> He most certainly starts his
> examples/analysis with a dead body, and has the invasive
> investigative measures come next (as a result of the death).
Um, no. He starts with invasive investigative measures (women turning
in their tampons, etc.) in order to determine IF there is a dead body,
in the absence of any allegation based on probable cause that there is
one.
Believe it or not, I don't have to take my 13-year-old daughter,
seven-year-old son, and a five-year-old sonto the medical examiner's
month every month so that he can determine that I haven't killed them.
Nor do I have to go to the medical examiner's office every month to
let him know that I don't have a one-year-old whom I might have killed.
Buck posits a standard that has does not exist for any type of
killing, then argues -- without a shred of evidence to support said
argument -- that such a standard would have to exist if abortion were
treated as a type of killing.
In doing so, he falls into several fallacies, including but not
limited to ignoratio elenchi ("irrelevant conclusion" or "red
herring"), appeal to consequences of belief, and slippery slope.
I think Erik's a great guy, but I know he can do better than that.
Tom Knapp
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
SPONSORED LINKS
| Libertarian | English language | Political parties |
| Online dictionary | American politics |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
