Using the exception rather than the rule

[ThatRobGuy]

I see this happening more and more coming from certain liberals (not all, but certain).

On particular hot-button issues, they tend to exploit the tragic situations of the few to justify things they'd simply use for convenience.

The two I'll use are abortion and marijuana legalization.

On the abortion topic, they'll use the 0.8% of the abortions that take place due to rape & medical reasons to justify making abortion legal for the 46% who get them because they didn't use contraception.

On the marijuana topic, they'll use the cancer patients who benefit from it to justify it for the majority who just want to get high for fun.


When people oppose contraceptive abortions, they accuse them of wanting to kill pregnant women with health issues.

When people want tighter restrictions on medicinal marijuana, they accuse them of wanting to deprive cancer patients from comfort. (BTW, I have a lot of respect for what Colorado did, at least they're not exploiting misfortune to get what they wanted)


Would this kind of logic hold up in any other scenario? If I were to cite the rare fluke instances that a person survives a car crash because they weren't wearing their seatbelt, would that justify a position of "no more seatbelts in cars"?

 

[chilipepper]

It's called an appeal to emotion, and both sides use it to their advantage. I do see your point, so I try to avoid making those arguments. It's kind of like when pro-life people talk about murdering babies. It's meant to extract emotion and make the other side out to be monsters who don't care about suffering, and it's not really useful in any kind of reasoned debate.

 

[mathclub]

I see this happening more and more coming from certain liberals (not all, but certain).

On particular hot-button issues, they tend to exploit the tragic situations of the few to justify things they'd simply use for convenience.

The two I'll use are abortion and marijuana legalization.

On the abortion topic, they'll use the 0.8% of the abortions that take place due to rape & medical reasons to justify making abortion legal for the 46% who get them because they didn't use contraception.

On the marijuana topic, they'll use the cancer patients who benefit from it to justify it for the majority who just want to get high for fun.


When people oppose contraceptive abortions, they accuse them of wanting to kill pregnant women with health issues.

When people want tighter restrictions on medicinal marijuana, they accuse them of wanting to deprive cancer patients from comfort. (BTW, I have a lot of respect for what Colorado did, at least they're not exploiting misfortune to get what they wanted)


Would this kind of logic hold up in any other scenario? If I were to cite the rare fluke instances that a person survives a car crash because they weren't wearing their seatbelt, would that justify a position of "no more seatbelts in cars"?

I feel like you're setting up a bit of a weak strawman here. Most people I have heard supporting abortion and legalizing marijuana do so precisely because of the 46% who don't use contraception and the people who want to get high for fun. While they may also say that marijuana has medicinal uses and use examples of rape cases, that certainly doesn't detract from their position regrading the majorities in both of your examples.

 

[Dre99]

I feel like you're setting up a bit of a weak strawman here. Most people I have heard supporting abortion and legalizing marijuana do so precisely because of the 46% who don't use contraception and the people who want to get high for fun. While they may also say that marijuana has medicinal uses and use examples of rape cases, that certainly doesn't detract from their position regrading the majorities in both of your examples.

I've seen pro-choicers say it's a woman's right no matter what the case, but I've never seen pro-weed people use "we just want to get high" as a talking point. Not in any public forum anyways. They usually focus on the scientific or economic benefits of pot legalization. Privately I see plenty of people say they just want to get high, but when it comes to official groups and talking to legislators, are there examples of people using such an argument?

If there is, the bar has sunk even lower. Sorry James Cameron.

 

[elephunky]

I think people are just naturally inclined to use situations they know of to back up their own opinion.

 

[Redac]

I've seen pro-choicers say it's a woman's right no matter what the case, but I've never seen pro-weed people use "we just want to get high" as a talking point. Not in any public forum anyways. They usually focus on the scientific or economic benefits of pot legalization. Privately I see plenty of people say they just want to get high, but when it comes to official groups and talking to legislators, are there examples of people using such an argument?

People should be allowed to get high if they want to without fear of state retribution. Simple enough, wouldn't you say?

If there is, the bar has sunk even lower. Sorry James Cameron.

Never underestimate James Cameron. He will go to any depth to raise the bar, and he is the only one capable of such a feat.

 

[quatona]

I see this happening more and more coming from certain liberals (not all, but certain).

It´s always been a broadly used debate strategy, and that you only see it when it´s in favour of positions you don´t share is, well, a token of your bias.

These are poor arguments, and they can easily be refuted. Once this is done there remains the task of tackling the better arguments.

 

[Gadarene]

I see this happening more and more coming from certain liberals (not all, but certain).

On particular hot-button issues, they tend to exploit the tragic situations of the few to justify things they'd simply use for convenience.

The two I'll use are abortion and marijuana legalization.

On the abortion topic, they'll use the 0.8% of the abortions that take place due to rape & medical reasons to justify making abortion legal for the 46% who get them because they didn't use contraception.

On the marijuana topic, they'll use the cancer patients who benefit from it to justify it for the majority who just want to get high for fun.


When people oppose contraceptive abortions, they accuse them of wanting to kill pregnant women with health issues.

When people want tighter restrictions on medicinal marijuana, they accuse them of wanting to deprive cancer patients from comfort. (BTW, I have a lot of respect for what Colorado did, at least they're not exploiting misfortune to get what they wanted)


Would this kind of logic hold up in any other scenario? If I were to cite the rare fluke instances that a person survives a car crash because they weren't wearing their seatbelt, would that justify a position of "no more seatbelts in cars"?

If that were the entirety of their argument, then you might have a point, but it isn't.

People seeking legalisation of elective abortions, especially in cases of rape etc are also often not in favour of abortion as contraception. They favour things like proper sex ed and increased availability of contraception instead of that.

Ironically, it seems like you've fallen into the pitfall you're imputing to liberals - you are taking the handful of people who think abortion-as-contraception is totally fine and should be encouraged and generalising it to liberals as a whole.

 

[Paradoxum]

I see this happening more and more coming from certain liberals (not all, but certain).

On particular hot-button issues, they tend to exploit the tragic situations of the few to justify things they'd simply use for convenience.

The two I'll use are abortion and marijuana legalization.

On the abortion topic, they'll use the 0.8% of the abortions that take place due to rape & medical reasons to justify making abortion legal for the 46% who get them because they didn't use contraception.

On the marijuana topic, they'll use the cancer patients who benefit from it to justify it for the majority who just want to get high for fun.


When people oppose contraceptive abortions, they accuse them of wanting to kill pregnant women with health issues.

When people want tighter restrictions on medicinal marijuana, they accuse them of wanting to deprive cancer patients from comfort. (BTW, I have a lot of respect for what Colorado did, at least they're not exploiting misfortune to get what they wanted)


Would this kind of logic hold up in any other scenario? If I were to cite the rare fluke instances that a person survives a car crash because they weren't wearing their seatbelt, would that justify a position of "no more seatbelts in cars"?

Abortion should be available because fetus' don't have the right to life, and others don't get to control how people act in their private lives.

Cannabis should be be legal on the grounds of liberty and that alcohol is legal.

Easy peasy!

 

[essentialsaltes]

When people oppose contraceptive abortions, they accuse them of wanting to kill pregnant women with health issues.

If the opposition (like certain recent Republican candidates) opposes abortion in *all* cases, then the pro-choice side is right to make that point.

 

[Jro]

If you pray hard enough, God aborts the baby.

In all seriousness though, I think that examples like this DO have their place in the debate. This woman was killed because she did not have access to abortion. You might say "Hey, 99.2% of abortions [in the United States] are not done for the life of the mother," but that's still 0.8% that would die without medical intervention. I doubt that her family is thinking "Well, these laws mostly make sense save for this oversight." This argument is further bolstered by the fact that laws against abortion do not make for fewer abortions, but women simply start choosing more dangerous procedures in unsafe settings. The fact that women are put into mortal danger by these laws (whether it's 0.8% or 80%) tells me that this should not be a political and religious football, but should be treated as a medical procedure between a doctor and her or his patient.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Ironically, it seems like you've fallen into the pitfall you're imputing to liberals - you are taking the handful of people who think abortion-as-contraception is totally fine and should be encouraged and generalising it to liberals as a whole.

Did you see the part of my post where I said "Not all, but certain liberals"

 

[jayem]

On the abortion topic, they'll use the 0.8% of the abortions that take place due to rape & medical reasons to justify making abortion legal for the 46% who get them because they didn't use contraception.

According to a 2004 Guttmacher survey (and cited by NRLC) about 4% of abortion were for maternal health concerns, and another 3% were due to fetal health issues. The article states that health reasons are personal opinions and may include morning sickness (which is implied to be trivial. Which it may or may not be. And there's no documentation for this assertion.)

It is true that the hard cases can be subjective, and to me, that is a valid argument against broad and rigid criminalization. I don't know how the laws can allow for good faith medical judgment without being unduly restrictive or intrusive. I can just see an overly zealous prosecutor dragging a physician into court over legitimate differences in medical opinions. I agree that terminating a healthy pregnancy for less than compelling medical reasons is morally wrong. But using the police power of the state to criminalize abortion--certainly before viability--opens a dangerous can of worms, and is simply a worse evil.