This blog is dedicated to the proposition that all opinions are not created equal. The assertion, "Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion," is true and based on the right to free speech, but we have this inane and unsubstantiated idea that personal beliefs cannot be wrong. All opinions require justification, or support, in order to validate them. If the justification for an opinion is incorrect, then the belief itself is mistaken as well. If the reasons that defend a personal conviction are logically inconsistent, conflict with scientific fact, contradict themselves, or employ absolutes subject to counter-examples, then the personal conviction is unfounded and therefore, nonsense. The justification for an opinion, and the opinion itself, must be logical. Logic is like a type of mathematics, except numbers are replaced by assertions and observations. For example, the claim "Socrates was mortal," is supported by the observations, "Socrates was a man," and, "Man is mortal." Since both of these premises are factually correct, and since Socrates is indeed dead, the original claim is valid, logical, and true. If an opinion is the logical equivalent of "2 + 2 = 5," then the opinion is wrong. This blog utilizes these principles to test deeply held beliefs and determine whether or not they hold water. Chances are, you will find a belief on these pages that matches your own. Do yourself a favor, and find out whether it will sink or swim.
A Critical Examination of the Proposed and Failed PREDNA Legislation as Well as its State-Level Equivalents…..
Just Like Attempting to Terminate a Pregnancy Based on a Fetus’ Race or Sex Currently Prevents Some Women from Obtaining an Abortion…. So Too Should Attempting to Make a Law Based on Irrationality and Logical Fallacies Prevent that Law from Passing. Even though PREDNA was overruled in congress, four states continue to enforce Race and/or Sex Selection Laws, in the hopes that they will be able to prevent what amounts to a “Fetal Hate Crime.” If this sounds ridiculous to you, then you’re not alone. And if you are curious as to why many people are baffled as to why laws like this are able to get passed, then I suggest you read this as well.Read more >>
A Summary of the Abortion Debate, For Those Wondering What All The Fuss is About….
The “Pro Life” Positions…
-Extreme, Radical, or Fanatical Pro Life:
The position in which objectors to abortion do not make ANY exceptions. They believe that an abortion, for any reason, even in cases of pregnancy due to rape or in which Read more >>
The Moral Permissibility of Killing A Yet-To-Be-Conscious “Person”
With the notable exception of “What is the meaning of life?” the question, “What happens when we die?” is arguably the most common metaphysical inquiry in philosophical discussions. It stems from the innate, understandable, and evolutionarily useful sense of fear present in all human beings. But since this question is intimately tied to experience, only empirical proof will do to answer it… and this form of data-collecting, unfortunately, requires death. Perhaps our attention ought to center on answering the question, “What is death?” And, even more importantly, “Is ‘death’ possible while we are still technically alive?” This possibility, which admittedly sounds like something dreamed up by two unemployed self-proclaimed philosophers while high on marijuana, can actually have profound ethical applications and implications… as well as being simply “cool” to think about.Read more >>
The Active/Passive Paradox:
How Removing Life Support from Machine-Dependent Patients, in Order to Avoid Committing Active Euthanasia, Actually Causes It Instead
On November 6th, 2012, Massachusetts voters rejected a proposed law, by the skin of their teeth (51% to 49%!), that would have legalized the ability for doctors to prescribe “life-ending” medications (The Associated Press, 11/12/12). Currently, New Jersey legislators are attempting to push forward a law that would make it the third state, after Washington and Oregon, to allow assisted suicide. And, in the upcoming legislative session, Connecticut will tackle and wrestle over the possible merits of a “right to die” bill as well. The bottom line is that euthanasia is once again a hot topic… at least for New Englanders. This puts the tourism tag line, “Come to New England, Where the Lobster is So Good, You’ll Want to Die,” in a whole new perspective. This got me thinking about the logical implications of assisted suicide laws. The legal leaders and political officials of our country seem to care more about public opinion and appearances and technically abiding by the law. In their attempt to avoid ordering what may be seen as a type of active euthanasia, the Court inadvertently and consistently ends up committing what should only be seen as active euthanasia.Read more >>
The Application of the Eighth Amendment to the Assurance of Abortion Rights
(Further Arguments, Details, and Explanations are Available in “An Abortion Amendment Alternative Parts 1 – 6.)
Pro-life enthusiasts often argue that the Fourteenth Amendment’s application to Roe v. Wade was erroneous, misapplied, or both. And while most pro-life advocates and I strongly disagree, this is one point that has merit. I actually agree with them. I do not see how the right to privacy ensures the right to terminate pregnancy. The most it should guarantee is that if you do have an abortion, that the medical records pertaining to it remain private and confidential. This opinion may come as a surprise to avid readers of my articles, but I hope that those who share my views, at the very least, are now convinced that I am not so blinded by my cause, the pursuit of reproductive and autonomous freedom, that I fail to see the faults of fallacious arguments that support it. However, just because the application of the Fourteenth Amendment leaves abortion rights vulnerable to repeal and restriction, as is happening with a vehemence right now, that doesn’t mean all hope is lost. The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution is perfectly applicable. Now, some readers may be wondering why the last several articles on the site have all mirrored a common theme. I can only answer that by asking you to keep up with the news reports that cover laws being passed throughout America “on the down-low.” The abortion-restricting laws in an ever-increasing number of states are happening rapidly and quietly… and before we know it, American women will be forced to remain pregnant against their will, except in the most specified and special of cases. And the women of this country who see themselves as more than just breeding vessels will be left wondering, “What happened?” So if you know a good attorney (or 1000), please refer him or her to this article, and ask them to read it carefully, consider its merit with an open mind, and take up the cause.Read more >>
After Writing “The Lies They Tell,” The Pro-Life Habit of Chipping Away at Choice Comes Under Scrutiny. Besides Utilizing Honesty Instead of Lies, What Other Necessary Attributes Must an Agenda Possess in Order to Qualify as Morally Righteous?
What qualities must an endeavor possess in order to be deemed morally meritorious and/or worth pursuing? As an addition to the recent collection of argumentative essays on reproductive rights, I’ve included as an example of an unrighteous act, the previously discussed (in the segment, “The Lies They Tell”), politically motivated, pro-life habit of utilizing untruths and artifice to advance their agenda. Along with the explanation of this example is a “check list” of traits righteous agendas must possess as well as as the common characteristics unrighteous aims share.Read more >>
How It May Be Unreasonable in a Democratic System to Demand One’s Taxes be Used for Only Ethically “Agreeable” Programs
The saying goes, “Only two things in life are certain- death and taxes.” And both of them suck. What’s funny is that we’ve somehow come to assume that one of them should only take place if we’ve consented to it. I’ll give you a hint as to which… it ain’t death. I think this popular proverb is more telling than we realize. If given the option, very few of us would choose to die, but if we had to, we’d at least like to choose the manner in which we meet our end. Likewise, none of us enjoy paying taxes, and if we could get away with it, very few of us would. But we all have to die to make room for the next generation, and we all have to pay taxes to pay for the things we need. Read that last part again, naysayers- the things we need. Not the things we want. So is it reasonable to demand that our tax dollars go toward only the programs with which we agree or that are compatible with our personal ethical ideals? I contend not.Read more >>