Pro-abortion Fallacies-R-Us and more

I participated on an interesting thread at a blog hosted by a guy named Ed. I typically make it a practice to ignore it when Ed links to my site. But it has been a while since he (the first person banned from commenting at my site) had linked, so curiosity got the best of me. I discovered that Ed had been lying about me multiple times and continued to do so on that thread. 

But what was most interesting was the non-stop fallacies they threw out to defend abortion.  I finally made a summary to I could just copy and paste the responses when they would repeat them.

1. I don’t throw the word “liar” around lightly. People can be mistaken, and that isn’t lying. But when one is corrected, when one clearly knows better and when one deliberately repeats untruths then we have a name for that person: Liar.

The pattern was repetitive: Ed uses a ridiculous logical fallacy, Neil calls him on it, Ed lies and said Neil did it, Ed fails to concede the obvious or apologize, Ed uses the fallacy again. I addressed Ed’s use of a guilt by association fallacy regarding Joseph Stalin multiple times on my blog. I also confronted him about it on other blogs. And he used it reflexively on his blog. So the origin couldn’t have been more clear. Just read the comments section of this post and search for Stalin. And as a dog returns to his vomit, so Ed returns to his embarrassing use of a logical fallacy.

But then I came back to this site and found that he had accused me of bringing it up!

I objected to Simpson’s off-the-wall claim trying to link Darwin to Stalin in an exchange some time ago.

It’s a reference to last year’s discussions with Simpson, in which he inaccurately tried to link Stalin to Darwin’s sins.

I couldn’t care less what Ed thinks of me, but I was surprised to see him lying to thoroughly and repeatedly. I figured a public service announcement was in order.

Ed also breaks his own rule a lot:

“Darrell’s Corollary of Godwin’s Law is that if posters in an internet discussion know to avoid the mention of Hitler to avoid their opponents’ invoking Godwin’s law, they’ll compare the actions to Stalin instead.”

After countless comments he finally conceded what he had done.  No accompanying apology, but I didn’t expect that.

2. You see, the most important and amusing part of the thread is that the Mr. Science People deliberately and repeatedly ignore the scientific fact that a new human life begins at conception. They aren’t using intellectual honesty to follow the truth where it leads. They come to science with their biases and twist the data to conform to them. Propping up their pro-abortion views puts them at odds with scientific facts but they work hard to rationalize them away. They use (bad) philosophical arguments and not scientific ones.

If he was really pro-science he’d be pro-life. Embryology textbooks are clear about when life begins, but he chooses to rationalize that away to support the legalized crushing and dismemberment of 3,000+ human beings per day. It is so ironic that he cranks out posts about “dangerous, anti-science bigoted ignorance” when his views on abortion fit that title perfectly.

Nothing is more dangerous to the unborn than abortion. If you get out of the womb alive you are very lucky. Abortion constitutes 99% of all murders.

3. Nick repeatedly tried the Pro-lifers don’t care about kids after they are born canard. I demonstrated multiple times that one can protest immoral acts without taking ownership of them. If the government decided to jail or kill all homeless people, Nick could protest that without having to let them all live with him.

I also pointed out how even though pro-lifers don’t have to adopt all the kids to protest the evils of abortion, we do all sorts of things to help with our own time and money.

4. Ed and Nick have lived in Liberal Land too long. The concept of personal responsibility is foreign to them. They continually argue that I am “forcing” these women to have babies.   I’m not sure if they thought I’m the father of 1,000,000+ pregnancies per year (Really, I’m not.  I’m a serial monogamist) or if they think these are all unplanned in vitro fertilizations.

But these people have already created new life. I’m just interested in protecting that new life. But Ed & Nick reflexively latch on to the prejudice that to be pro-life is to want to control women. Tell that to all the female pro-lifers.

5. They continually abandon scientific arguments and use faulty “if legal, then moral” reasoning. Yes, abortions are legal. But while slavery used to be legal, it was always immoral.

6. They ignore the scientific fact that these aren’t hypothetical human beings or potential human beings. They already exist on planet earth. They are at the proper stage of development for their age.

7. They both exercise anti-religious bigotry and prejudices to dismiss my views. I pointed out that while I am a Christian, I save biblical arguments for those who claim to be Christians. The pro-life case is so powerful that you don’t even need the Bible to demonstrate it. And of course, there is nothing illogical about using my religious views to inform my political views. No one seems to protest when I use my religious views to oppose stealing, perjury and murder. Oh, and there is also that First Amendment thingy.

They missed the irony, of course, that they also used religious arguments to justify their positions. Nick used a bad exegesis of Exodus to rationalize abortion. Not only did he cherry-pick a mistranslation to make his point, but he ignored the legions of pro-life verses, starting with “don’t murder.” But my main point is by his own reasoning Nick is forcing his pro-abortion religious views on innocent unborn children. What hypocrisy!

In addition, he just repeated his claim that Exodus supports abortion but never defended it with facts. He didn’t even attempt to refute the scholarship in the link that I provided, which went back to the original language and demonstrated how some poor translations led to pro-abortionists misusing the passage.

8. And of course they trotted out the “anti-women” ad hominem attack. They had no response to my questions about why they support gender selection abortions, virtually all of which destroy innocent female human beings. They ignore the reality of post abortion trauma and the chauvinism of abortion, which puts the burden on the woman to use it as a form of birth control. I also pointed out how the pro-life position is actually pro-women. Many women are pushed into abortions by men who won’t take responsibility for their actions.

I reject the reasoning that says women must have the ability to kill their unborn children to prove their worth and to fit into society, the workplace and politics.

9. Nick tried to act like I was hypocritical for not wanting to finance the care of unwanted children, but he didn’t realize that he was pointing fingers back at himself. In his “kindness” he unwittingly concedes that he would prefer that unborn human beings be destroyed rather than inconvenience him.

10. Ed objected to a link I posted with images of abortion. But if abortion is a moral good and doesn’t kill an innocent human being then what could be wrong with showing images of it? And why is Ed so concerned about the innocence of these alleged children who read his blog? He fully supported the “rights” of their mothers to have them crushed and dismembered before they were born, and now he wants to profess his concern that viewing images of this allegedly moral procedure will harm them?

11. They tried the angle multiple times that I don’t use evidence, but I’m the one who used evidence throughout: Evidence that Ed is a unrepentant liar, evidence that the book of Exodus does not support abortion and evidence that a new human life is formed at conception. They were the ones with the fact-free fallacy-fest.

12. Ed claimed that I want to poison Africa. Sure, Ed. I pointed out that I’ve been on mission trips there three times, have donated tens of thousands of dollars to various causes there and have had a World Vision Sponsor child there for ten years. I don’t say that out of pride, just to point out how ridiculous it is for him to say I want to poison Africa. I’m still waiting to hear just how much Ed has contributed to Africa in terms of his own time and money.

13. Ed added these new lies:

The point is that you advocate creationism to be taught to innocent children in schools.

Nick parroted Ed’s lie that I push for creationism to be taught in public schools and he made all sorts of vicious accusations in doing so. I challenged them to find any evidence of that in the nearly 1,000 posts I’ve done on my blog. They found none. I am on record for saying that I don’t want non-Christians or theologically Liberal Christians (but I repeat myself?) to teach the Bible in public schools. They would probably teach that all religions lead to God, Jesus is not God, there is no Hell, the Bible can’t be relied upon, God is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage, etc.

Was Nick lying? I don’t think so. I think he was using bad discernment in trusting Ed without evidence and was prideful in failing to apologize for his outburst.

14. Nick claimed that since it would be ineffective to make abortion illegal because it wouldn’t eliminate all abortions. That reasoning would mean we’d get rid of all laws, because despite the risks people still steal, rape, murder, etc. So his argument is faulty because it proves to much.

15. Ed claimed I was bigoted for disagreeing with Rachel Carson because she was unmarried. The only problems with that are a) I didn’t know she was unmarried, b) it wouldn’t have mattered even if I had known and c) using that “reasoning” you could never disagree with a woman or any minority without Ed calling you a bigot.

16. Ed tried the miscarriage canard by implying that abortion must not be wrong if miscarriages happen so frequently. It is hard to believe I have to explain this, but killing an infant by chopping him up is a “little” different than if the infant succumbed to SIDS. In the same way, the unborn are scientifically proven to be human beings. Death via abortion is wildly different than a miscarriage.

17. Nick tried the “better dead than poor” line. I wonder why it took him so long. It is as fallacious as ever. The “your pro-life policies will result in more poor” line ignores the fact that Nick’s pro-abortion policies will result in more dead.

So according to Nick, it would be good to kill poor children.

It also ignores the fact that only 23% of abortions are due to inadequate funds at the moment, not that it would be a moral reason to kill an innocent human being.  The source of that figure was from Planned Parenthood’s research arm.

18. Ed tried the “keep government out of bedrooms” fallacy, which ignores that the government shouldn’t care where murders are committed. You can’t kill a toddler in your bedroom. And of course, if he really held that view he’d oppose Planned Parenthood funding and involvement in schools, as well as any government involvement with Gardasil.

19. Ed repeatedly used the viability argument, concluding that abortion was acceptable because the unborn weren’t viable. That fails on many levels. Lots of people outside the womb aren’t viable without care (e.g., infants) but we don’t let people chop them up. And many human beings who are aborted are viable. The viability argument is philosophical, not scientific. The science is clear: Abortion kills an innocent human being.

Also, that argument implies that Ed is firmly against partial birth abortions (aka infanticide), which, if true, he has never bothered to mention.

20. If you ban Ed from your blog for moronic, repetitive comments he accuses you of being a censor (I didn’t know I was the government and the only blog in town!). But he is glad to advance the idiocy that to even question macro-evolution is to be slowing down the cure for cancer, and he can’t stand the thought that schools would teach the strengths and weaknesses of his worldview — oops, I mean his pet (false) theory.

BTW, here’s a direct quote from Ed:

It’s absolutely true: Every dime spent advocating ID is a dime deprived from working for a cure for cancer. And, I’m still waiting for you to explain how your views on Darwin differ from Stalin’s.

I know that sounds made up, but it isn’t!

The irony is lost on him that while he is busy throwing around the guilt-by-association Stalin fallacy he is the one trying to shut down the free exchange of ideas. Hey, maybe the irony isn’t lost on him . . . he’s probably just cynical enough to do it deliberately. He doesn’t appear to have any shame. At least the guys exposed in Expelled! are a little more subtle than Ed.

—–

I’ve probably missed some things, but that will give you a flavor for their tactics and “reasoning.”

Summary: Normally I follow Proverbs 26:2 and ignore things like Ed’s petty personal attack above, but I decided that he needed a little lesson here. Plus, it was fun to demonstrate how anti-science he really was. And if he is such an unrepentant liar and his biases keep him from understanding “2+2” scientific concepts such as how a new human life begins at conception, why should I trust him on topics like evolution, DDT or Gardasil?

Abortion is the greatest moral issue of our time. Over 3,000 innocent human beings will be destroyed today in the name of “choice.” It is a scientific fact that these are human beings. It is a shame that so many allegedly in the pro-science crowd deny that truth.

Sorry, but Mary can’t save you

Update 2: I finally figured out how to turn comments off.  I think 308 is enough.  Thanks to all the commenters for participating.  Everything has been said multiple times by now.  If you don’t like something, just keep reading and you’ll find someone who agrees with you.

The comments at Dawn Eden’s place were pretty much the same arguments refuted here.  Ironically, she titled her piece Attention, Catholic apologists: Share Mary with a skeptical Evangelical, thus tipping her hand that it is just as much about sharing Mary as it is sharing Jesus for them.  While I might talk about Paul, Peter or others in the Bible, it would never occur to me to say I was going to “share” them with someone.  It should all be about Jesus when it comes to that.

For the record, I am not skeptical at all.  I am highly confident that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.  I am equally confident that his mother, while a sinner in need of a Savior, was a great woman of God whose life teaches many important lessons. But under no circumstances should we pray to her or bow down to an idol of her, and under no circumstances are you required to have a relationship with her to get to Jesus.

Here are some of the more common arguments of the “Mary defenders.”

A common false dichotomy was that you are either on the Catholic bandwagon for Mary or you are dishonoring her.  There is at least one other option: A proper understanding of her role.  This came up over and over.

They agree that the Bible is infallible, which should be a great foundation for us both to reference.  However, they then dive into a circular reference where they insist that you need the authority of the Catholic church to determine what the Bible really says.  But where do they get that authority?  I challenged them to demonstrate it from the Bible and no one offered anything.  Even if they found something, it would be circular.  They often beg the question and assume that “church” means “Roman Catholic Church.”

And as noted elsewhere, if we can’t read the Bible and understand it without the Catholic church interpretation, what guarantees that we’ll be able to understand the Catholic church interpretation?   Of course it is helpful to have experts and study guides, but the Bible doesn’t require that.

Lots of non sequitors about how Jesus loved his mother, so [fill in the blank].  Yes, Jesus loved his mother, but that doesn’t mean we should pray to her or bow to her idol. 

The immaculate conception argument about Mary goes in circles.  They want to claim that she had to be without sin so Jesus could be born un-tainted.  But then it stands to reason that Mary’s parents must have been born without sin as well, and their parents, and their parents . . .  otherwise Mary would have been tainted.  Then they backtrack to say that something special was done at Mary’s birth.  But, uh, why couldn’t that have been done at Jesus’ birth as well?  Back to the beginning.

Read the New Testament and look for mentions of Mary.  The Book of Acts: one passing mention noting that she was n the room.  That’s it.

Romans?  Zero.  1 Corinthians?  Zero.  2 Corinthians?  Zero.  Hebrews?  Zero. And on and on.

I am not dismissing her importance, but the facts are clear: She was not a part of the Gospel message.  There are no references to her leading people to Jesus, answering prayers, etc. 

The apparitions of Mary typically have unbiblical or anti-biblical messages.  Therefore, they are not from God.


Despite claims to the contrary, there is much evidence of people praying to Mary and other saints and bowing to idols of her.  I’ve seen it myself and many on this thread conceded that they pray to saints.   Not just talk to the saints, but pray to them.

Here are pictures and just a sample of documentation.

A common argument was that we ask friends to pray, so we can ask the deceased to pray as well.  I think the difference is fairly obvious:

  1. The deceased are deceased, unlike friends here who are alive. 
  2. The Bible says not to contact the deceased.
  3. The Bible does give examples of asking the non-deceased to pray.
  4. The Bible does not even hint that the dead have omniscience or anything close to it.


A common claim was that if the Catholic church got the Bible right, then all tradition is infallible. Anyone see how that doesn’t follow?  Paul got his letters just right, but not everything he did was inspired.

They don’t demonstrate how the organization that administered the Canonization process is synonymous with the Roman Catholic Church.

They ignore the laundry list of errors the church has committed.  Again, I’m not saying the Protestants get everything right.  But they aren’t claiming infallible traditions, either.

We agree on the infallibility of the Bible, which is a great starting point.  No one ever demonstrated from our common source how the Catholic church’s tradition is infallible as well.

—-

I’ve heard of people praying to Saint so-and-so when they lose their keys.  Then they find the keys and treat that as validation.

But remember that Satan knows where your keys are. If you pray to the dead in clear violation of Scripture then God is under no obligation to answer you or protect you.

—–

The “infallible tradition” position and the notion that we have to have the Roman Catholic Church interpret the Bible  for us fail in other ways.

First, consider that the Bible teaches how to handle disputed matters. Now if the church was infallible and couldn’t get the interpretation wrong, why would the Bible mention such a thing?

Second, how do you know if you properly understood the message of the church?  If you can’t be trusted to understand the infallible Bible then why can you be trusted to understand the church’s allegedly infallible interpretation of it?  Think carefully about that.  It is bulletproof.

—–

When addressing the false teachings about praying to saints, I typically start by pointing out that the burden of proof is on the Catholics to demonstrate from scripture that the saints can hear the prayers of over 6 billion people 24 x 7 x 365 in any language. 

I read countless “just so” stories and hypothetical situations, but none with scriptural evidence and many that were in direct violation of scripture.

We should only pray to God.  Simple stuff.
—–
I encourage newcomers to search for “Marie,”  “Glenn” or “Wintery Knight” and read their comments.  Great points.

Peace,
Neil

—–
Update: A special welcome to visitors from Dawn’s blog!  Feel free to comment or look around.  We will probably not agree on the topic of Marian devotion, but you might enjoy some of the pro-life, pro-family and other pieces.

—–

I have great respect for Dawn Eden’s pro-life endeavors and her promotion of abstinence in her book, The Thrill of the Chaste: Finding Fulfillment While Keeping Your Clothes On.  She makes winsome and compelling cases on some important issues.

But a sad side of her life transformation is that she has wholly embraced Catholicism and its false teachings.  Please note that I know many Catholics who hold authentic Christian beliefs about the essentials.  They are “bad Catholics” in the sense that they don’t buy the un-Biblical dogma from the bowels of the Roman Catholic Church such as Mary-worship, praying to the saints, purgatory, salvation by works, Papal infallibility, etc.  Their local parishes actually teach fairly sound doctrine.  I think there are many saved people in Catholic churches just as there are many unsaved people in Protestant churches.  It all comes down to having true faith in Christ.

Dawn recently had a link highlighting a video about a man struggling spiritually.  He was crying out for help.  Guess who saved him.  Jesus?  No, it was Mary.  The “highlight” of the video was a vision of Mary that shifted to a statue of Mary.  Just your basic idol worship.

I’ve read the Bible a bunch.  I see remarkably few passages about Mary and none that even hint at the role the Catholic church ascribes to her.  Granted, Protestants sometimes overreact the other direction and ignore her, but they are far closer to the truth than Catholics.

I submit that if a vision of Mary comes to you then it isn’t the real Mary.  It is Satan, who is leading you away from the truth.

Mary can’t save you. 

Jesus can.

I do encourage commenters to focus on the post itself and not just attempt to re-create the Reformation (as great as the first one was!).  The video in question wasn’t just about having admiration for Mary.  The protagonist specifically cries out for God and Mary appears.  That’s really, really bad theology.

More False Teachers ‘R Us

Just a quick Saturday morning fisk of the latest inanities of the “Reverend” Chuck Currie (the unrepentent liar and class act who thought Wanda Sykes’ bit for Obama was hysterical and who claims, without evidence, that some Christian aid groups only help heterosexuals).

Liberty University, the “school” founded by the late Jerry Falwell, has banned a student run Democratic Party club because:

“The Democratic Party platform is contrary to the mission of Liberty University and to Christian doctrine (supports abortion, federal funding of abortion, advocates repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, promotes the “LGBT” agenda, hate crimes, which include sexual orientation and gender identity, socialism, etc.)”

Let’s review the record:

  • Democrats support economic policies that lift people out of poverty and create a more level playing field.  Republicans support economic policies that benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor (those Jesus would have called “the least of these”) and middle class.

No, Democrats support socialism and job and wealth destroying policies.  Some of them have good intentions but know nothing about history, economics or basic human nature. 

Democrats support unrestricted destruction of the “least of these,” the unborn.

Democrats ignore the incredible success of the United States and capitalism, which has done more to lift people out of poverty than any other -ism.

Democrats ignore that conservatives give more of their own time, money and blood, while people like Currie advocate taking other people’s money at the point of a gun to fund their counterproductive ideas.

  • Democrats are working toward the goal of universal health care.  Republicans opposed even expanding health care for children.

Regarding “expanding health care for children,” Republicans know a Trojan Horse when they see one. 

Univeral health care is an awful idea and is being sold with lies.

  • Democrats back civil rights for all Americans.  Republicans oppose equality in many cases.

That is code for “Republicans don’t want to confer Civil Rights based on perverted sexual preferences.”  Yep.  Skin color is morally neutral, sexual preferences are not.

  • Democrats are trying to stop global climate change.  Republicans, while taking money from polluters, often argue there is no climate change occuring.

Republicans aren’t suckers.  Democrats, while taking money from extreme Liberals, often argue that they have evidence for man-made global warming and that their “fixes” won’t destroy jobs.  They are wrong.

  • Democrats are against torture.  Republicans embrace it.

Republicans oppose crushing and dismembering innocent human beings (warning: graphic link).  Democrats embrace it.  It is their #1 God-mocking issue.

Some Republicans don’t have an issue with waterboarding three known terrorist leaders to save countless lives. 

I wonder if Chuck would prefer to be waterboarded or to have his skull crushed and limbs ripped off without anesthetic?

God is not a Republican…or a Democrat, says Jim Wallis, and he is right.  But Liberty University itself seems pretty far removed from anything that resembles the teachings of Jesus.   

Wallis is one of the biggest fakes going.  He uses his “God is not a Republican . . . or a Democrat” sound bite ad nauseam then proceeds to explain why God supports all of Wallis’ Democratic policies. 

Chuck disagrees with Jesus on virtually everything (his divinity, his exclusivity, his views on the Bible, his views on marriage, his views on other religions, his views on murder, etc.) so it is laughable that he would criticize anyone for not being in sync with Jesus.  If you want to know what Jesus thinks it is a safe bet to take the opposite position of liberal theologians like Chuck.

And where are the shrill calls from the ACLU et al regarding Wallis’ imposition of a theocracy?  Oh, right, they only fight religious views they disagree with — or do they just intuitively realize that the Lefties are really worshiping themselves and not God?

Carl Sagan’s catch phrase: (Bad) philosophy, not science — UPDATED

Carl Sagan famously said, “The cosmos is all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be.”

The irony is that each of those statements is philosophical, not scientific.  He merely tipped his hand for all to see.

The cosmos is all there is

No scientific evidence for that. 

all there was

No scientific evidence for that. 

and all there ever will be.

No scientific evidence for that. 

They say that Carl Sagan didn’t believe there was a God.  He does now.

UPDATE: Bubba made a good point in the comments section about the definition of cosmos (“the world or universe regarded as an orderly, harmonious system”).   Another irony is that as science demonstrates more and more spectacular fine-tuning of the universe, desperate materialists are having to posit the pathetic “multiverse” theory to prop up their worldview.  This is in direct conflict to all of Sagan’s erroneous statements and is just as unsupported factually.

Roundup

Great write-up on the Angels & Demons movie — What a shocker, a movie that perpetuates the religion vs. science canard.  Yawn.

A Good Reason Not to Use Your Cell Phone While Driving— — the driver of this upside down car is lucky to be alive

Homosexual propoganda indoctrination for 5 years olds — And parents can’t opt out!  You can’t make this stuff up.  And the theologically liberal “Christians” help advance this cause. 

Forty reasons to support conservatism — Only 40?  A few of my favorites:

  • Once liberty is lost, it is rarely recovered.
  • Private property and liberty are inseparable.
  • A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
  • Redistribution of wealth for the “greater good” is tyranny in disguise.
  • You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
  • The only thing that can cure poverty is wealth.
  • That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise.
  • The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
  • Civil society is a harmony of interest, not a zero sum game in which the politically powerful exploit the politically weak.
  • Free people working in self-interested cooperation, and a government operating within the limits of its authority promote more prosperity, opportunity and happiness for more people than any alternative.

“Junk” DNA turned out to be less-than-junky — As usual, the evolutionary tautology (“things evolved because they evolved”) reigns supreme.  When they thought parts of DNA were truly junky that was evidence against a designer and for evolution (who would design in junk, right?).  Now that they realize that it is not junk then of course that is evidence for evolution.

Life as a Darwinist must be fun: you’re never wrong. You only have to reverse what you say every once in a while.

Where to start the dialogue

President Obama says he wants to have a dialogue on abortion, and I think that is a great idea.  Too many people have traded sound bites for too long and not thought deeply about what abortion really is.

If you are going to have a dialogue on any topic, the first thing you want to do is ensure you are careful in defining the subject.  What is an abortion, anyway?  In this debate it is the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.  It is a scientific fact that abortion kills an innocent human being.

It might be helpful for Obama and other pro-choicers to view these images to see what abortions do.

As Greg Koukl points out, the first and main question is, “What is the unborn?”  If it is not a human being, then no justification for abortion is necessary.  If it is a human being, then no justification is sufficient (except to save the life of the mother, of course, which is in concert with the pro-life ethic).

So once people understand the facts, they should be able to make moral judgments based on them.  If it is immoral to kill innocent human beings then abortion is immoral.  If we have laws to protect innocent human beings from being killed, we should have laws preventing abortions.

So bring on the dialogue, and let’s point to the facts. 

Obama also said, “Let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term.”  If he means that, he should heartily endorse Pregnancy Resource Centers (PRCs).  He needs to talk to Planned Parenthood and the like, though, because they consider PRCs to be the enemy and are working to restrict them.

Car buying tips

I hate buying cars, primarily because I don’t like to be lied to.  But I know their games.  I’ll be buying another car this summer and have been getting psyched up for the experience.

Unless your current car is costing too much in terms of repairs, seriously consider holding onto it.  It is the least expensive car you’ll ever own.

Don’t just buy a new car to get better gas mileage.  Do a little math and you’ll find out that it will take years to pay back your investment.

Buy low maintenance cars and hold them a long time.

Don’t buy high-tech extras like DVDs and GPS systems.  They cost 4-5 times what portable versions do and will be outdated quickly.  They cost a lot to fix if they break.  You also can’t transfer them to other vehicles.

Don’t look too eager when talking to a salesman.  You must be ready to walk away.  They get serious about negotiations when you are walking out.

Make your best deal on the price, then tell them you don’t like surprises and you’re sure that they won’t add in any charges such as “advertising fees” when they do the final paperwork.  Those should be part of the negotiated price, but they often sneak them in later.  A guy did that to me and I told him the deal was off unless he removed the $250 charge.  He did.

Don’t let them tell you they are “only” making $25 (or whatever) on the car.  That is a silly partial truth they use to describe the intercompany profit when one division of Honda, for example, sells to another division.  It is meaningless, especially when they try it on a CPA.

Go through the fleet dealer at the dealership if you can.  Most dealerships have a sub-group that sells to businesses who buy multiple cars.  Those buyers don’t have time for the gamesmanship of spending a whole day negotiating over each car.  The prices tend to be lower and non-negotiable.  Individuals obviously don’t buy a whole fleet of cars but sometimes a group like a credit union will combine the purchasing power to get fleet deals. You can submit what you want on the web and within an hour you’ll have lots of quotes. 

Save up and pay cash.  When you tell them you’re ready to write a check when they agree to your price it gives you negotiating leverage.

Do your homework at a site like Edmund’s.