiming deeply held beliefs on the matter.
edit: also, just because the premises are spelled out clearly (and I bet most people could probably poke dozens of holes in the premises to begin with) doesn’t mean the example isn’t a waste of time. I would bet that it still is. Also, the violinist example truly fails to capture the relationship between the fetus and the mother.
Finally, a counter-argument.
If the pregnancy is unwanted, to keep with the violinist example it is forced upon her, and the woman is unable or unwilling to provide for a child, what kind of relationship do you suppose she has with the foetus? Especially one that has not yet begun to show signs of life that she can detect?
I suggest that such a relationship would not be much different from the one she has with the violinist.
Let’s play the logical extreme game! If it’s ok to kill a child that lives in your womb, what’s so wrong about killing them after they pop out? For a few years at least, they are nearly as dependant on the mother as they were in the womb. Plus they are a lot louder and smellier.
Maybe mothers should have the right to kill their 30 year old son who still lives in the basement…
Let’s play the logical extreme game! If it’s ok to kill a child that lives in your womb, what’s so wrong about killing them after they pop out? For a few years at least, they are nearly as dependant on the mother as they were in the womb. Plus they are a lot louder and smellier.
Maybe mothers should have the right to kill their 30 year old son who still lives in the basement…
Why would anyone feel the need? If you have de facto assumed responsibility for a child after birth there are no circumstances that I can imagine that justify that a child be killed, given the options of welfare, adoption, etc.
Abortion scheduled for next week, baby born prematurely at home today.