If negating a law guaranteeing a right necessarily imply a law resricting that right?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
I have a political opponent who insists on inserting in a party platform demanding a county Sheriff nullify laws that grant the right of a woman to obtain an abortion. His intent is to criminalize abortion without legislation and desires such nullification implies police action would automatically be legitimate. It seems to me that negating a non-action doesn't necessarily create an opposing action, rather simply put action at rest.
If I'm correct, please help me construct a logically sound rebuttal pointing out the specific logical fallacies inherent in such a proposal. Please by as detailed as possible.
Thank you,
Daniel Pugh
If I'm correct, please help me construct a logically sound rebuttal pointing out the specific logical fallacies inherent in such a proposal. Please by as detailed as possible.
Thank you,
Daniel Pugh
Answers
3I don't see this as an issue of logic; but rather one of rule of law. Perhaps someone else here will see this differently.
A detailed answer might need to examine the nature of the relationship of you and your political opponent.
On the merits, it seems to me that he would only embarrass himself and the party, adding such a plank.
Anyone running on the same platform is presumed to agree.
His plank and its inclusion in the platform does not nullify the law.
There is no action he could take as sheriff, under law , that would prevent abortion, enable arrest of a woman seeking it or receiving it, or stopping the operation of a clinic that offered it.
The possibilities of malfeasance are numerous, leading to both embarrassment and credibility loss to his party, and lawsuits imo.
There were multiple arguments presented above, but your asking here suggests your purpose is a friendly one, and I hope he appreciates your intentions.
IMO, the key logical argument is that it's most likely inadequate, does not imply/acquire any new power for the sheriff, and is recognizable as "virtue signalling" with no impact on abortion.
BTW, and FWIW, local anti-abortion actions, even if effective, merely alter where abortion occurs, not whether it occurs.
,,,,,,,,,,,,
On the merits, it seems to me that he would only embarrass himself and the party, adding such a plank.
Anyone running on the same platform is presumed to agree.
His plank and its inclusion in the platform does not nullify the law.
There is no action he could take as sheriff, under law , that would prevent abortion, enable arrest of a woman seeking it or receiving it, or stopping the operation of a clinic that offered it.
The possibilities of malfeasance are numerous, leading to both embarrassment and credibility loss to his party, and lawsuits imo.
There were multiple arguments presented above, but your asking here suggests your purpose is a friendly one, and I hope he appreciates your intentions.
IMO, the key logical argument is that it's most likely inadequate, does not imply/acquire any new power for the sheriff, and is recognizable as "virtue signalling" with no impact on abortion.
BTW, and FWIW, local anti-abortion actions, even if effective, merely alter where abortion occurs, not whether it occurs.
,,,,,,,,,,,,
Nothing is illegal unless it is specified by law. Lack of a specific right to something does not mean that that thing is illegal unless there is a law against it. When a "right" is granted by law, it is nothing except a prohibition against prohibitive laws. Notice that I put "right" in quotes, as I contend there is no such thing as a right in the way that most people think of rights - there are no natural rights, only rights that are granted. There is no right to life - unless that right is granted by laws that protect it. If the state can execute a person, even the right to life is mutable.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course