Can you give an example of the second type? I see this kind of strawman argument against centrism all the time, yet I rarely see "worst of both worlds" outcomes in a political sense
1. user A makes a comment
2. user B downvotes user A for disagreeing with him, makes a reply saying why user A's wrong
3. user A sees the downvote (or not), downvotes user B for disagreeing with him, makes a reply saying why user B's wrong
continue ad infinitum.
If the fetus is a human person with rights, there should be no exception.
If the fetus is not a human person with rights, then restrictions of any kind are unjust.
The provenance of the fetus has no effect on the moral liceity of killing it. It's a lazy opinion formed by appeals to emotion.
This is news to me, can you qualify this statement?
> Fewer take the position that in all cases abortion should be [...] legal (25%)
75% of Americans support some kind of ban (with differing positions on what loopholes should be carved out.)
> Most Americans support an abortion ban
Doesn't imply the same thing as
> Fewer take the position that in all cases abortion should be [...] legal (25%)
That's probably not a good argument. I'm just playing devil's advocate for why that position isn't necessarily self-contradictory.
Besides, beliefs can be prioritized and in shades of gray. Somebody could value the life of an embryo very highly (going so far as to call it "inviolate" at times when they aren't carefully weighing their beliefs -- few people do that all the time, so we should allow for some lapses in precision), but still believe that certain other concerns trump it. After all, most pro-choice folks do value the life of an embryo highly, they just believe that the mother's rights over her body are even more important.
How about science based climate change where people think you can literally compromise on physics/math and make 2+2=5 because 4 is just too inconvenient.
Edit: (I’ll clarify: Abortion is used as a kind of hack into the religious/cultural background of Americans. It is purposefully used to divide political debate in a non rational way).
Take a peak outside of the US and make note of how abortion is not a wedge issue, which if you were correct should not be possible.
What I see from the US is an eternal war to drag it further, regardless of its current position. Its culture war for culture wars sake.
This is not true. They support restrictions that are way smaller then the "only rape" one.
Most people just don’t know. Immediately after conception it’s clearly just a clump of cells, immediately before birth it’s clearly a baby. Hence why most Americans are between lots of exceptions and few exceptions.
In general, if lots of people feel a certain way, and your conclusion is completely contradictory, you should assume you’re wrong until strong evidence says otherwise. You’re essentially assuming you know better than everyone.
This is a useful heuristic for becoming popular but not for making moral decisions. It is the worst possible approach to forming one's conscience.
> You’re essentially assuming you know better than everyone.
You're assuming everyone else formed a reasoned opinion rather than following the loudest existing herd.
This is less true with morals, unless you’re a relativist.
> This is less true with morals, unless you’re a relativist.
Even assuming moral absolutism is valid, that very much depends on what measure you choose to apply to values that, even if they are naturally quantifiable (which I doubt for morality, even one assumes it is absolute), clearly have no obvious natural ratio-level measure, making orders of magnitude and other ratio-dependent comparisons entirely arbitrary.
Regardless, I still hold that following the herd is a recipe for disaster. It is a form of the Just World Fallacy.