August 21, 2013
I was taught in a college argumentation class that one underlying assumption we use is "parallel case," a specific type of comparison argument. Example - Our school should have a swimming pool because another similar size school has one. So, I began connecting an argument about a pro-life stance that is against both abortion and contraception to other stands that I have. In the blog I had read, the writer said she had looked at statistics around the world, and she saw that the countries with the lowest abortion rates also had the highest contraception use. Being against both was counter productive. To reduce abortions, promote the use of contraceptives, not just sexual abstinence.
Since I followed her logic and bought her argument, I began applying that to other stands that I have, to test its strength. People will have sex; in America, people will have guns because of our culture and the 2nd Amendment.
Now, what is the parallel to abortion? Outlawing guns altogether or gun restriction? If I'm against wholesale anti-abortion laws, would I also be against allowing the free ownership of guns? No, I am not. It's impossible in our country and goes against the grain of collectors and hunters. (Self defense is an argument I haven't come to terms with yet).
Thus, what is parallel to promoting the use of contraceptives to reduce abortions to the gun issue? Is it just the promoting the education of gun safety? What could we hand out to gun users that would prevent accidental or purposeful deaths that parallels handing out contraceptives to prevent pregnancies? We don't sterilize the mentally incompetent on a wide scale. Would we ban all of the mentally unstable from having guns? We're testing that path, it seems.
We don't promote sex with anyone and everyone. Is that parallel to one person owning many of all types of guns?
Obviously, I have more questions than answers, but trying to use the parallel case assumption is a challenge. Maybe the two shouldn't be compared.
No comments:
Post a Comment