The Problem With Toning Down the Rhetoric – And Why We Probably Won’t Do It

[Drawmack]

I predict many would grab their guns and pitchforks and jump at option #1 above if a million four-year-olds were being thrown into wood chippers each year. Anyone agree? If so, why the different reacations to the four-year-old vs the fetus?.

I predict we wouldn’t have to because that is illegal.

 

[WillieWonka]

I predict we wouldn’t have to because that is illegal.

I set up the scenario, and you are free to set up your own.

Under my scenario, a million four-year-olds are being thrown into wood chippers. That’s all. It’s happening in the scenario. My prediction is that people would immediately choose option #1. My question is, if one agrees they would choose #1, what is the difference between the reaction to fetus and the four-year-old? Why such a difference?

If one does not agree option #1 would be chosen, I have no question.

Note the reaction when one four-year-old is trapped in a sewer. Or Terri Shiavo? There was far more concern for her than for the thousands of fetuses being aborted during her controversy.

 

[Drawmack]

I set up the scenario, and you are free to set up your own.

Under my scenario, a million four-year-olds are being thrown into wood chippers. That’s all. It’s happening in the scenario. My prediction is that people would immediately choose option #1. My question is, if one agrees they would choose #1, what is the difference between the reaction to fetus and the four-year-old? Why such a difference?

My prediction on this scenario is that law, possibly military, enforcement would put an end to this and so the citizens would not have to. We can throw rediculous scenarios at each other all day – in the end what will actually accomplish something it talking to each other like reasonable adults.

 

[WillieWonka]

My prediction on this scenario is that law, possibly military, enforcement would put an end to this and so the citizens would not have to. We can throw rediculous scenarios at each other all day – in the end what will actually accomplish something it talking to each other like reasonable adults.

Anti-abrtion people have a very hard time with this type of thought experiment. Your reaction is typical. Change the scenario. Add Variables to it. Call it ridiculous. Do anything but answer. The same thing happens each time it is presented. That’s not a personal attack, but simply an observation of repeated behavior.

But the scanario brings out a very serious issue. Do we all value the life of the fetus less then we value the life of the four-year-old? The three-year-old? The two-year-old? The one-year-old? The new born? Is that a common human trait that we can’t change no matter how much intellectual effort we expend? Are people who claim to value them the same just fooling themselves?

I suggest anti-abortion folks will never make any progress until they face up to scenarios like this. I have absolutely no problem saying I would take up arms to stop the chipping of the four-year-olds. But, there is no question I and everyone else sit on our hands while the millions of fetuses perish. There has to be a difference in valuation. I suggest everyone values the fetus less. They may not know why, but they do. They may not like it, but they do. They may not be able to justfy it, but they do. They may say it is wrong, but they do. How do I know? I watch their behavior.

Not only should one use effective rhetoric in dealing with the opposition, but one should first use honesty in dealing with themself.

 

[Drawmack]

Anti-abrtion people have a very hard time with this type of thought experiment. Your reaction is typical. Change the scenario. Add Variables to it. Call it ridiculous. Do anything but answer. The same thing happens each time it is presented. That’s not a personal attack, but simply an observation of repeated behavior.

Here is the problem with your scenario. In the real world, if four million four year olds were being thrown into a wood chipper no one would have legal action taken against them for stopping this by force (i.e. killing the person throwing the babies into the wood chipper). However, in the real world, if someone uses force (i.e. killing abortion doctors) to stop abortions they would be arrested and have charges pressed against them. So, to make it a fair comparison we either have to insert the law into your scenario or we need to remove the law from the real world. We cannot simply take your scenario (without the law) and compare it to the real world (with the law); it’s not a valid comparison.

When these types of questions are asked in a way as to be valid comparisons I do answer them. For example, I’ve already answered (on these forums but in a different thread) the one living baby vs. 1,000 frozen fetuses question.

But, your scenario (as presented) is not a valid comparison. If you’d like to amend the scenario to make the comparison valid, then I will address the scenario.

 

[WillieWonka]

Here is the problem with your scenario. In the real world, if four million four year olds were being thrown into a wood chipper no one would have legal action taken against them for stopping this by force (i.e. killing the person throwing the babies into the wood chipper). However, in the real world, if someone uses force (i.e. killing abortion doctors) to stop abortions they would be arrested and have charges pressed against them. So, to make it a fair comparison we either have to insert the law into your scenario or we need to remove the law from the real world. We cannot simply take your scenario (without the law) and compare it to the real world (with the law); it’s not a valid comparison.

When these types of questions are asked in a way as to be valid comparisons I do answer them. For example, I’ve already answered (on these forums but in a different thread) the one living baby vs. 1,000 frozen fetuses question.

But, your scenario (as presented) is not a valid comparison. If you’d like to amend the scenario to make the comparison valid, then I will address the scenario.

Like I said, anti-abortion folks have a difficult time and want to change the scenario. In my experience, this is the nearly universal response from the anti-abortion folks. The pro-abortion folks never hesitate to say they would stop the chipping of four-year-olds. They don’t ask about law, cite potential conflict with authorities, or demand amendments before they can answer.

I have no problem saying :

1. I am taking no action to stop a million abortions today.
2. I would act to stop chipping a million four-year-olds.

(I forget your answer about the 1,000 fetuses. I think only two answered. What was your answer? This scenario is a bit different because we know how people behave when faced with a million abortions. We don’t have to ask.)

 

[Drawmack]

Like I said, anti-abortion folks have a difficult time and want to change the scenario. In my experience, this is the nearly universal response from the anti-abortion folks. The pro-abortion folks never hesitate to say they would stop the chipping of four-year-olds. They don’t ask about law, cite potential conflict with authorities, or demand amendments before they can answer.

I have no problem saying :

1. I am taking no action to stop a million abortions today.
2. I would act to stop chipping a million four-year-olds.

I also have no problem saying:

1. I do everything I am capable of doing, within the law, to stop a million abortions today.
2. I would do everything I am capable of doing, within the law, to stop the chipping four year olds.

That’s what I’m saying you are claiming an inconsistency where none exists. I would be legally allowed to take a more drastic action within your scenario than I am legally allowed to take against abortion. But, I would do everything I can, within the law, in either scenario.

(I forget your answer about the 1,000 fetuses. I think only two answered. What was your answer? This scenario is a bit different because we know how people behave when faced with a million abortions. We don’t have to ask.)

I am not a doctor, let alone an embryologist, and even if I were a doctor, or embryologist, I would not have the time, within that scenario, to test the fetuses for viability. Therefore, I would save the child who, to all perceivable signs, had a higher probability of viability. Which is the one year old.

Like I said, when a scenario is presented in a cogent manner I will answer it because there is no valid scenario which shows an inconsistency in my ethic.

 

[WillieWonka]

I also have no problem saying:

1. I do everything I am capable of doing, within the law, to stop a million abortions today.
2. I would do everything I am capable of doing, within the law, to stop the chipping four year olds.

That’s what I’m saying you are claiming an inconsistency where none exists. I would be legally allowed to take a more drastic action within your scenario than I am legally allowed to take against abortion. But, I would do everything I can, within the law, in either scenario.

I am not a doctor, let alone an embryologist, and even if I were a doctor, or embryologist, I would not have the time, within that scenario, to test the fetuses for viability. Therefore, I would save the child who, to all perceivable signs, had a higher probability of viability. Which is the one year old.

Like I said, when a scenario is presented in a cogent manner I will answer it because there is no valid scenario which shows an inconsistency in my ethic.

What does saving a million four-year-olds from the wood chipper have to do with inconsistency in your ethics? Is there an ethical question? If so, what is it?

OK. The anti-abortion folks don’t care what the law says about chipping four-year-olds. They will stop it. No need for others to risk violating the law or their ethics.

So, who else here would check the statutes before stopping a million four-year-olds from being tossed into a wood chipper?

 

[miguel]

The pro-abortion folks never hesitate to say they would stop the chipping of four-year-olds. They don’t ask about law, cite potential conflict with authorities, or demand amendments before they can answer.

Any conflict with authorities would be minimal in this scenario. Sure, it’s easy to say you’ll do the moral thing when the whole world, the whole legal system is on your side. But if society and the legal system for whatever reason began to approve of your scenario, the pro-chip people would no doubt rationalize their acceptance of it by concluding that adults have more value than 4 year olds. And reluctance of the anti-chip people to wage civil war with authorities would be perceived as a lack of moral conviction. No. It’s evidence that they don’t want civil war. It’s not evidence that throwing 4 year olds into wood chippers is moral.

 

[Drawmack]

What does saving a million four-year-olds from the wood chipper have to do with inconsistency in your ethics? Is there an ethical question? If so, what is it?

OK. The anti-abortion folks don’t care what the law says about chipping four-year-olds. They will stop it. No need for others to risk violating the law or their ethics.

So, who else here would check the statutes before stopping a million four-year-olds from being tossed into a wood chipper?

So, your response when I answer your question, in much the same way you answered it yourself, is to mock my answer. And you wonder why pro-lifers don’t answer your silly scenarios.

 

[WillieWonka]

So, your response when I answer your question, in much the same way you answered it yourself, is to mock my answer. And you wonder why pro-lifers don’t answer your silly scenarios.

I accept your answer. It’s yours. You know how you would act far better than anyone else knows. Law trumps four-year-olds in chippers. It is consistent with law trumping fetuses, and shows one places the same basic value on the lives of both fetuses and four-year-olds.

I simply observe that many others provide a completely different answer…

You are correct most anti-abortion people don’t answer. But most pro-abortion folks do, so I suppose we would see the pro-abortion folks trashing the wood chippers while the anti-abortion folks watch.

 

[Drawmack]

I accept your answer. It’s yours. You know how you would act far better than anyone else knows. Law trumps four-year-olds in chippers. It is consistent with law trumping fetuses, and shows one places the same basic value on the lives of both fetuses and four-year-olds.

I simply observe that many others provide a completely different answer…

You are correct most anti-abortion people don’t answer. But most pro-abortion folks do, so I suppose we would see the pro-abortion folks trashing the wood chippers while the anti-abortion folks watch.

But, you are assuming a causality on the pro-lifers which simply cannot be ascertained from your scenario.

 

[WillieWonka]

But, you are assuming a causality on the pro-lifers which simply cannot be ascertained from your scenario.

Sorry. Don’t know what that means.

 

[Drawmack]

Sorry. Don’t know what that means.

dictionary.com

 

[WillieWonka]

dictionary.com

*pro-life  /proʊˈlaɪf/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [proh-lahyf] Show IPA
Use pro-life in a Sentence
–adjective opposed to legalized abortion; right-to-life. *

Would pro-law be a better description for some than pro-life?

However, you said, “But, you are assuming a causality on the pro-lifers which simply cannot be ascertained from your scenario.”

What is the causality? Causality for what? There are many things that cannot be ascertained from a given scenario, but can you specifically tell us what cannot be ascertained and how it related to the causality you mention?

 

[Drawmack]

What is the causality? Causality for what? There are many things that cannot be ascertained from a given scenario, but can you specifically tell us what cannot be ascertained and how it related to the causality you mention?

You stated that pro-lifers do not answer the question or ask that the scenario be changed. You stated that you suppose they do this because they place more value on the life of a four year old than on a fetus. You cannot make that logical leap, there could be any number of reasons to not answer the scenario, or to ask that the scenario be changed.

As far as I am concerned your scenario is not valid because it claims that a person’s actions should be the same in two given situations regardless of legal ramifications of those actions. When I pointed this out, you mocked me. That could be another reason to not answer the scenario – you’ll just mock them if they do give a cogent answer anyway so what’s the point.

Basically you are taking two unrelated things and attempting to imply a causality between two different out comes.You can’t do that!

You scenario is like claiming that moonlight causes drunkenness because more people are drunk at night than during the day. It’s not a valid causal relationship.

 

[WillieWonka]

You stated that pro-lifers do not answer the question or ask that the scenario be changed. You stated that you suppose they do this because they place more value on the life of a four year old than on a fetus. You cannot make that logical leap, there could be any number of reasons to not answer the scenario, or to ask that the scenario be changed.

As far as I am concerned your scenario is not valid because it claims that a person’s actions should be the same in two given situations regardless of legal ramifications of those actions. When I pointed this out, you mocked me. That could be another reason to not answer the scenario – you’ll just mock them if they do give a cogent answer anyway so what’s the point.

Basically you are taking two unrelated things and attempting to imply a causality between two different out comes.You can’t do that!

You scenario is like claiming that moonlight causes drunkenness because more people are drunk at night than during the day. It’s not a valid causal relationship.

Well, how about the pro-abortion folks?

I observe pro-abortion folks allow a million fetuses to perish but say they would immediately rush to save the four-year-olds in the wood chipper. So, it seems reaosnable to say they value the four-year-old life more than the fetus.

Now, how about anti-abortion folks.

I observe anti-abortion folks allow a million fetuses to perish, but won’t say if they would act to rescue four-year-olds from the wood chipper. So, perhaps we should say anti-abortion folks are confused and undecided about the value of the life of a four-year-old?

I think that would be an overly harsh judgement of the anti-abortion folks. Suppose they really would rush to trash the chipper. If so, why not just say so? Perhaps because they don’t want to face the fact they value the four-year-old more than the fetus, and that would reveal a flaw in their professed ideas? Is there another reason?

However, to be complete, we should examine the case where the anti-abortion folks really don’t know if they would rescue the four-year-olds, and that’s why they can’t answer. In that case, do they have any value for life at all?

So, note the observations of pro-abortion and anti-abortion folks answering quetsions identifies correlation, not causality. Do you suggest being anti-abortion causes one to abandon the four-year-old to the chipper? Why?

 

[Drawmack]

Well, how about the pro-abortion folks?

I observe pro-abortion folks allow a million fetuses to perish but say they would immediately rush to save the four-year-olds in the wood chipper. So, it seems reaosnable to say they value the four-year-old life more than the fetus.

Only if they state this themselves. There could be any number of reasons that they rush to stop the chipping. Maybe it’s their wood chipper being used and they are upset because the blood and muscle tissue will damage the machine.

Now, how about anti-abortion folks.

I observe anti-abortion folks allow a million fetuses to perish, but won’t say if they would act to rescue four-year-olds from the wood chipper. So, perhaps we should say anti-abortion folks are confused and undecided about the value of the life of a four-year-old?

The only conclusion one can draw from their lack of an answer is that they did not answer. If you suppose a reason for their lack of answer then you are implying an invalid causality relationship.

You insist on inferring causality where none exists.

I think that would be an overly harsh judgement of the anti-abortion folks. Suppose they really would rush to trash the chipper. If so, why not just say so? Perhaps because they don’t want to face the fact they value the four-year-old more than the fetus, and that would reveal a flaw in their professed ideas? Is there another reason?

Ummmm, you’re asking if there is another reason after I have repeatedly stated the other reason. You’re simply ignoring my comments.

However, to be complete, we should examine the case where the anti-abortion folks really don’t know if they would rescue the four-year-olds, and that’s why they can’t answer. In that case, do they have any value for life at all?

To be completely honest and fair, I don’t think that anyone can be certain how they would react in this situation until they are presented with it. Sure, you like to think that you would rush to the aid of the four year olds. But, how can you be 100% certain that you wouldn’t be paralyzed by the horror of the situation?

So, note the observations of pro-abortion and anti-abortion folks answering quetsions identifies correlation, not causality. Do you suggest being anti-abortion causes one to abandon the four-year-old to the chipper? Why?

It does not identify correlation or causality. You are insisting on inferring a causality that does not exist. You are insisting that you know why the person reacts the way they do to your scenario and you simply do not know that.

 

[WillieWonka]

Only if they state this themselves. There could be any number of reasons that they rush to stop the chipping. Maybe it’s their wood chipper being used and they are upset because the blood and muscle tissue will damage the machine.

The only conclusion one can draw from their lack of an answer is that they did not answer. If you suppose a reason for their lack of answer then you are implying an invalid causality relationship.

You insist on inferring causality where none exists.

Ummmm, you’re asking if there is another reason after I have repeatedly stated the other reason. You’re simply ignoring my comments.

To be completely honest and fair, I don’t think that anyone can be certain how they would react in this situation until they are presented with it. Sure, you like to think that you would rush to the aid of the four year olds. But, how can you be 100% certain that you wouldn’t be paralyzed by the horror of the situation?

It does not identify correlation or causality. You are insisting on inferring a causality that does not exist. You are insisting that you know why the person reacts the way they do to your scenario and you simply do not know that.

We have a positive correlation in answers from pro-abortion folks, and we have a negative correlation in answers from anti-abortion folks. So, how do we explain that observation? Why the difference between pro-abortion folks and anti-abortion folks?

My hypothesis is that both groups believe they would rush to the rescue of the kids being dropped in the chipper because they put great value on their lives. The po-abortion folks readily acknowledge this. But the anti-abortion folks don’t want to acknowledge it. Why?

I suggest it is because the anti-abortion folks can’t reconcile their belief about their rescue of four-year-olds with their obvious inaction regarding fetuses. They can’t face themselves.

Now, Drawmark has a different view. He suggests the pro-abortion people believe they will be owners of chippers and would balk at having to clean them if they were loaded with four-year-olds. That is certainly a possibility.

So, any anti-abortion folks out there who would rush to keep those four-year-olds from the chipper? I’m sure you are there. Lots of you.

 

[Drawmack]

We have a positive correlation in answers from pro-abortion folks, and we have a negative correlation in answers from anti-abortion folks. So, how do we explain that observation? Why the difference between pro-abortion folks and anti-abortion folks?

If you want to explain that observation you have to ask the question to the people whose behavior you observe. You cannot simply assume the reason from the correlation. Again this is like observing that more people are drunk at night and assuming it is because moonlight causes intoxication.

My hypothesis is that both groups believe they would rush to the rescue of the kids being dropped in the chipper because they put great value on their lives. The po-abortion folks readily acknowledge this. But the anti-abortion folks don’t want to acknowledge it. Why?

If that is your hypothesis you have to test the hypothesis with questions to those you’re hypothisizing about. Until you do this you are making an assumption without the data to support it.