Pro-murder advocate, "ido" commented on my post: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/03/illogic-of-pro-choice.html
Hello ido,
Thanks for exemplifying the illogic of "Pro-choice" so nicely. Here let me explain:
ido: "As you say, the death penalty is not murder because it is lawful killing of a human being. In the same spirit, abortion is not murder because it is lawful killing."
Paul: Evan has already pointed out your equivocation on my use of the term, "lawful." It meant, "just" not "legal" (or, what man made laws allow for).
But, apparently you think that if something is "lawful" (read, legal, in your language) then it is right. Fine, let's accept that premise for arguments sake and see where it leads us:
Enter Dread Scott. Scott sued his owner, John Sandford, for assulting Scott. Since Scott was freed his owner had no "right" to assult him. Scott appealed to the Misouri Compromise of 1820, but the courts declared this unconsitiutional because it deprived a person of his property. Scott was mere chattle, according to the law, and therefore could be treated how Sandford wished to treat him, just like Sandford could burn is chair for firewood, if he chose.
So, on your illogic, you'd be bound to say that Sandford was in the moral right, right? Let's not be arbitrary now.
Furthermore, that which implies that which is false is itself false. In other words, a reductio ad absurdum argument can be used against your argument, showing it to be false. Since it is logically possible that the "law" could say that it is okay to molest children, because this is a loving relationship between two individuals, you'd be bound to say that that act was morally acceptable. This is what your view logically implies. The only way to combat my logic, is with your illogic.
Simply put, I don't know of anyone who thinks that the laws are always right, just, and fair. This idea is refuted by the idea known as "moral reform." If the law was always morally right, then moral reformers (e,g., Martin Luther King Jr., Gahndi, Roe v. Wade(?)!) would all have been immoral. Therefore, it was immoral for Roe v. Wade to be heard. They attempted to change the "law!" Therefore, on your own terms you should be against what you support. Such is the illogic of "pro-choice."
ido: No need to specify whether or not a fetus is a human being for this logic.
Paul: And there was no need to specify whether blacks were human beings for slave owner logic! Actually, my quoting the law should have shown the inconsistency. There are certain circumstances which allow for homicide (i.e., killing another human), cf., California Stae Law, section 197. The unborn child does not qualify as one who would fit the criteria of being justifiedly killed.
The only justification (in the majority of cases) is the mere whim of the mother. So then, on your illogic, human beings can kill other human beings for no other reason that they "choose" to. If not, then you'd need to specify why one class of humans (infants) can be killed because of someone's mere whim, while others (say, the Jews) cannot be. If you do specify, then Hitler can specify who he wants to be allowed to be protected and who he does not want to be protected. Then your illogic leads to Hitler's Germany. What happens to the idea that all men have certain rights? Pro-abortionist arguments, boiled down to their essentials, are the same arguments of racists and genicidists.
ido: I understand that you want abortion to be murder, but that requires a change of the law.
Paul: I don't just "want" abortion to be murder, I argued that is is murder. You'd need to actually interact with my post. Also, I showed that, according to the law, it indeed should be murder. Justifiable homicide cannot be appealed to in the case of the unborn human. I should not be surprised that in your haste to be illogical, you support that which is illogical.
Furthermore, the law (your use) does say that killing a fetus is murder. The only thing that makes what would be a murder, not a murder, is subjective whim. As Beckwith has pointed out, if a mother was on her way to having an abortion, and the doctor was driving to meet her at the hospital, but on the way he slammed into her car, killing the child, he would be charged with murder. But, if he had not got into the accident, 20 more minutes the same result (the death of the baby) would not be murder.
ido:I wonder how far you are willing to take this. Should the potential mother be prosecuted for murder (and possible face the death penalty for first degree murder)?
Paul: What's this "potential mother business?" No fudging now. You admitted that the unborn was a human being. Every human being has a mother, not a "potential mother." I mean, every properly sexually functioning woman is a "potential mother." Thus I find your use of the term, "potential mother" to indicate that you do not think the unborn child is a human. So, you'd need to actually argue for this, rather than beg the question.
And, why do you wonder how far I'd take it? I said I was pro-death penalty. I also said that abortion was murder. Therefore I'm sure that illogic has not affected you so much as to be able to draw the conclusion that I'd be for the death penalty.
So, yes, I'd be for justice. Apparently you'd not be.
ido: "Should the potential father or anybody else aware of the intended murder be prosecuted for being accomplices to murder?"
Paul: You bet your bippie.
Hi Paul,
ReplyDeleteThank you for answering my questions. I wanted to know if you support the idea that women who have an abortion should be executed, along with their accomplices. You admitted you do, and I applaud you for your candor and consistency. I wish some politicians who share your views would have the guts to be so brutally honest.
I also congratulate you with your almost miraculous powers of deduction. Let me repeat what I said and then let’s see what you deduce from that. Here’s what I said:
“As you say, the death penalty is not murder because it is lawful killing of a human being. In the same spirit, abortion is not murder because it is lawful killing. No need to specify whether or not a fetus is a human being for this logic. I understand that you wany abortion to be murder, but that requires a change of the law. I wonder how far you are willing to take this. Should the potential mother be prosecuted for murder (and possibly face the death penalty for first degree murder)? Should the potential father or anybody else aware of the intended murder be prosecuted for being accomplices to murder?”
That’s all. You couldn’t possibly deduce that I am in favor of abortion being lawful. For all you know, I am against it.
You go on: “But, apparently you think that if something is “lawful”, then it is right”.
Again, I have said no such thing. You brought up the legalistic “lawful” in your original post to defend yourself a priori against the charge that you might be inconsistent as a “pro-lifer” because you favor the death penalty.
Next you introduce us to the poor ex-slave Dread Scott who was on the wrong side of the law nearly 200 years ago. So you conclude I am a racist because there used to be racist laws.
You made a big mistake bringing Hitler’s Germany into the argument. One of first things Hitler did when he came to power was to make abortion illegal. Mussolini idem ditto.
Next you claim I “admitted that the unborn was a human being”. Read my post again. I clearly didn’t. A few lines later you hold it against me that “you do not think the unborn child is a human”, the exact opposite. How can I defend myself against this?
But of course your gut feeling was right all along. I believe abortion should be legal. And the reason is that I don’t consider a fetus a human being that should enjoy all the rights human beings have under the law. In my opinion it is indeed not an entity that can be separated from the body of its potential mother, and therefore the potential mother is sovereign. Now here comes the part of my argument that you are most likely to attack: I believe that at some point during the pregnancy the fetus does become sufficiently human being, and abortion should not be allowed after that point, unless under special circumstances. Where is this point? That is to some extent arbitrary. Somewhere in the second trimester I would say. Sometimes we have to draw arbitrary lines. Why is it OK to send someone to die in a war above a certain age, and not before?