tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5313916164911265633.post4588244685743166898..comments2023-08-10T14:58:46.329+07:00Comments on Authority!: Demagoguery or Logic?Timothy J Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10634355920003282809noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5313916164911265633.post-27634609320040966792015-08-28T05:10:08.381+07:002015-08-28T05:10:08.381+07:00Apparently so. You just re-stated what I said, and...Apparently so. You just re-stated what I said, and seem to think it means something entirely different.<br /><br />Yes, Huckabee's premise is the fetal personhood position. TAKING THAT PREMISE AS A GIVEN FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, he makes a libertarian argument against abortion as a right.<br /><br />Your premise is a non-fetal-personhood position. TAKING THAT PREMISE AS A GIVEN, you make a libertarian argument for abortion as a right.<br /><br />Both arguments are libertarian. What's at issue are the underlying facts.<br /><br />And in neither case does a "rape and incest exception" make any rational sense.<br /><br />If you're coming from the fetal personhood position, the fetus is an innocent person and shouldn't be aggressed against, even if a third party victimized the mother.<br /><br />If you're coming from the non-fetal-personhood position, you consider abortion a right, period, end of story, so there's no need for any such exception because your main position already covers the situation.<br /><br />So when a pro-choicer whines at a pro-lifer because the latter doesn't support a "rape and incest exception," it's demagoguery. Since said exception has precisely zero basis in either position, the only thing to hang it on is "I want to make the audience go awwwwwww, poor rape or incest victim."Thomas L. Knapphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16271473384378782680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5313916164911265633.post-46178453870639241762015-08-27T16:18:45.528+07:002015-08-27T16:18:45.528+07:00In your original post that I responded to you stat...In your original post that I responded to you stated of Huckabee’s position that it “flows inexorably from the logic of his larger pro-life stance, and is in fact a libertarian argument… <br /><br />Huckabee's pro-life stance argues the "fetal personhood" position. Am I missing something here? <br />Timothy J Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10634355920003282809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5313916164911265633.post-42070961244657616952015-08-27T15:28:56.082+07:002015-08-27T15:28:56.082+07:00No, Timothy, I do not maintain that the fetal pers...No, Timothy, I do not maintain that the fetal personhood position advanced by Huckabee is either based on fact and logic, or that that it is a libertarian argument.<br /><br />You're not disagreeing with what I said. You're making up something I didn't say, then attributing it to me, then disagreeing with THAT.Thomas L. Knapphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16271473384378782680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5313916164911265633.post-29281696262995869292015-08-25T12:05:25.121+07:002015-08-25T12:05:25.121+07:00I got your point from the beginning, Tom. The prob...I got your point from the beginning, Tom. The problem with your argument though, is that you maintain that the "fetal personhood" position advanced by Mike Huckabee and the pro-life anti-abortion movement is based on fact and logic and is in fact therefore a libertarian argument. <br /><br />I disagree. I say that it is not a logical position -- not based on fact and logic -- and therefore cannot be a valid libertarian argument because it begins with the fallacious premise that a fertilized egg is a "person." That’s where we differ. It is that fallacy which leads to absurd and draconian consequences for liberty such as denying a woman’s right to abortion no matter what the circumstances. <br /><br />You say that my pointing out those absurd consequences amounts to demagoguery. I respond that my reference to rape and incest exceptions is not based on emotion but fact and reality. It’s the absurd consequence of Huckabee’s illogical “fetal personhood” position. <br />Timothy J Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10634355920003282809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5313916164911265633.post-78711487734909031642015-08-25T00:30:52.914+07:002015-08-25T00:30:52.914+07:00Timothy,
You still seem to be missing the point.
...Timothy,<br /><br />You still seem to be missing the point.<br /><br />You are arguing pro-choice versus pro-life.<br /><br />I am arguing the irrationality of one particular intermediate position ("pro-life, unless it's rape or incest, in which case pro-choice") and pointing out that it is irrational from whichever side it is advanced (as a demand from the pro-choice side, or as a compromise from the pro-life side).<br /><br />Your position on abortion may be based on fact -- but the "rape and incest exception" argument is not. It is based on emotion because that's the only thing it CAN be based on.Thomas L. Knapphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16271473384378782680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5313916164911265633.post-86198622755744654902015-08-24T21:07:41.362+07:002015-08-24T21:07:41.362+07:00Oh, I do agree with you that if one believes that ...Oh, I do agree with you that if one believes that a fertilized egg is a "person" then it makes no difference whether it came into existence by consent or by rape or incest. It doesn't follow from that, however, that my argument is demagoguery. The logical fallacy of the fetal "personhood" position is calling an egg a person, a contradiction in terms which is absurd both factually and logically. If anything is demagoguery it's that. <br /><br />Yes, if the egg is not a "person" as I argue, it makes no difference whether it came into existence by consent or by rape or incest; the woman has the right to abort it. Merely pointing out, however the appalling absurdity of the extreme anti-abortion position permitting no exceptions can hardly be described as demagoguery. My position is based upon facts -- not emotion. Timothy J Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10634355920003282809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5313916164911265633.post-19236730008119804172015-08-24T19:33:02.999+07:002015-08-24T19:33:02.999+07:00Timothy,
Thanks for taking time to respond to my ...Timothy,<br /><br />Thanks for taking time to respond to my piece.<br /><br />You make a number of good pro-choice arguments. However, you don't seem to address my actual proposition: That pro-choice or pro-life, a "rape and incest exception" can't possibly flow from the logic.<br /><br />If you're pro-choice and do not believe the fetus is a person with rights, then no "rape and incest exception" is needed, since for you it comes down to the idea that only person whose rights are at stake is the pregnant woman's.<br /><br />If you're pro-life and believe that the fetus IS a person with rights, then a "rape and incest exception" makes no sense, because the fetus is not an aggressor. It may not, as you argue, be a victim, but it's at worst an innocent bystander caught up in the doings of others.<br /><br />Inline you ask me why I don't care to talk about my own opinions on abortion, and the above is the answer: My own opinions on abortion are irrelevant to the discrete proposition I'm arguing. The proposition is correct if I am pro-choice; the proposition remains correct if I am pro-life.Thomas L. Knapphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16271473384378782680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5313916164911265633.post-3980971314708682662015-08-24T17:45:39.725+07:002015-08-24T17:45:39.725+07:00A fetus is a guest, or trespasser, on a woman'...A fetus is a guest, or trespasser, on a woman's body, purely at the pleasure of that woman. A woman may choose to evict it, or indulge it, at anytime she wishes. However, as with any guest that has worn out their welcome, the host does not have a right to kill an interloper while conducting the eviction. Granted, a fetus evicted after 10 weeks of gestation, or even 20 weeks, will likely die once evicted, but that is a different situation from deliberately destroying the fetus though the eviction process. <br /><br />Perhaps 50 years ago, or even 20 years ago, our technology meant that terminating a pregnancy also meant summarily terminating the life of the fetus, but our technology today does not make that decision as black and white. If a woman wishes to end her pregnancy then she can, but that right does not include summarily killing the child.<br />geoihhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06228052543574335663noreply@blogger.com