From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dust In The Wind)
Subject: On False Dichotomy and Implications (was Robert E. Lee)
Organization: Glassboro State College
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:12:03 GMT


( I rather doubt this was the intent, but south of the Mason-Dixon Line a
  comparison to Robert E Lee is considered quite a compliment.  In Virginia
  there are schools and colleges named after him. )

Marty Helgesen attempts to defend his earlier statement that Jesse Jackson
is "pro-abortion" and "supports the slaughter of innocent unborn babies" by
arguing from results:

> Describing someone as pro-abortion does not mean claiming that he views
> abortion as a positive good and rejoices in the prevalence of abortion.
> [...]  The point is that I am talking about the effects of their actions,
> not the state of their minds or their souls.

Mr Helgesen compares this with Robert E Lee.  General Lee was opposed to
slavery, but he felt that the southern states had a right to secede from the
union, and he supported them.  Mr Helgesen writes: "Regardless of his personal
feelings his actions were pro-slavery."

The problem with this is that it ignores both motivations and implications.

Firstly, motivations.  Suppose I said:

	People are killed by automobiles every day.  The law permits people
	to own and operate cars at exremely high speeds, and Marty Helgesen
	does nothing to oppose this -- in fact, he probably supports such
	laws and may even drive an automobile himself!  Whatever his personal
	feelings may be, Mr Helgesen's actions support the killing of people
	with cars just as Robert E Lee's actions supported slavery.

And then, based on this argument, I described Mr Helgesen as "pro-death", and
said "Marty Helgesen supports the slaughter of young children with large
machines."

These arguments ignore Mr Helgesen's motivations for supporting laws that lead
to the deaths of thousands of humans every year.  What his motivations are, I
don't know, but I suppose he has some.


Secondly, implications:

Whatever particular bent Mr Helgesen wants to put on "pro-abortion" is his
business.  However, most people understand "pro-X" to mean "personally in
favor of X", and unless he specifically explains his own particular use EVERY
TIME HE USES THE TERM, Mr Helgesen will be misrepresenting those people he
describes as "pro-abortion".

Similarly, most people understand "Joe Blow supports X" to mean "Joe Blow is
personally in favor of X" -- if Mr Helgesen wishes to put special definitions
and meanings on these words for use within his group, that's fine.  But he is
obliged to specifically state that he is using special definitions, or what he
says will misrepresent those people he is talking about.

If we argue from results, and use Mr Helgesen's unique terminology, we get
this result:  Marty Helgensen's words mislead other people, regardless of what
he personally thinks of deception and misrepresentation.  Marty Helgesen is
therefore pro-misrepresentation.

Of course, everybody has the right to engage in whatever Humpty-Dumptyism he
likes.  But when a phrase has standard connotations in society that are
different from what you mean to say, then it is your responsibility to ensure
that others are not confused by your particular redefinitions.

 --

Mr Helgesen continues:

> Someone might say, "Well, okay, they actively support abortion, but if
> they want to be called 'pro-choice' why not go along with them?"

(Note that I do not accept the "they actively support abortion" part of this
 hypothetical argument, any more than I would accept "okay, Mr Helgesen
 actively supports killing with automobiles...".)

> "Pro-choice" is a public relations term.  It is an attempt to load the
> argument by putting it entirely in terms of the mother and her choice, while
> ignoring her unborn child.
>
> "Pro-choice" is a euphemism, like "terminate" and "product of conception".
> Supporters of legal abortion should not be able to conceal the bloody
> reality of abortion behind a cloak of euphemisms. 

And "pro-abortion" is NOT an attempt to load the argument?

Many people who do not support anti-abortion legislation do not BELIEVE that
there is any unborn child to ignore.  They do not agree that there is any evil
hiding "behind a cloak of euphemisms".

Suppose I claimed that every time you start a car you kill a little purple man
who lives near Arcturus.  Then I call you a murderer, claim that you support
the killing of purple men near Arcturus, and claim that your term "motorist"
is an attempt to "conceal the bloody reality of driving behind a cloak of
euphemisms".

You would, most likely, react with incredulity, because you don't believe in
the little purple men near Arcturus.  But after a while, being called a
"murderer" every day might get to be a little irritating.  It would not be
appropriate to call you a murderer unless you had INTENT to kill those little
purple men -- and since you don't believe in them, you cannot intend to kill
them.

In general, it is not appropriate to claim that someone is hiding "a bloody
reality" if he does not believe that the supposed "reality" is true.  This is
true of purple-man-murderers, and it is true of those who support legal right
to abortion.


> It is impossible to be "pro-choice"  One can only be for or against
> certain people being free to make and act on certain choices.  People
> who are "pro-choice" on abortion frequently oppose the idea of other
> people being able to exercise choice in other areas.

So, are you really "pro-life", or are you only for certain people/things being
free to live in certain situations?  Do you eat meat?  Use mousetraps?  Own a
bug-zapper?  Support military action?  Support the death penalty?  Think it is
okay for someone to kill in self-defense?

If you answered `yes' to any of these questions, then I guess you aren't
really pro-life.  Too bad; now you'll need a new label for your box.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither
 more nor less." -- Humpty Dumpty
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia