Find a Conversation
|Mon, 04-14-2008 - 4:04pm|
OK this has been bugging me for a few weeks and I think I finally may be able to articulate it.
In general people are called on for having a weak argument when they use a slippery slop argument. So if I say that allowing abortion for severe genetic defects could lead to people rounding up and euthanasing all people with disabilities I would rightly be called on for using a slippery slope argument and told that one happening does not guarantee the other so the second part of my argument has no part in the debate.
Then the same people will say something like, if the gov will not allow me to have an purely elective abortion then they can stop me from having a medically needed one, or force me to have one, or force me to get pregnant etc.
Why is one generally accepted on this board while the other is called down? Is it because one has more inherent value than another or because one support the POV of more of our posters than the other?