"It’s dehumanizing"

[oxmixmudd]

So, what I said. The Rape/Incest exclusion isn't why you oppose this law, and if it was replaced, you STILL would oppose this law.



Never said otherwise. I said since you aren't going to support the law for the 98% of the time that that rape/incest exclusion is actually relevant to the conversation, then bringing up the <2% time is unnecessary. The only real reason to bring it up is because you want to exploit the emotional/traumatic impact of those cases. In essence, it's a "think of the children!" tactic.




I do, and you confirmed it with your response.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones ("argument from passion") is an informal fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.^[1] 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, and wishful thinking.

The appeal to emotion is only fallacious when the emotions that are elicited are irrelevant to evaluating the truth of the conclusion and serve to distract from rational consideration of relevant premises or information. For instance, if a student says "If I fail this paper I will lose my scholarship. It's not plagiarized" the emotions elicited by the first statement are not relevant to establishing whether the paper was plagiarized. Also, "Look at the suffering children. We must do more for refugees." is fallacious, because the suffering of the children and our emotional perception of the badness of suffering is not relevant to the conclusion. To be sure, the proper role for emotion in moral reasoning is a contested issue in ethics, but the charge of "appeal to emotion" often cannot be made without begging the question against theories of moral cognition that reserve a role for emotion in moral reasoning.

Appeals to emotion are intended to draw inward feelings such as fear, pity, and joy from the recipient of the information with the end goal of convincing them that the statements being presented in the fallacious argument are true or false, respectively.

© Copyright Original Source

I am against the law because it lacks a rape or incest exception. My sense that it might be too short an interval is not what makes me against the law, but I would be for making the interval it was allowed conform to some practical measure of awareness in the fetus.

Therefore your comments are simply incendiary rhetoric that do not reflect my actual positions and which do not respect my right to define my position and motivation.

It would seem you have forgotten your handle and your earlier posts encouraging respectful debate.

[CivilDiscourse]

I am against the law because it lacks a rape or incest exception. My sense that it might be too short an interval is not what makes me against the law, but I would be for making the interval it was allowed conform to some practical measure of awareness in the fetus.

Therefore your comments are simply incendiary rhetoric that do not reflect my actual positions and which do not respect my right to define my position and motivation.

It would seem you have forgotten your handle and your earlier posts encouraging respectful debate.

I have been civil. You said this was too short.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That you are so ignorant about many things is what impresses me.

I suspect that is probably subtext for the fact that you and I hold different positions concerning theology and abortion.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And just where do you suppose that stored sperm came from? Did it just magically materialize? You're like someone who claims that the meat they get from a supermarket wasn't from a dead animal but from a wrapped package sitting on a refrigerated self.

As I have noted we need the sperm. We do not need the man. Or as I wrote earlier to Sparko, perhaps the Amazons of myth had the right idea. Keep a few of the best specimens for stud and cull the rest!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The DKS is strong with this one.

I imagine you would not discount your skill set would you?

[oxmixmudd]

I have been civil. You said this was too short.

I'm afraid telling other people what they actually think even after being corrected is NOT a civil thing to do. I'm sure you would agree if our positions were reversed. But if you tell me that is not the case, I'll accept your answer and not claim you really would

[CivilDiscourse]

I'm afraid telling other people what they actually think even after being corrected is NOT a civil thing to do. I'm sure you would agree if our positions were reversed. But if you tell me that is not the case, I'll accept your answer and not claim you really would

Well, Ox. You have said one thing, and then you claim that you meant something other than what you said. So do I believe the first statement, where you put all of the emphasis on the timeline, and saying Texas law was too short, or do I believe the second where you say the Texas law was fine, except for the rape/incest exception?

[rogue06]

I've got a few things about this and will probably later today since I've got several errands I need to run.

This thread started relating how a Texas High School, Paxton Smith, took her opportunity as valedictorian to get dramatic and deliver a political speech (which amusingly many on the left insist wasn't political). To say that she stretched the truth more than a bit would be an exaggeration including, as I showed, the claim that all abortions were banned after six weeks. Of coursing the MSM piled on their own level of B.S. by swooning over how "brave and "courageous" she was for "speaking truth to power."

Well after all that nonsense was eviscerated the thread owner got miffed and a bit snooty trying to belittle and marginalize those she disagreed with because they were male and couldn't get pregnant. This nonsense was also shredded by first noting this was an illegitimate objection since H_A, like other pro-abortionists, don't mind men giving their opinion on this matter -- but only so long as those men agree with them Only then do they have the right to express an opinion and only then is that opinion valid.

For instance, it was nine men who decided that abortion should be legal in Roe v. Wade (as well as other early abortion cases like Doe v. Bolton and Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth). But you never hear a single utterance about that from the pro-abortion crowd while they decree that men shouldn't have a say about abortion.

Further, illustrating the absurdity of limiting all discussions to only those who have experienced something also demonstrated the ridiculousness of such a policy^[1]. But I doubt it'll change anything. In fact, I'm surprised that we weren't entertained with complaints of how there are too many Christians here on this Christian owned and run site.

So, after that house of cards collapsed, a different tactic was tried. One, as we shall see, just as full of failure.

How many here who vehemently oppose abortion would gladly see their taxes rise to provide adequate welfare programmes, housing, healthcare, education etc. for so many of those saved babies and their mothers?

Excuse me?

Are you now declaring that if someone is opposed to see an innocent life being coldly and callously snuffed, they are now responsible for "provid[ing] adequate welfare programmes, housing, healthcare, education etc."? That unless you take complete responsibility for a life you have saved then you have no business saving it?

Save a child from downing in a pool? Only if you take over the cost to clothe and feed them until they're adults.

Stop a child from running out into the street into oncoming traffic? Not unless you're willing to pay for their education.

So, at least according to this philosophy, you better mind your own business and let them die unless you're willing to shoulder the total cost of their upbringing.

And if you just mean increasing taxes to pay for them that sort of rhetoric comes awfully close to categorizing them as some sort of burden on society. And history shows where that sort of mentality leads us.

EuthanasiePropaganda.jpg
It reads: "This person suffering from hereditary defects
costs the community 60,000 Reichsmark during his
lifetime. Fellow German, that is your money, too."

So just like the folks who dreamed up this and Aktion T4, we can dispose of burdensome people to save some money.

I don't know about you, but this certainly is not a route I would care to go down.






1. I really wonder if those who propose such things would be okay to limit any discussion and decisions regarding property taxes only to those paying them. The same with income tax. If you didn't pay any or got back more than you put in ("Earned income tax credit") -- then you have no say over whether or not income taxes are raised or lowered.

Yeah, I'm sure folks like H_A would be onboard with that.

[oxmixmudd]

Well, Ox. You have said one thing, and then you claim that you meant something other than what you said. So do I believe the first statement, where you put all of the emphasis on the timeline, and saying Texas law was too short, or do I believe the second where you say the Texas law was fine, except for the rape/incest exception?

This is a situation where you made an assumption about what I said that was wrong. The civil thing is to just apologize and let it go. We've all done it. The only thing different here is you doubled down on it. If you hadn't doubled down on it I would have just let it go because I can understand how you might have gotten the impression 'too short' was part of why I was against it. But the point you were trying to 'prove' is that I 'really' wasn't only concerned about the rape or incest exception, which really IS my primary concern. So the fault really is your own for not allowing for the fact I do not fit into your hypothesis that 'all liberals' use the rape or incest exceptions as a baton to beat people with.

Your first mistake is that I'm not a 'liberal' wrt abortion - I am against abortion as birth control. But I'm in a grey area that doesn't fit the stereotypes for either conservative or liberal wrt abortion in that I also do not regard he earliest stage of development as necessarily a human person yet, which means I have to accept that from a secular perspective, prohibitions on abortion need to be based on when the fetus becomes aware on some level.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

This thread started relating how a Texas High School, Paxton Smith, took her opportunity as valedictorian to get dramatic and deliver a political speech (which amusingly many on the left insist wasn't political). To say that she stretched the truth more than a bit would be an exaggeration including, as I showed, the claim that all abortions were banned after six weeks. Of coursing the MSM piled on their own level of B.S. by swooning over how "brave and "courageous" she was for "speaking truth to power."

Well after all that nonsense was eviscerated the thread owner got miffed and a bit snooty trying to belittle and marginalize those she disagreed with because they were male and couldn't get pregnant. This nonsense was also shredded by first noting this was an illegitimate objection since H_A, like other pro-abortionists, don't mind men giving their opinion on this matter -- but only so long as those men agree with them Only then do they have the right to express an opinion and only then is that opinion valid.

For instance, it was nine men who decided that abortion should be legal in Roe v. Wade (as well as other early abortion cases like Doe v. Bolton and Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth). But you never hear a single utterance about that from the pro-abortion crowd while they decree that men shouldn't have a say about abortion.

Further, illustrating the absurdity of limiting all discussions to only those who have experienced something also demonstrated the ridiculousness of such a policy^[1]. But I doubt it'll change anything. In fact, I'm surprised that we weren't entertained with complaints of how there are too many Christians here on this Christian owned and run site.

So, after that house of cards collapsed, a different tactic was tried. One, as we shall see, just as full of failure.


Excuse me?

Are you now declaring that if someone is opposed to see an innocent life being coldly and callously snuffed, they are now responsible for "provid[ing] adequate welfare programmes, housing, healthcare, education etc."? That unless you take complete responsibility for a life you have saved then you have no business saving it?

Save a child from downing in a pool? Only if you take over the cost to clothe and feed them until they're adults.

Stop a child from running out into the street into oncoming traffic? Not unless you're willing to pay for their education.

So, at least according to this philosophy, you better mind your own business and let them die unless you're willing to shoulder the total cost of their upbringing.

And if you just mean increasing taxes to pay for them that sort of rhetoric comes awfully close to categorizing them as some sort of burden on society. And history shows where that sort of mentality leads us.

EuthanasiePropaganda.jpg
It reads: "This person suffering from hereditary defects
costs the community 60,000 Reichsmark during his
lifetime. Fellow German, that is your money, too."

So just like the folks who dreamed up this and Aktion T4, we can dispose of burdensome people to save some money.

I don't know about you, but this certainly is not a route I would care to go down.






1. I really wonder if those who propose such things would be okay to limit any discussion and decisions regarding property taxes only to those paying them. The same with income tax. If you didn't pay any or got back more than you put in ("Earned income tax credit") -- then you have no say over whether or not income taxes are raised or lowered.

Yeah, I'm sure folks like H_A would be onboard with that.

Who is passing the plate and who collects the hymn books?

[rogue06]

H_A's typical response when she's been called out and can't refute anything

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

• rogue06 6 who cannot rationally and dispassionately offer opinion without disappearing down the metaphorical rabbit holes inspired by his own fancies, while of course also resorting to personal comments with the intent to presumably cause offence.

[rogue06]

• rogue06 6 who cannot rationally and dispassionately offer opinion without disappearing down the metaphorical rabbit holes inspired by his own fancies, while of course also resorting to personal comments with the intent to presumably cause offence.

Demonstrating that you can't address any points raised in my post is unnecessary in that your "response" already indicated that.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Demonstrating that you can't address any points raised in my post is unnecessary in that your "response" already indicated that.

How interesting that you make that comment to me when you completely ignored my comments to you in another thread. Remember this? https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...10#post1269244

You went strangely silent after I made my posts #142 and #143.

Incidentally, I have addressed one of your posts. I wait to read your response.

However, with regard to your little sermon/rant in this thread if you want an online "slanging match" you've chosen the wrong person.

[seer]

Lubbock, TX Declared It Was ‘Sanctuary For The Unborn.’ Planned Parenthood Challenged It. Court Rules For Lubbock.

A federal court dismissed Planned Parenthood’s challenge to the city of Lubbock, Texas, which had passed an ordinance declaring the city a “Sanctuary for the Unborn,” and stated, “Abortion at all times and all stages of pregnancy is declared to be an act of murder.” The ordinance made it illegal to procure or perform an abortion or to aid or abet an abortion within the city limits.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/lubbo...es-for-lubbock

[rogue06]

Lubbock, TX Declared It Was ‘Sanctuary For The Unborn.’ Planned Parenthood Challenged It. Court Rules For Lubbock.

A federal court dismissed Planned Parenthood’s challenge to the city of Lubbock, Texas, which had passed an ordinance declaring the city a “Sanctuary for the Unborn,” and stated, “Abortion at all times and all stages of pregnancy is declared to be an act of murder.” The ordinance made it illegal to procure or perform an abortion or to aid or abet an abortion within the city limits.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/lubbo...es-for-lubbock

Looks to me that what Lubbock did should be the real definition for a "Sanctuary city"