Ron Paul and the Strawman

[Almo]

Paraphrased:

Piers Morgan: So, you believe in personal choice, but you're against abortion in any circumstance. How do you reconcile that?

Ron Paul: We can't be allowing women to kill 8-month-old babies just because they are still inside their bodies. One month later, they're outside, and everyone agrees that's murder.

I'm pro-choice, but I don't mean late-third-trimester abortion. This is a textbook example of a strawman argument, right?!?

 

[Alt+F4]

Ron Paul: We can't be allowing women to kill 8-month-old babies just because they are still inside their bodies.

So....this means that an 8-month old baby is really a 17-month old baby?

 

[Minoosh]

I'm pro-choice, but I don't mean late-third-trimester abortion. This is a textbook example of a strawman argument, right?!?

False dichotomy. Morgan asks "any circumstances," Paul cites an extreme circumstance. To decide if it's a strawman I believe you'd have to have an idea how common "late-third-trimester abortions" are - and it would be fair to ask you to define "late third trimester."

 

[Almo]

False dichotomy. Morgan asks "any circumstances," Paul cites an extreme circumstance. To decide if it's a strawman I believe you'd have to have an idea how common "late-third-trimester abortions" are - and it would be fair to ask you to define "late third trimester."

I say it's a strawman, because Paul is taking an easy to destroy position (support 8-month fetus abortion) and attributing it to the opposition so he can say they are wrong. Nobody who is pro-choice that I know supports abortions of 8-month fetuses.

What's more, Piers is not attributing a false position onto Paul, as he introduced this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act

Which defines the beginning of life at conception, so it looks like he's against abortion at any stage of development.

Though to be fair, he doesn't think the Feds have any right to be involved and thinks it's State's Rights issue.

 

[Minoosh]

I say it's a strawman, because Paul is taking an easy to destroy position (support 8-month fetus abortion) and attributing to the opposition so he can say they are wrong. Nobody who is pro-choice that I know supports abortions of 8-month fetuses.

It's not obvious to me that he's taking an easy-to-destroy position. This would have been Morgan's cue to say, "Oh, really, so you equate an 8-month-fetus with a fertilized egg?" But I don't know what he said because I don't watch enough TV.

The question isn't really whether pro-choice people support abortions of 8-month fetuses. It's whether 8-month-fetuses should be protected by law.

 

[Minoosh]

Though to be fair, he doesn't think the Feds have any right to be involved and thinks it's State's Rights issue.

That gets to the heart of the matter - would Paul consider Roe vs. Wade a litmus test for Supreme Court nominations. By citing "State's Rights" he gets to have it both ways. If it's wrong how can a Legislature make it right?

 

[Babbylonian]

False dichotomy. Morgan asks "any circumstances," Paul cites an extreme circumstance. To decide if it's a strawman I believe you'd have to have an idea how common "late-third-trimester abortions" are - and it would be fair to ask you to define "late third trimester."

As I posted in another thread, according to the CDC less than 2% (about 1.5% for the last reporting I could find, and even less in most years) of abortions take place after 20 weeks. Somehow I don't think most pregnant women (at least the ones who aren't those oddball "I didn't know I was pregnant!" people) are carrying to 32+ weeks and then deciding on a whim to get an abortion - assuming they could even find a doctor to perform it under circumstances other than medical necessity at that late stage.

In short, yes, it's a strawman. Ron Paul is anti-abortion and chose to frame the issue using the most extreme hypothetical situation.

 

[Minoosh]

In short, yes, it's a strawman. Ron Paul is anti-abortion and chose to frame the issue using the most extreme hypothetical situation.

OK strawman! But I believe the false dichotomy is implied. An avenue for potential Socratic dialog ...

 

[Oliver]

The interview in question is this one:




Concerning the OP: No, something isn't alive until it's out of a vagina by it's own.
My evidence? :

NSFW - Google Images Search for "Abortion Fetus"

Image search for "Abortion" + "Fetus"

See? Definitely not alive.

 

[Almo]

My argument is that a bundle of cells a week old is not a life that needs to be given full protection rights. Where the line is drawn is an argument that's important. But Paul wants to draw it at conception, which is clearly silly.

 

[Tricky]

Though to be fair, he doesn't think the Feds have any right to be involved and thinks it's State's Rights issue.

Every time I hear something like this I wonder, why do people think that the federal government should have no say in abortion, but the state government should? Yeah, it's "closer" to the person than the feds, but still, most states are so big as to be "faceless bureaucrats" to the vast majority of their constituents. Heck, most Americans are much more likely to know who their federal representatives are than they are their state ones.

But assuming "closer to home" is better, wouldn't local governments be the better choice to have the decision as to whether or not to allow abortion in their city or county. Better still, why not individual neighborhoods, which are closer still. Oh Oh! I've got it! Why not the person themself! They're much closer to the issue than any government entity!

 

[NoScotsman]

Ron Paul has a weird take on abortion... he claims that life begins at conception...he says that a fetus (being human) has rights protected under The Constitution.... and yet, he thinks abortion should be a state's rights issue. Apparently, under his crazed reasoning, states have the right to deny citizens Constitutional rights?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Every time I hear something like this I wonder, why do people think that the federal government should have no say in abortion, but the state government should? Yeah, it's "closer" to the person than the feds, but still, most states are so big as to be "faceless bureaucrats" to the vast majority of their constituents. Heck, most Americans are much more likely to know who their federal representatives are than they are their state ones.

But assuming "closer to home" is better, wouldn't local governments be the better choice to have the decision as to whether or not to allow abortion in their city or county. Better still, why not individual neighborhoods, which are closer still. Oh Oh! I've got it! Why not the person themself! They're much closer to the issue than any government entity!

It probably has something to do with the lack of delegation to Congress the power to regulate such things by the Constitution.

But you go right ahead and keep misrepresenting things.

 

[Ausmerican]

It probably has something to do with the lack of delegation to Congress the power to regulate such things by the Constitution.

But you go right ahead and keep misrepresenting things.

So if the U.S Constitution doesn't explicitly meantion something it has no power over said thing. Should this not also apply to state constitutions, then making it an issue of personal choice? If not, why not?

Why ,immortal wisdom of the founders to forsee abortion, gay marriage and internets aside, should the states constitutions have so much more leeway that the nations?

As an aside; It is funny on a site where the use of ancient texts to justify silly positions is regularly trashed to see the same "this is the only correct interpretation" applied to another less old, but still out of touch with the times, text to justify positions. It's not holy writ, it's just a constitution.

 

[Almo]

As an aside; It is funny on a site where the use of ancient texts to justify silly positions is regularly trashed to see the same "this is the only correct interpretation" applied to another less old, but still out of touch with the times, text to justify positions. It's not holy writ, it's just a constitution.

No, but the Constitution has been proven to work pretty well when we pay attention to it. Can't say the same for the Bible.

 

[sarge]

So if the U.S Constitution doesn't explicitly meantion something it has no power over said thing. Should this not also apply to state constitutions, then making it an issue of personal choice? If not, why not?

The argument normally points out that the 10th amendment guarantees to the States all powers not either specifically given to the federal goverment or prohibted from the States - or to the citizens themselves.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The source of the authority seems to be the Constitution itself, meaning that this authority can not be legislated away without an amendment. At least, that seems o be the general arguement[/quote]

Why ,immortal wisdom of the founders to forsee abortion, gay marriage and internets aside, should the states constitutions have so much more leeway that the nations?

Well, if you accept that the 10th amendment does what some interpret it to do, the founders fully intended States to decide how best to manage new problems that the Federal Goverment was not specifically authorized to handle.

As an aside; It is funny on a site where the use of ancient texts to justify silly positions is regularly trashed to see the same "this is the only correct interpretation" applied to another less old, but still out of touch with the times, text to justify positions. It's not holy writ, it's just a constitution.

Not sure what to make of this. Are you saying that it is strange to challenge the accuracy and validity of ancient religious texts while accepting the accuracy and validity of the US Constitution?

 

[daenku32]

Back in the Founding Fathers' days, if you didn't want a kid you just walked away from the mother. Problem solved.

I think this is what Ron Paul is thinking.

 

[Ausmerican]

The argument normally points out that the 10th amendment guarantees to the States all powers not either specifically given to the federal goverment or prohibted from the States - or to the citizens themselves.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The source of the authority seems to be the Constitution itself, meaning that this authority can not be legislated away without an amendment. At least, that seems o be the general arguement

Well, if you accept that the 10th amendment does what some interpret it to do, the founders fully intended States to decide how best to manage new problems that the Federal Goverment was not specifically authorized to handle.



Not sure what to make of this. Are you saying that it is strange to challenge the accuracy and validity of ancient religious texts while accepting the accuracy and validity of the US Constitution?[/QUOTE]

I am saying two things.
1. Any document is a product of its time and to stick to it dogmatically is usually an error.
2. While the 10th kicks the power to the states, at what point do the states concede any power to the people?
When the Constitution was written the state assemblies were probably small enough that individuals could be heard on matters they needed addressed. Many states now are probably more populous than the entire nation was then and their state govenments are bigger by a large margin too. Given that I think Tricky has the right of it when he says the power in these decisions should have been kicked down to local level and wherever possible to an individual level. Using this "if it isnt explicitly in the Constitution then the state has power over it" gives states too many powers that they shouldn't necessarily have either.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

The interview in question is this one:

What's with the body-head ratio there?

 

[tempesta29]

While I consider myself neither pro-choice or pro-life, the pro-life stands is clearly the more defensible and consistent.

If it isn't okay to kill a 7 month old fetus, why is it okay to kill a 2 month old fetus? At what point does it become wrong?

Abortion can't possibly be considered a personal choice in such a black and white manner. Taking drugs is a personal choice. Aborting a fetus obviously involves another life. It's obviously less 'personal' than taking drugs (assuming you aren't pregnant), so I never understand why so many vocal pro-choice individuals continue to act as if it were just personal.