It's obviously a fallacy consequence of belief because since you don't know you assume its murder for fear of doing the wrong thing which is why it fallacious how can't you seem to understand this? If the fetus might be a person we must disallow it without knowing? It's inherently flawed logically you can't treat it something when you have no evidence either way no matter how much you fear the consequences because it logically fallacious.
The fallacy of Consequence of Belief refers to declaring something is true because you want/fear it to be.
This is not that.
Assuming that your premise "We have no information on the personhood of the fetus" is true, then we have two options - to allow or disallow elective abortions, assuming the fetus is not or is a person respectively.
If we allow them or disallow them and are right to do so, there are no negative consequences.
If we allow them and are wrong, then people are killed.
If we disallow them and are wrong, some people who would otherwise have had elective abortions do not.
Therefore the reasonable course of action is to disallow them, as the negative consequences of being wrong to do so are lesser than the alternative.
To be perfectly clear, the following is the Fallacy of Consequence of Belief:
If we allow elective abortion and the fetus is a person, then that would be condoning killing people, therefore the fetus is a person.
The following is not the Fallacy of Consequence of Belief:
If we allow elective abortion and the fetus is a person, then that would be condoning killing people.
If we disallow elective abortion and the fetus is not a person, then some people would not obtain elective abortions.
The consequence of assuming the fetus to be a person and being wrong is less grave than that of assuming the fetus to be not a person and being wrong, therefore the former is the more reasonable choice.
Note here that no statement is being made about whether the fetus is actually a person. And, I would add, no statement is being made about whether the fetus is actually a person. Thus this is not the Fallacy of Conequence of Belief.
To put it another way:
- You are required to answer a question and pick a door (A or B).
- The question is one with two possible answers, but you have no idea which one is correct.
- In the case that you guess correctly, nothing will happen to you as you pass through the door.
- In the case that you guess incorrectly and select door A, you will receive a slap on the hand.
- In the case that you guess incorrectly and select door B, you will be decapitated.
- Which door do you choose?
There is literally an action of government that treats it as neither which is to not make any laws about it one way or the other.
Not making it illegal is the same as treating it as not a person. Like I said earlier if you cannot see that the government not making something illegal is the same thing as making it legal, then you are not the brightest bulb in the box.
Letting people choose something without the government telling them what they can do is morally superior to we may end up killing people but we aren't sure so punishment and disallowing it the only way.
Not making it illegal is the same as treating it as not a person. Like I said earlier if you cannot see that the government not making something illegal is the same thing as making it legal, then you are not the brightest bulb in the box.
So not taking a stance must be taking a stance for it? It's absurd to say just because they don't get involved they must be for abortion. Of course it would be legal but that doesn't dictate what the stance of the government is based on.
Imposing laws and beliefs onto someone else because something may be wrong but have no proof of is immoral because your restricting the individual based on something completely unknown.
If you actually believe that then... I don't really k now what to say... I mean... The idea that laws don't dictate morals... ????
The idea laws are meant to protect the citizens and not dictate morals is shocking I know. Laws against murder, rape, drunk driving, etc... are meant to protect people not tell people what is moral or not.
The idea laws are meant to protect the citizens and not dictate morals is shocking I know. Laws against murder, rape, drunk driving, etc... are meant to protect people not tell people what is moral or not.
Why does the government care about protecting it's people? Obviously because it is there job and they need people to govern. I honestly don't care what people do unless it imposes consequences that irreparably hurts someone else without consent ie murder, rape, drunk driving etc...
Blatch: Nice trap. Zeus: Please stop being on my side, as the argument you are trying to make is making my eyes bleed. To be more specific: You're arguing your bit of 'logic' as though the two options otherwise being discussed were 'no abortions' and 'all abortions. In such a case, the middle (some abortions) might be a sensible thing to present as new and logical.
But the argument is already between 'some abortions' and 'no abortions'. Your argument is of the form:
If A, then X. If B, then Y. A xor B, therefor X.
Which, it should be painfully obvious, is true if and only if A is true and B isn't. (this is not, it should be noted, ceeding the argument as a whole - just Zues's version of it).
The fallacy of Consequence of Belief refers to declaring something is true because you want/fear it to be.
This is not that.
Assuming that your premise "We have no information on the personhood of the fetus" is true, then we have two options - to allow or disallow elective abortions, assuming the fetus is not or is a person respectively.
If we allow them or disallow them and are right to do so, there are no negative consequences.
If we allow them and are wrong, then people are killed.
If we disallow them and are wrong, some people who would otherwise have had elective abortions do not.
Therefore the reasonable course of action is to disallow them, as the negative consequences of being wrong to do so are lesser than the alternative.
To be perfectly clear, the following is the Fallacy of Consequence of Belief:
If we allow elective abortion and the fetus is a person, then that would be condoning killing people, therefore the fetus is a person.
The following is not the Fallacy of Consequence of Belief:
If we allow elective abortion and the fetus is a person, then that would be condoning killing people.
If we disallow elective abortion and the fetus is not a person, then some people would not obtain elective abortions.
The consequence of assuming the fetus to be a person and being wrong is less grave than that of assuming the fetus to be not a person and being wrong, therefore the former is the more reasonable choice.
Note here that no statement is being made about whether the fetus is actually a person. And, I would add, no statement is being made about whether the fetus is actually a person. Thus this is not the Fallacy of Conequence of Belief.
To put it another way:
- You are required to answer a question and pick a door (A or B).
- The question is one with two possible answers, but you have no idea which one is correct.
- In the case that you guess correctly, nothing will happen to you as you pass through the door.
- In the case that you guess incorrectly and select door A, you will receive a slap on the hand.
- In the case that you guess incorrectly and select door B, you will be decapitated.
- Which door do you choose?
Not making it illegal is the same as treating it as not a person. Like I said earlier if you cannot see that the government not making something illegal is the same thing as making it legal, then you are not the brightest bulb in the box.
Great. Now tell me why its morally superior.
If you actually believe that then... I don't really k now what to say... I mean... The idea that laws don't dictate morals... ????
So not taking a stance must be taking a stance for it? It's absurd to say just because they don't get involved they must be for abortion. Of course it would be legal but that doesn't dictate what the stance of the government is based on.
Imposing laws and beliefs onto someone else because something may be wrong but have no proof of is immoral because your restricting the individual based on something completely unknown.
The idea laws are meant to protect the citizens and not dictate morals is shocking I know. Laws against murder, rape, drunk driving, etc... are meant to protect people not tell people what is moral or not.
Thanks to Magus of the Sheep at Scuttlemutt Productions for the best ever sig.
why do we care about protecting people?
Why does the government care about protecting it's people? Obviously because it is there job and they need people to govern. I honestly don't care what people do unless it imposes consequences that irreparably hurts someone else without consent ie murder, rape, drunk driving etc...
Thanks to Magus of the Sheep at Scuttlemutt Productions for the best ever sig.
But the argument is already between 'some abortions' and 'no abortions'. Your argument is of the form:
If A, then X. If B, then Y. A xor B, therefor X.
Which, it should be painfully obvious, is true if and only if A is true and B isn't. (this is not, it should be noted, ceeding the argument as a whole - just Zues's version of it).