Type C

Abortion, part I

In the first official post at Type C, I aim to tackle the issue of abortion. Enjoy, and I hope I don't offend anybody too much.

Assumption #1: A fetus is a human being.

Assumption #2: Killing humans should be illegal.

Assumption #3: Abortion should be legal.

It takes no great leap of logic to see that these three statements are contrary. Several of them may be, but one of them must be, wrong. If a fetus is a human being, abortion would be the killing of a human being, and therefore must be illegal. However, as it is abortion, it must be legal. A thing cannot be legal and illegal at the same time, so we must reject at least one of these assumptions.

If one rejects assumption #1 in its entirety, then we are left with a very nice pro-choice stance. Its wrong and illegal to kill human beings, but abortion is ok simply because a fetus isn't a human being. While this position may be wrong to the point of being evil, it is certainly not logically inconsistent.

We can also partially reject assumption #1. If we believe that a fetus becomes human after its second trimester, we have to partially reject assumption #3. The moment that a fetus becomes human, abortion must become illegal (assuming that assumption #2 holds).

Likewise, we can reject assumption #3, as the pro-life crowd has done. While removing a woman's right to make choices about her own body is certainly bad, it is a neccessary evil, as the human's right to life is more important than the mother's right to her own body.

While I have my views on the subject, I cannot find any overwhelming proof for one side or the other, both of these positions are logically consistant.

I cannot see how somebody can reject assumption #2, however. And, if asked, I think most people would strongly agree with it. However, the so called 'moderates' on abortion do exactly that, they believe that it is ok to kill people. Take, for instance, the view that abortion should be ok in the instance of rape. Now, while rape is a horrible horrible thing, and I really can't even begin to comprehend what it feels like, it doesn't justify the murder of an innocent human being, which is exactly what abortion is, provided that you believe that a fetus is a human being. If these moderates don't believe that a fetus is a human being, then for what possible reason are they denying abortion to women otherwise? If, they actually reject assumption #2, and believe that it is ok to kill an innocent human being because the harm of a raped woman having a child would be worse than the harm done by killing an innocent human being, then let me ask you this. Should a mother be allowed to have her baby 'aborted' after her baby was born, provided that the baby was the result of a rape?

I think the vast majority of so called moderates would say of course not, that killing a baby is completely wrong. So then why should they be allowed to abort their fetuses before birth? There is no good answer. If you say that it is different, then you are really saying that a fetus is not a human, then you're back to the point of denying abortion to millions of women for no good reason.

In conclusion, I don't know which of the pro-life of pro-choice camps are correct, but I do know that so called moderate positions are wrong.

posted by gary @ 8:25 PM <$BlogItemCommentCount$ > comments

First post

Hello, and welcome to Type C.

Type C was founded in the belief that there are too many political blogs, especially of low quality, on the internet today. For years, we did our best to avoid political, especially polemic, discussions (online and off). However, we have decided to change that, with the launch of a politics blog.

So why did we decide to reverse our position? Well, two reasons, really. First, because we believe that we have an opportunity to raise the level of political discourse online. (of course, we won't change it noticably, but even one good political blog is an improvement). The second reason, of course, is that we simply can't resist anymore, and want to give in on our own terms.

So what is Type C? Arnold Kling defines Type C and Type M arguments as "Type C arguments are about the consequences of policies. Type M arguments are about the alleged motives of individuals who advocate policies." (emphasis his).

So we're going to be evaluating the consequences of policies? Well, not entirely. We seek more the spirit of type C arguments than the actual methods. We will in fact examine motives, but only when motives are important. For instance, if it was found out that George Bush launched the war in Iraq purely as a method of giving no-bid contracts to Haliburton, then he should definately be impeached, even if the war turns out spectacularly well for everyone. Similarly, even if the war is the worst ever, so long as his intentions were noble, Bush shouldn't be impeached.

What we will do here is examine some of the most important issues we face today with logic and reason, not emotion, and certainly not with cliches and catchphrases.

You could say that our goal is not to convince you of any particular viewpoint, but to make you think about your views and re-examine them.

Enjoy.

posted by gary @ 8:37 PM <$BlogItemCommentCount$ > comments