• 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!

Late Clash on Abortion Shows Conservatives’ Sway

megaprogman said:
The best response to this sort of imagery is to say something like "that sounds like a fun weekend" because it usually makes the person using an emotional appeal so angry that they give up :mrgreen: But if they are dealing in emotion rather than logic, then its fun to counter with something that will generate an emotional response.

And besides an absurd post deserves an absurd reply
Click to expand...
It is alway very difficult to stare at the truth in the face.
 
dolphinocean said:
What nonsense! There is a difference between a terrorist, such as the islamic terrorists and suicide hijacking/bombers, who uses intimidation and violence indiscriminate against large crowd of innocent civilians verses a blood avenger to prevent the mass slaughter of defenseless innocent tiny human beings by a murderous abortionist with blood in his hands.
Click to expand...

ter·ror·ism   
[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Terrorism | Define Terrorism at Dictionary.com

They're domestic terrorists.
 
dolphinocean said:
Do I need to go with you endlessly on a circular merry-go-around? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

An appeal to emotion is a type of argument which attempts to arouse the emotions of its audience in order to gain acceptance of its conclusion.
Click to expand...
Logical Fallacy: Emotional Appeal

You know exactly why its emotional appeal and I can assure you it did not make anyone more inclined to accept your conclusion.
 
dolphinocean said:
It is alway very difficult to stare at the truth in the face.
Click to expand...

I am staring right at what you consider truth and am laughing at it. Use logic and rationality and you will get the same consideration from me.
 
theplaydrive said:
Logical Fallacy: Emotional Appeal

You know exactly why its emotional appeal and I can assure you it did not make anyone more inclined to accept your conclusion.
Click to expand...
You have no idea what emotional appeal is if it hit you. Coat hangers, back alley abortions and women are going to die without legal abortion, those are emotional appeals.
 
megaprogman said:
I am staring right at what you consider truth and am laughing at it. Use logic and rationality and you will get the same consideration from me.
Click to expand...
With your absurdity, I don't need nor want your "consideration". Who care?
 
dolphinocean said:
You have no idea what emotional appeal is if it hit you. Coat hangers, back alley abortions and women are going to die without legal abortion, those are emotional appeals.
Click to expand...

It depends on the context of said statements - so does yours - your statements in this thread in the debates you're having are emotional appeals.

An appeal to emotion is a type of argument which attempts to arouse the emotions of its audience in order to gain acceptance of its conclusion.
Click to expand...
Logical Fallacy: Emotional Appeal

You know exactly why its emotional appeal and I can assure you it did not make anyone more inclined to accept your conclusion.
 
theplaydrive said:
ter·ror·ism   
[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Terrorism | Define Terrorism at Dictionary.com

They're domestic terrorists.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Defending the lives of unborn human beings from murderous abortionists with bloods in their hands is nothing like bombing or beheading innocent civilians with nothing to do with anything let alone having bloods in their hands.
 
dolphinocean said:
With your absurdity, I don't need nor want your "consideration". Who care?
Click to expand...

Exactly ;)

dolphinocean said:
You have no idea what emotional appeal is if it hit you. Coat hangers, back alley abortions and women are going to die without legal abortion, those are emotional appeals.
Click to expand...

And its historic fact that it did happen before abortion became easier to get. However, there is a major difference. With the arms and legs statement, you are implying equivelency of a foetus and a human life. While this sort of implication is not true with mentioning what happened when abortion was illegal.
 
theplaydrive said:
It depends on the context of said statements - so does yours - your statements in this thread in the debates you're having are emotional appeals.


Logical Fallacy: Emotional Appeal

You know exactly why its emotional appeal and I can assure you it did not make anyone more inclined to accept your conclusion.
Click to expand...
You have no argument, all you have is throwing false charges.
 
megaprogman said:
Exactly ;)



And its historic fact that it did happen before abortion became easier to get. However, there is a major difference. With the arms and legs statement, you are implying equivelency of a foetus and a human life. While this sort of implication is not true with mentioning what happened when abortion was illegal.
Click to expand...
Where's your proof that a fetus isn't a human life?
 
dolphinocean said:
Where's your proof that a fetus isn't a human life?
Click to expand...

Because it is not developed to the point that its autonomic functions can support itself if separated from the womb and there is a lack of a functioning brain. Of course this all depends on which stage of fetus we are talking about.
 
megaprogman said:
Because it is not developed to the point that its autonomic functions can support itself if separated from the womb and there is a lack of a functioning brain. Of course this all depends on which stage of fetus we are talking about.
Click to expand...
What does it matter whether it is or it is not "developed to the point that its autonomic functions". You make things up to suit your fancy agenda.

From the scientific fact: "A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)." Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
 
theplaydrive said:
Logical Fallacy: Emotional Appeal

You know exactly why its emotional appeal and I can assure you it did not make anyone more inclined to accept your conclusion.
Click to expand...

I also see emotional appeals from pro abortionists.

There is no real reasons why there shouldn't be a display of emotions when human life is involved. Would the Leftists really prefer that no emotion was involved in the deaths of babies? Or the elderly, infirm, the handicapped or people otherwise dependent on our help??
 
dolphinocean said:
What emotional appeal and straw man?

The "shredding into bloody pieces of a tiny helpless human being in the womb and sucking them out " is simply a description of an abortion procedure called "Dilation and Curettage" (D&C). It's a fact. How then can you say it's "Nothing but an appeal to emotion and a straw man argument"?

Susan Smith did not want her two children because her wealthy lover had told her he didn't want a ready made family. As such the children would get in the way of her pursuit of her happiness. She didn't want to give them up to her husband or put them up for adoption for the very same reason abortive women wouldn't. As such, Susan Smith's two children were just as "unwanted" as those unborns you condemned as "unwanted". It's a fact. How then can you say it's "Nothing but an appeal to emotion and a straw man argument"?
Click to expand...

Perhaps it will be rationalized that Susan Smith only had a postnatal abortion.
 
Funny how in the other thread I started about the UN and 'Mother Earth' it speaks to the earth having 'the right to life' when the same people pushing that for the planet, won't extend that to an unborn child simply because it would be inconvenient to have. Sad, real sad.


j-mac
 
dolphinocean said:
What does it matter whether it is or it is not "developed to the point that its autonomic functions". You make things up to suit your fancy agenda.

From the scientific facr: "A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)." Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
Click to expand...

You realize this is not something where there is proof right? Opinions on when this occurs are all over the place :shrug:

This is shown the fact that I can find literature that says something different. All depending on what aspects of development we want to look at.

PERSONHOOD---when does a fetus become a person?

The focus of this book asking “When is a person?”
has been on empirical, observable facts.
The line between personhood and former personhood
is drawn by looking for the four capacities of persons:
consciousness, memory, language, & autonomy.
Click to expand...
 
theplaydrive said:
Logical Fallacy: Emotional Appeal

You know exactly why its emotional appeal and I can assure you it did not make anyone more inclined to accept your conclusion.
Click to expand...

Yes, those photos of the dead children in Darfur, the Jews in Auschwitz, and the starving people in Communist Russia, and other instances of man's inhumanity to man, are only based on "emotional appeal" and should therefore be ignored. Let's hide the reality in order to more easily accept the ends.
 
megaprogman said:
You realize this is not something where there is proof right? Opinions on when this occurs are all over the place :shrug:

This is shown the fact that I can find literature that says something different. All depending on what aspects of development we want to look at.

PERSONHOOD---when does a fetus become a person?
Click to expand...
And you stand grounded on the killing field without any need to prove what you're killing isn't a human being?

There is no such thing as "personhood". It is another of the pro-abortion people's made up mask to cover up the humanity of the unborn human being. The word "person" was derived from ancient Greek to denote an actor's face mask, nothing more.
 
theplaydrive said:
Here are some suggestions for you: 1. Learn to follow debates instead of just taking things out of context and then calling the person who made the comment a liar.
Click to expand...

I wasn't taking what you said out of context at all. Someone said a fetus is human your reply was to say that so is a person in an irreversible coma. The notion that you were just saying they are both human with no intended implications beyond that is just an absurd and transparent lie.

2. Stop using appeals to emotion and dramatic phrases to get your point across because it suggests that you lack the education and intelligence required to actually talk about arguments.
Click to expand...

I don't consider those phrases any more dramatic than the situation itself. In fact, if anything I am being less dramatic than I should. That has nothing to do with getting my point across as I am fully capable of doing so without using such phrases, but I am not going to dehumanize the unborn by always calling them fetuses and referring to their deaths as "termination of a pregnancy" like its advocates. My intention is to call it exactly what it should be called.

megaprogman said:
Because it is not developed to the point that its autonomic functions can support itself if separated from the womb and there is a lack of a functioning brain. Of course this all depends on which stage of fetus we are talking about.
Click to expand...

Mega, from the very moment of conception you are talking about a human life. There is no dispute that from conception you have a human organism or that from conception you have a living organism that is separate from any other organism. It is indisputably a human life. When it comes to abortion the only real question is whether the unborn should have the same protections under the law as the rest of us.
 
Grant said:
Perhaps it will be rationalized that Susan Smith only had a postnatal abortion.
Click to expand...
Funny how all those prenatal abortion arguments from pro-abortionists work just as well for postnatal abortion!
 
Demon of Light said:
Mega, from the very moment of conception you are talking about a human life. There is no dispute that from conception you have a human organism or that from conception you have a living organism that is separate from any other organism. It is indisputably a human life. When it comes to abortion the only real question is whether the unborn should have the same protections under the law as the rest of us.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was a bit loose with my terminology, I should have posted viable person. I just noticed that.
 
Grant said:
Yes, those photos of the dead children in Darfur, the Jews in Auschwitz, and the starving people in Communist Russia, and other instances of man's inhumanity to man, are only based on "emotional appeal" and should therefore be ignored. Let's hide the reality in order to more easily accept the ends.
Click to expand...

It depends on the context. If I show pictures from the holocaust in response to someone saying that US entry into wwii was a complex decision then I would be guilty of emotional appeal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom