It was offered simply as a red herring, and an emotional argument.
1) it speaks to the central issue of holding people accountable for the actions of others, simply because some might respond with violence to their legal activity. So clearly it isn't irrelevant and not a red herring, like you claim
2) an appeal to emotion would be some argument, that appeals to emotion, with no logical content to it. As you can see above, the argument is clearly logical because it is an analogy based on the fact that in both instances someone would be performing a legal act that aroused some to violence. You want the people performing the legal act to be held accountable, I say it's wrong and point to the larger consequences of such logic by making the above analogy
What sparks unreason and emotion better than abortion, after all?
so all argument dealing with the subject of abortion are appeals to emotion? That makes absolutely no sense
If a group of anti abortion extremists were to have been known beyond a doubt to be looking for an excuse to riot, if a doctor had performed an abortion publicly, perhaps put it on camera and posted it on UTube or something simply as a publicity stunt aimed at getting the extremists to resort to violence, then the analogy might hold water. Nothing like that has happened.
1) we already covered that your claims of intent was baseless
2) the objective of free speech is to allow one to publicly disseminate arguments and ideas, the objective of abortions is to perform abortions (there is no public character to it) . So it seems odd that your objection is based on both acts being performed in their proper sphere
The Koran burning was done in order to incite violence.
Based on what, your belief that it was? I'm sorry to inform you that mere belief isn't evidence
There was no other reason to have done it.
Sure there is: he was critiquing a religion, and religion has an immense influence on how the individual live their life
There is no debate about Koran burning that is like the debate about abortion.
I suggest looking up the term analogy
There is no civil right to be gained by burning Korans
Free speech isn't based on popular approval of the ideas being discussed. In fact, being that the majority opposed civil rights for a very long time, it only further speaks to the need of not limiting the right to ideas, that enjoy free dissemination, to those that the majority approve of
Why anyone wants to try to defend this guy is beyond me.
I honestly rather not but I view people who want to unnecessarily limit free speech as more dangerous than those simply making use of it