Note: The order of the above words are presented alphabetically and not in any order of significance expressed or implied.
We can take this example another step to clarify the personal value placed upon the emotional overcoat. We realize that there are two basic camps, pro-life and pro- choice in this debate. We are going to assume that one side or the other “wins” its argument with conditions. This example is purely hypothetical and is probably not practical, but it will illustrate an important point to consider. Normally, in a classroom, I present these two words and ask a student, any student to randomly call out one or the other to begin the example so that the choice of which to consider first is not construed by anyone as my endorsement of one or the other.
Let us consider Pro-Life first only because it is listed on the slide second. Let us assume that the Pro-Life group “wins” the debate regarding the abortion issue. But, as a condition of “winning” all Pro-Life persons must register with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The agreement negotiated with Pro-Choice persons required that Pro-Life persons must pay additional taxes to support the children that are born to low income families on public assistance. Let us assume that we can statistically determine how many additional children would be born each year due to abortion being illegal. We would then take the number of registered Pro-Life persons and divide it into the social cost of raising these additional children resulting in a surtax to be imposed on all Pro-Life persons. How many Pro-Life persons would register with the IRS? How many Pro-Life persons would even agree to a “deal” that would require that they bear the cost of their convictions rather than imposing the cost of their convictions on all Americans?