• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

"Emotional Attachment?"

Felicity

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What does "emotional attachment" have to do with whether or not something is what it objectively is?

Case in point:

jfuh said:
I've asked on this site many times whether those in opposition to my position have any objection to the death of a cell - answer is no, how about a mouse or fish or any other animal for that matter - the typical answer is as long as there's no emotional attachment no.
This is exactly the case here. The embryo to baby goes from single cell to multi-cellular human being (that even after born is still developing) a billion year evolutionary process in the course of 9 months to which one would argue that
No one would feel any real emotional attachment or even recognition until that 14th week fetus in terms of being able to identify it as something human. But at 5 weeks, webbed appendages a long tail? Given time it would continue to become one, but at that specific stage it's not yet one at all.

I recognize that his rant is a tad hard to follow due to poor sentence structure, but the gist of it is that since a human embryo/fetus doesn't make a person "feel" all warm and fuzzy inside, it isn't a human being.

Since when do "feelings" have anything at all to do with rational, logical, reasoning?

In fact--there is a specific fallacy in reasoning that is called "Appeal to Emotion"

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html
Description of Appeal to Emotion
An Appeal to Emotion is a fallacy with the following structure:
Favorable emotions are associated with X.
Therefore, X is true.

and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument. This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including:

Appeal to consequences
Appeal to fear
Appeal to flattery
Appeal to pity
Appeal to ridicule
Appeal to spite
Wishful thinking


FALLACY means "erroneous" "false" "invalid."

And yet....the oft repeated point when discussing the human quality--the human organism--the human BEING--that is an embryo/fetus, ultimately ALWAYS comes back to this "feelings" based excuse.

What's up with that? Will someone please explain how the fallacy is somehow not fallacious in this particular case?:confused::confused::confused::confused:
 
What does "emotional attachment" have to do with whether or not something is what it objectively is?

Case in point:



I recognize that his rant is a tad hard to follow due to poor sentence structure, but the gist of it is that since a human embryo/fetus doesn't make a person "feel" all warm and fuzzy inside, it isn't a human being.

Since when do "feelings" have anything at all to do with rational, logical, reasoning?

In fact--there is a specific fallacy in reasoning that is called "Appeal to Emotion"

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html
Description of Appeal to Emotion
An Appeal to Emotion is a fallacy with the following structure:
Favorable emotions are associated with X.
Therefore, X is true.

and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument. This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including:

Appeal to consequences
Appeal to fear
Appeal to flattery
Appeal to pity
Appeal to ridicule
Appeal to spite
Wishful thinking


FALLACY means "erroneous" "false" "invalid."

And yet....the oft repeated point when discussing the human quality--the human organism--the human BEING--that is an embryo/fetus, ultimately ALWAYS comes back to this "feelings" based excuse.

What's up with that? Will someone please explain how the fallacy is somehow not fallacious in this particular case?:confused::confused::confused::confused:

And this is why I am always extra careful when we argue against each other. But yes, you are correct in most everything you say in this post. I think you should take care to remove the word "always" as I have proven time and again that emotion is irrelevant in the abortion debate.
 
I think you should take care to remove the word "always" as I have proven time and again that emotion is irrelevant in the abortion debate.

You're right--I meant "always" in the sense that if you stick to it long enough SOME joker (not you, though) turns it too feelings and what an embryo or zygote "looks" like. Here's another example that just popped up:
scourge99 said:
I challenge you to ask 10 people or 1000 people to draw a "human being". I have absolute certainty NONE of them will draw a zygote, embryo, or fetus.
 
And here's another recent one...
Hatuey said:
What is human about a 7-8 celled organism? I already stated why I recognized my daughter as a human being and not some cell organism. She has a recognizable humanity to her. I can squint all I want at your image but I'll never see anything that looks even remotely "human".
 
If we're all being completely honest I think everyone's abortion stance involves feelings. Without a strong amount of feeling one simply wouldn't bother to debate it at all....they wouldn't care. So feelings and emotions are a big part of the debate on both sides. Even if someone becomes very adept at keeping all those feelings and emotions out of their arguments, they're still there beneath the surface for the vast majority of us.
 
If we're all being completely honest I think everyone's abortion stance involves feelings. Without a strong amount of feeling one simply wouldn't bother to debate it at all....they wouldn't care. So feelings and emotions are a big part of the debate on both sides. Even if someone becomes very adept at keeping all those feelings and emotions out of their arguments, they're still there beneath the surface for the vast majority of us.

oH--CERTAINLY...(LET ME Get the caps off:3oops:)

Certainly...we are emotional creatures, but the emotional aspect is not appropriate as a legitimate rationale for the purposes of logical deduction. Of course it influences our perception, but to use it as a basis for legitimate reasoning is directly opposed to objectivity. The most sound argument is that which can be supported and defended sans personal bias. For example, I attempted a thread that drew a logical consistant conclusion concerning defining life that I emotionally do not adhere to--it was concerning defining life at the onset of electrical brain activity since we define the absence of life (death) as the cessation of electrical brain activity. It didn't generate much interest, except from scourge who just wanted to change the premise anyway...

...but my point is, that one should be able to recognize what is emotional attachment, and what is sound objective obsevation and reasoning. To be able to do that is what is known as "intellectual honesty"--something that seems to be in short supply these days (excluding you, Joey, of course;))
 
Last edited:
You're right--I meant "always" in the sense that if you stick to it long enough SOME joker (not you, though) turns it too feelings and what an embryo or zygote "looks" like. Here's another example that just popped up:
Go re-read what I posted. That excerpt you cherry-picked has nothing to do with emotion and everything to do with widespread opinion of a word.

Its pathetic and irresponsible you took it so far out of context. I hope this is a simple mistake you plan on correcting or at least expanding upon.
 
Go re-read what I posted. That excerpt you cherry-picked has nothing to do with emotion and everything to do with widespread opinion of a word.

Its pathetic and irresponsible you took it so far out of context. I hope this is a simple mistake you plan on correcting or at least expanding upon.

Spare me.:roll: Your "recognizing it as human" in order to draw it is an emotional response.:doh What are we--children in a therapy session?
 
Well, once you subtract "emotion", there truly is no reason whatsoever to allow someone or something (I don't feel like arguing personhood; I honestly don't give two shits whether a Z/E/F is a person or not, and never have) to commandeer your body and its resources, unless there's something in it for you, such as, you want to become a parent.
Women don't just emotionlessly do this out of a grim sense of moral obligation, because they figure it's their well-deserved punishment for having sex.
There aren't many martyrs these days, certainly not in our society.

In fact, the entire prolife argument is one giant appeal to sentiment; often a scattergun approach, hoping to strike some sort of emotional chord or other.
There certainly is no logical or rational reason to gestate a fetus and give birth if you don't want to be a parent.
But there may be many irrational- ie, emotional- reasons for doing so.
At least, that is what the prolifers keep hoping to convince women of.
 
Well, once you subtract "emotion", there truly is no reason whatsoever to allow someone or something (I don't feel like arguing personhood; I honestly don't give two shits whether a Z/E/F is a person or not, and never have) to commandeer your body and its resources, unless there's something in it for you, such as, you want to become a parent..
....and as elsewhere, I give you credit for being intellectually honest about your stance. You're one of the few.



...the rest of your post was bullsh!t...but the 1st part was good;):mrgreen:
 
If we're all being completely honest I think everyone's abortion stance involves feelings. Without a strong amount of feeling one simply wouldn't bother to debate it at all....they wouldn't care. So feelings and emotions are a big part of the debate on both sides. Even if someone becomes very adept at keeping all those feelings and emotions out of their arguments, they're still there beneath the surface for the vast majority of us.

There's nothing wrong with having feelings, but it's quite another thing to allow your emotions to overrule your rational mind. Far too many people on the anti-abortion side are ruled by their emotions, they want to believe something, therefore they demand that what they believe is so, facts be damned. I run into very few people who can put forth a well-reasoned, rational, intellectual argument against abortion and that's just sad.
 
There's nothing wrong with having feelings, but it's quite another thing to allow your emotions to overrule your rational mind. Far too many people on the anti-abortion side are ruled by their emotions, they want to believe something, therefore they demand that what they believe is so, facts be damned. I run into very few people who can put forth a well-reasoned, rational, intellectual argument against abortion and that's just sad.

Cephus--that's just crap. It is the Pro-Abortion-Choice side that is ruled by their emotions. Relativism is an emotions-based "logic." It is demonstratably the PAC side here that is bringing the emotions to the debate. It happens REPEATEDLY that facts are denied in favor of personal wishes or perceptions by the PAC debaters. Yes, there are emotive Pro-Life-Choicers that will offer emotive posts based in subjective reasoning, but at least here--on these forums--the prepoderence of PACers lean to "values" based conclusions concerning what is deemed "worthy of life" rather than "a well-reasoned, rational, intellectual argument" in support of abortion and a minority of PLCers are emotions based debaters. Your denial of that is simply "sad."
 
a quick review of established fact:

Conception
1) A life form is created when sperm and egg combine under the right circumstance.
2) This entity carries the genetic structure needed to be classified as Homo Sapien.
3) The combined cells attach to a host for the period of time required to develop
into a viable animal, capable of utilizing outside (external) sources of energy for continued viability.
4) Due to the increased brain size, and other lesser factors, this form of mammal is incapable of self sustainment for an extended time after leaving the host.

Development
1) The entity in question begins as all mammals do, as a grouping of specialized cells that divide and differenciate according to a genetic sequence laid out in the DNA.
2) This sequence follows a well established pattern of development that eventually creates all needed organs and connections required to make a functional member of the species under ideal circumstances.
3) The sequence follows rough guidelines of development which allow each new organ to be supported by the infrastructure in place due to earlier developed systems.
4) All creatures cease to function if the process is interrupted, or catasrophic errors occur during formation. All creatures require one central primary organ to regulate and connect the many system pieces into a defined symbiotic relationship.
5) Until the brain is established and connected to the whole, there is no possibility of viability of the organism.

Societal
1) Established law in the United States entitles each citizen certain rights to personal freedom and privacy.
2) A large portion of U.S. law is focused on individual protection, in effort to keep majority opinion from adversely effecting the minority.
3) The United States is still a primarily Christian Nation, and a separation of the Church from State was established to avoid corruption of the system by faith based legislation.
4) Due to the nature of Christianity, there is a requirement in interpreted scripture to speak against aborting after conception, as it is believed a soul is involved.
5) It is currently Illegal in the United States to force or coerce another citizen to act against their will without due cause and authority relegated by the state or federal governments.
6) Forcing a person to use the body they inhabit against their will, in any way , is illegal and distasteful.

These are well established fact, devoid of emotion....draw from them what conclusions you will.
 
a quick review of established fact:

Conception
1) A life form is created when sperm and egg combine under the right circumstance.
2) This entity carries the genetic structure needed to be classified as Homo Sapien.
3) The combined cells attach to a host for the period of time required to develop
into a viable animal, capable of utilizing outside (external) sources of energy for continued viability.
4) Due to the increased brain size, and other lesser factors, this form of mammal is incapable of self sustainment for an extended time after leaving the host.
I can agree with all you have above..."host" is a term that doesn't exactly represent the true nature of the reproductive relationship and has a distinctly antagonistic connotation concerning the relationship, but, I suppose it's innocuous enough...
Development
1) The entity in question begins as all mammals do, as a grouping of specialized cells that divide and differenciate according to a genetic sequence laid out in the DNA.
2) This sequence follows a well established pattern of development that eventually creates all needed organs and connections required to make a functional member of the species under ideal circumstances.
3) The sequence follows rough guidelines of development which allow each new organ to be supported by the infrastructure in place due to earlier developed systems.
4) All creatures cease to function if the process is interrupted, or catasrophic errors occur during formation. All creatures require one central primary organ to regulate and connect the many system pieces into a defined symbiotic relationship.
I would add, the creature only needs certain parts of that organ to function properly to maintain biological functioning--the "whole organ" is not necessary. Furthermore, systems begin functioning before the brain begins to regulate any functioning, and the central nervous system is in no way "fully functional" for several months after the organism is birthed.

5) Until the brain is established and connected to the whole, there is no possibility of viability of the organism.
Again, I would add that the brain needs not be fully present for viability. An example would be anacephalics who lack most of the brain but have a functioning brain stem.



NEXT:
Here's where you present erroneous information and value judgements:

Societal
1) Established law in the United States entitles each citizen certain rights to personal freedom and privacy.
2) A large portion of U.S. law is focused on individual protection, in effort to keep majority opinion from adversely effecting the minority.
3) The United States is still a primarily Christian Nation, and a separation of the Church from State was established to avoid corruption of the system by faith based legislation.
#3 is patently false. You have the concept exactly reversed. It was not about corrupting the system--it was about the system imposing upon religious freedoms.


4) Due to the nature of Christianity, there is a requirement in interpreted scripture to speak against aborting after conception, as it is believed a soul is involved.
Also not true--many Christian denominations are pro-abortion-choice.

5) It is currently Illegal in the United States to force or coerce another citizen to act against their will without due cause and authority relegated by the state or federal governments.
6) Forcing a person to use the body they inhabit against their will, in any way , is illegal and distasteful.
#6 makes a subjective judgement concerning what constutes "due cause" and (in the case you are attempting to make for abortion rights) further ignores the existence of the "other entity" you described in your "conception" section. Specifically you even use a "values-based" word--"distasteful"-- and then call it "fact."

It should be obvious that if you are imposing "emotions" such as "distasteful," you are not (as you claim your points are) "devoid of emotion"--and.... if your "facts" are false....well...they aren't "facts.";)
 
Last edited:
Cephus--that's just crap. It is the Pro-Abortion-Choice side that is ruled by their emotions.

That's laughable. Pro-choice is based on the very simple concept that people are free to do with their bodies what they wish and that they cannot be forced to use their bodies to do anything against their will. Same argument goes for slavery. Or is that an emotional argument too? :roll:
 
"That's laughable. Pro-choice is based on the very simple concept that people are free to do with their bodies what they wish..." - Cephus

Not true. People cannot take drugs, prostitute themselves or sell body parts (kidney's) for profit.


"...and that they cannot be forced to use their bodies to do anything against their will." - Cephus

Once again, not true. People can be drafted into military service "against their will".


 
"That's laughable. Pro-choice is based on the very simple concept that people are free to do with their bodies what they wish..." - Cephus

Not true. People cannot take drugs, prostitute themselves or sell body parts (kidney's) for profit.


"...and that they cannot be forced to use their bodies to do anything against their will." - Cephus

Once again, not true. People can be drafted into military service "against their will".



Of course, the morality surrounding both of those points is questionable at best.
 
"Of course, the morality surrounding both of those points is questionable at best." - Kelzie

These are legal issues and not moral ones. Your views of the morality of these issues is irrelevant.
 
That's laughable. Pro-choice is based on the very simple concept that people are free to do with their bodies what they wish and that they cannot be forced to use their bodies to do anything against their will. Same argument goes for slavery. Or is that an emotional argument too? :roll:

"Desire," or as you word it "what they wish," is emotion-based--NOT objective and/or logical. Subjecting other human beings to the whims and desires of the more powerful IS slavery.
 
"Of course, the morality surrounding both of those points is questionable at best." - Kelzie

These are legal issues and not moral ones. Your views of the morality of these issues is irrelevant.


Just because something is legal does not make it morally right. Otherwise, you pro-lifers would be out of an argument, now wouldn't you?
 
There's nothing wrong with having feelings, but it's quite another thing to allow your emotions to overrule your rational mind. Far too many people on the anti-abortion side are ruled by their emotions, they want to believe something, therefore they demand that what they believe is so, facts be damned. I run into very few people who can put forth a well-reasoned, rational, intellectual argument against abortion and that's just sad.
Here is the position of those who defend the unborn human life (Only one consistent irrefutable point):
Biological evidence demonstrated that at conception the newly created zygote, which contains the unique human DNA distinct from the parents, is a prenatal human baby that begins human life as a single cell fertilized egg and continue life as a human being in continuum throughout all stages of human development.

Reference: According to the Online Medical Library, the Merck Manuals: A baby goes through several stages of development, beginning as a fertilized egg. The egg develops into a blastocyst, an embryo, then a fetus.

Here is the moral argument based on the above biological fact:
Therefore, killing a prenatal baby is killing a human being. To kill a human being is considered murder in our civilized society. Therefore, murder is morally wrong and is a crime against humanity. Thus, speaking out against murder is a moral obligation for our brethen's keepers.

The above defender of unborn life position is as dry as the science and as devoid of emotional rhetoric as the principle of logical argument. Most of the debate from defenders of unborn life are argument in response in kind against pro-abortion advocates' fallacious emotive argument and false premises. Since the pro-abortion arguments are mostly emotive and fallacious, and as is always the case, they are very good at turning the table and have the gall to accuse us of their folly for responding to them in kind.

Here are the multiple positions (with no biological fact) and argument based on hijacked linguistic terms and fallacies of those who advocate choice of abortion for women:
  • It’s not a person without a functional brain for intelligent/rational thought but an unwanted parasite that attaches itself to the host against her will and occupy her body without her permission... boohoohoo…
  • If you outlaw abortion you are driving women back to the back alley coat hanger days. I care for the pregnant woman who is the now existing complete human being person personhood personality per-so-na personalita enchilada host with rights than that tiny little limbless crumb of cells that would be unwanted anyway.
  • These unwanted babies are better off aborted than living in the over-burdened orphanages and the world is better off with less overpopulation.
  • You are not a woman and you do not know what she is going through without being in her shoes.
  • What are you going to do about those unwanted children born every year in this society?
  • Women naturally abort over 50% of "human beings". Since that's the case what are you doing to help those people who die everyday without us even knowing about them because they are washed out in a normal menstrual cycle? (As if we can use such silly excuse to kill born infants just because there are many newborn infants who die naturally of diseases, other medical complications and SIDS, etc).

The above defender of choice for abortion position is nothing of substance but appeal to exaggerated emotive speech, anger, and lies to achieve argumentative effect without substance.

Now tell me honestly who allow their emotions to overrule their rational mind exactly?
 
Last edited:
“Just because something is legal does not make it morally right. Otherwise, you pro-lifers would be out of an argument, now wouldn't you?” – Kelzie

A fair point but what does that have to do with my argument? The statement was made that “[p]ro-choice is based on the very simple concept that people are free to do with their bodies what they wish and that they cannot be forced to use their bodies to do anything against their will.”

I simply illustrated that the statement is false and gave examples to prove my point without the justification of morality which can’t be used in any debate with the pro-choice side as they are incapable of grasping the concept.
 
“Just because something is legal does not make it morally right. Otherwise, you pro-lifers would be out of an argument, now wouldn't you?” – Kelzie

A fair point but what does that have to do with my argument? The statement was made that “[p]ro-choice is based on the very simple concept that people are free to do with their bodies what they wish and that they cannot be forced to use their bodies to do anything against their will.”

I simply illustrated that the statement is false and gave examples to prove my point without the justification of morality which can’t be used in any debate with the pro-choice side as they are incapable of grasping the concept.

Your justification included instances where it is illegal to do what you want with your body. However, the legality does not mean it is right or wrong to control your own body, merely that in same cases the law says otherwise. The law cannot be used to justify "rightness." Otherwise, I could only assume your position was that abortion is fine because it was legal.
 
Just a couple thoughts here. I am have always been pro-choice. I am now pregnant for the first time and most people think somehow my mind will be changed and my position switched-it wasn't. And here's why. When I find out right from the beginning I was emotionaly attached to whatever it was growing inside me. I felt many different emotions- scared, excited, nervous, and happy. This was a wanted baby by both me and the father. Then I think of what if it wasn't? What if I didn't have a good job, a supportive father, or even the house I have? I would be scared shitless! Yes, there would be some emotions involved but I would still do what I had to do.
 
First, congratulation to you and your baby’s father. I also want to congratulate your baby for the good fortune of being wanted.

Now, back to the debate. I never ever can understand the premise of wanted vs unwanted as an argument to justify abortion. Whether wanted or not, the unborn person is still a human being. Therefore, whatever feeling you may have for the prenatal baby, it doesn’t change the fact that it remains a human being.

Certainly, you would still do what you had to do if it wasn’t wanted. Hopefully, killing the unborn person is not one of them.
 
Back
Top Bottom