Abortion Legislation - is it truly pro-choice?

[brendan]

No, that comes from common sense.

It's more like nonsense.

[Collin Li]

I am talking about Eriny's statement. That is not a valid principle to justify the argument.

Just because the principle is incorrect, it doesn't mean her entire argument is wrong under all circumstances. For example, you may design a more complicated principle (like the one you are suggesting with M, L, W, etc.) which may justify such an argument.

[enwiabe]

I am talking about Eriny's statement. That is not a valid principle to justify the argument.

Just because the principle is incorrect, it doesn't mean her entire argument is wrong under all circumstances. For example, you may design a more complicated principle (like the one you are suggesting with M, L, W, etc.) which may justify such an argument.

Collin, that's exactly what I've been saying. That it's not as black and white as Brendan makes it out to be. That the reason we have that referral clause in the legislature is a complex M, L and W type of principle that protects the right of the patient whilst absolving the doctor of performing the operation himself.

No, that comes from common sense.

It's more like nonsense.

As for you, sir, you still have not provided any semblance of a cogent rebuttal to my M, L and W analogy other than "LOL LERN DAT IN DEBATIN' 101?!!11" - so until such a time as you tell me why X -> Y is a valid argument in such a delicate process, you can have a nice re-read of coblin's post and see that, in fact, my argument has tremendous validity as compared to your black-and-white-sweep-every-other-mitigating-factor-under-the-rug piece of utter bilge.

[brendan]

Collin, that's exactly what I've been saying.

And I've been pointing out the same thing.

[enwiabe]

No, you haven't. All you've been offering up is "X -> Y. LOLOLOLOLOL UR WRONG"

[Collin Li]

Brendan never made it out to be "black and white." Brendan merely showed that the principle is flawed.

Understand this, Brendan isn't using that as a complete refutation of the entire argument, he is attacking that link of the argument - rendering it invalid by the principle stated by Eriny.

Here is a rebuttal to your analogy:

But there ARE conditions on Y. And it is these conditions that Brendan fails to see. By making it a black and white 'X' and 'Y' you remove all mitigating W's, Z's, the odd M or L and sometimes an N that influence the 'Y'! These W, Z, M, L and N's are the universal declaration of human rights, the people that make up the regulatory bodies etc. By disregarding that process, you TRIVIALISE the decision and take away the multi-dimensionality of the argument.

Firstly, 'X' and 'Y' are totally different things. 'X' was an agency, and 'Y' was an action. Even if Y is a function of all those other variables, the principle still blatantly said: if X says: do Y (whatever the result is, as a result of computing all of the other factors), do it.

You can defend your own principle, enwiabe, without trying to defend Eriny's, because hers is probably indefensible. Personally, I wouldn't have pointed it out because it becomes a mainly semantic argument, with little enlightenment and progress, but it is still important to attack it, based on principle, I guess.

[enwiabe]

Right, but brendan said Y could take on any value. I'm arguing that because Y is restricted by M, L and W etc. that Y can never be 'rape' or anything like that. And then there was a complete case of: Look, up in the sky! Is it a bird? IS IT A PLANE?! NO, IT'S MY POINT FLYING RIGHT OVER HIS HEAD!

He missed the idea that 'Y' could be inherently restricted by other variables upon which it depends and went straight on to say that Y could take on anything therefore the principle of X says Y therefore do Y was flawed. I say that Y is restricted to those M, L and W variables and therefore it can't be things like rape or things that violate the rights of doctors and patients etc.

His refusal to accept this makes him exceedingly black and white.

[Collin Li]

You would do well if you stopped trying to defend Eriny's principle. On its own, it is indefensible.

Rather, I would attempt to justify it by another principle.

[Mao]

It is good to see that some still have the courage to argue a point against those who will never change.
I would +karma you, enwiabe, but you don't allow me to.

[enwiabe]

Well, no, I am defending Eriny simply because Brendan has been exaggerating what she said. She never said that the doctors should do EVERYTHING the medical industry says or does. She said that they should do whatever the medical industry says based on X -> Y(M, L, W, N) like what I've been saying. Like referring patients.

In a purely (uselessly) rhetorical style, as far as I can make out, Brendan has been taking what Eriny has said out of context and placing it in his black and white mould that works about as well as a square wheel.

That is my beef with it.

[cara.mel]

It is good to see that some still have the courage to argue a point against those who will never change.
I would +karma you, enwiabe, but you don't allow me to.

Why do you think they will never change?
Coblins views about some things have changed greatly over time

And what point? I don't see anything wrong with coblin/brendan's argument at all.

[brendan]

Right, but brendan said Y could take on any value. I'm arguing that because Y is restricted by M, L and W etc. that Y can never be 'rape' or anything like that.

Industry standards don't necessarily have to be governed by governments, industries (like medicine) do it themselves. If the medical industry says that you have to refer a patient, then it's your job to do it and you make the choice to do it by being part of the industry.

I was quite clearly demonstrating the consequences of the line of argument that suggests that:

A medical professional should do X because the medical industry says that you have to do X.

[Mao]

It is good to see that some still have the courage to argue a point against those who will never change.
I would +karma you, enwiabe, but you don't allow me to.

Why do you think they will never change?
Coblins views about some things have changed greatly over time

And what point? I don't see anything wrong with coblin/brendan's argument at all.

thank you for highlighting exactly what I mean.
those who exercise parts of their brain other than pure rationality would understand

[Mao]

Right, but brendan said Y could take on any value. I'm arguing that because Y is restricted by M, L and W etc. that Y can never be 'rape' or anything like that.

Industry standards don't necessarily have to be governed by governments, industries (like medicine) do it themselves. If the medical industry says that you have to refer a patient, then it's your job to do it and you make the choice to do it by being part of the industry.

I was quite clearly demonstrating the consequences of the line of argument that suggests that:

A medical professional should do X because the medical industry says that you have to do X.

a consequence that will never be allowed to happen, if I may foolish add.

there is a difference between consequences in a logical sense and in a dynamic society.
if not, we would all be bitter cynics

[enwiabe]

Right, but you REFUSED to take into account the mitigating factors. The argument wasn't a simple DO WHATEVER THEY SAY. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would have realised that IMPLICT IN THAT STATEMENT, was consideration for the rules governing those bodies. THESE RULES YIELD THE VARIABLES W, Z, M, L ETC. THAT MAKE SURE THAT 'Y' NEVER TAKES ON THE VALUE OF 'RAPE' as you so tastefully put it.

Your inability to comprehend this simple logic shouldn't result in your bashing Eriny for making a sound argument that these bodies are in place to ensure that malpractice does not occur.