|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:46 pm
Yes, we all know that a fetus is not a parasite. To be a parasite, one must be of a different species.
But when you hear about an organism that's living in your body, using your nutrients and resources, cannot survive outside your body, and can potentially cause serious health problems, do you think of a fetus? No, you think of a parasite.
Likewise, when you hear about a cute, adorable, innocent, joy-bringing baby, one doesn't usually think of this:
( ^ A fetus at around 9 weeks. The majority of abortions occur at or before nine weeks gestation.)
One thinks of this:
Neither belong in a debate. Both are emotional appeals. The former tries to paint the fetus out as a villian, the latter tries to paint the fetus out as exactly the same thing as a six month old infant. Neither are true. Neither belong in debate.
It's OK for pro-lifers to use their usual emotional appeals, but a pro-choicers emotional appeal is disgusting and means that they're uneducated morons.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 2:13 pm
I have to disagree with your last sentence. Two things: one, you're implying that pro-lifers have nothing but emotional appeals to base their argument on, and two, you're saying it's okay for them but not us, which I have to disagree with. Emotional appeal is not a valid debate tactic, therefore it's not okay for EITHER side to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 3:15 pm
Seeing the Kraken I have to disagree with your last sentence. Two things: one, you're implying that pro-lifers have nothing but emotional appeals to base their argument on, and two, you're saying it's okay for them but not us, which I have to disagree with. Emotional appeal is not a valid debate tactic, therefore it's not okay for EITHER side to do it. Point 1) I'm sorry it sounded like I was implying pro-lifers only rely on emotional appeals. I meant nothing of the sort.
Point 2) That was the message I got from the posts in the main forum, which was why I felt compelled to post this thread. I completely agree, it's not OK for either side to use emotional appeals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:52 pm
While I find the term "baby" emotionally charged, and disagree with it, I think the main thing I'm wondering here is what YOU define as emotional appeals. A fetus is and isn't the same thing as a baby. I mean developmentally speaking, no it's not, just as a baby is not the same as a toddler, pre-teen, teenager or adult.
However it is in-so-far-as if you take an ultrasound picture and then take a picture of the same child, after it is born, it IS the same thing. It's the same child, just at a different stage of development.
Also a lot of choicers believe the term "child" to be emotionally charged. However considering that it holds no inherent meaning, towards the age of a person (my mother is the child of my grandmother, even though she's in her 40's).
Some people believe there should only be "medical terms" used in the course of a debate, however they still use the term "teenager" which is not infact a medical term.
Scientifically a fetus is alive, and human. Personhood therefore could be seen as an emotional appeal, maybe no one should be allowed to bring personhood into the debate.
What about the arguement that women will get back alley abortions? That's an emotional appeal.
Rape victims? Emotional appeal.
"It's my body." Emotional appeal.
She'd have to drop out of school/would lose her job/could die. Emotional appeal.
The problem is, everyone's idea of what is an emotional appeal or what kinds of emotional appeals should or should not be allowed, kind of shifts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 12:32 pm
I think the emotional appeal is defined by how it is presented.
For example, I wouldn’t consider one simply saying that a fetus will eventually develop into a baby an emotional appeal. It’s fact.
However, saying that a fetus IS a baby, or using the potential argument, is an emotional appeal.
Saying that a fetus has certain similar characteristics to a parasite is an factual observation. Saying that it IS a parasite is an emotional appeal.
Saying that a woman’s only real option may be abortion because of unknown circumstances is fact. Saying that if a woman doesn’t get an abortion, she’ll have to drop out of school and quit her job and live on the streets and be miserable is an emotional appeal.
Saying that you have the right to control over your own body is not an emotional appeal. It’s true. It is your right.
Saying that you don’t want some underdeveloped organism ravaging your body and putting you through hell for nine months and shouldn’t have to deal with it if you don’t want to because you control your own body, is.
Emotional appeals are, at least in my book, arguments or facts that are twisted and presented in a way that relies more on emotion to influence people than on any facts and reason that may have existed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:52 pm
As far as emotional appeals go, I try not to make them, and I try to point them out to people when they make one (because I think that some people just don't realize when they say something that is based on their emotions but isn't based on valid logic). But, you know, everyone has emotions tied into this issue, so it's very difficult to not react emotionally.
I go out of my way to try to make sure that I'm not using emotionally charged words in my statements about this issue. For instance, I use the term "unborn human" because it came to my understanding that some people feel that Pro-Choicers use "fetus" almost as a dirty word (I don't feel that way, I even plan on referring to any unborn humans I carry as "my fetus" or "our fetus" - I think that the fetal stage is just about the most amazing stage in human development because of the amount of growth and change that takes place during it). I don't expect other people to do the same (because, let's face it, who else cares as much as I do about respecting the feelings of "the other side" on this issue?), but I point it out as an example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 10:25 pm
Tyshia2 I think the emotional appeal is defined by how it is presented.
For example, I wouldn’t consider one simply saying that a fetus will eventually develop into a baby an emotional appeal. It’s fact.
However, saying that a fetus IS a baby, or using the potential argument, is an emotional appeal.
Saying that a fetus has certain similar characteristics to a parasite is an factual observation. Saying that it IS a parasite is an emotional appeal.
Saying that a woman’s only real option may be abortion because of unknown circumstances is fact. Saying that if a woman doesn’t get an abortion, she’ll have to drop out of school and quit her job and live on the streets and be miserable is an emotional appeal.
Saying that you have the right to control over your own body is not an emotional appeal. It’s true. It is your right.
Saying that you don’t want some underdeveloped organism ravaging your body and putting you through hell for nine months and shouldn’t have to deal with it if you don’t want to because you control your own body, is.
Emotional appeals are, at least in my book, arguments or facts that are twisted and presented in a way that relies more on emotion to influence people than on any facts and reason that may have existed. Of coarse, this entire post is based purley on what your opinoin of an emotional appeal is. Baby=fetus wouldn't be an emotional apeal to me as I don't draw a diffrence between the two words unless I'm debating form a medical standpoint. Then again, the way I debait is completly unorthodox for both sides, so I tend to stay out of debates entirly...I simply moderate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 8:29 am
The thing about emotional appeals is, they only serve to change or discredit your argument by playing on your humanity.
I seriously think most of the arguments for pro-choice are emotional.
The thing is, we need to play to people's logic, not their emotions. Some people (especially women) don't really know the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 10:34 am
Erasmas The thing about emotional appeals is, they only serve to change or discredit your argument by playing on your humanity. I seriously think most of the arguments for pro-choice are emotional. The thing is, we need to play to people's logic, not their emotions. Some people (especially women) don't really know the difference. I think that a lot of arguments for both sides are emotional appeals. I also think that what it essentially comes down to is right to life vs right to bodily domain. You can argue that BD wouldn't exist without first having right to life, but once you put someone else in the equation it's a different story. Logically, some people draw the conclusion that no one has the right to use someone else's body without their consent. And logically, some people draw the conclusion that pregnancy is a special case because the circumstances were in a way chosen, and thus the right to life overrules bodily domain. Are they both logical enough for you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:10 pm
Seeing the Kraken Erasmas The thing about emotional appeals is, they only serve to change or discredit your argument by playing on your humanity. I seriously think most of the arguments for pro-choice are emotional. The thing is, we need to play to people's logic, not their emotions. Some people (especially women) don't really know the difference. I think that a lot of arguments for both sides are emotional appeals. I also think that what it essentially comes down to is right to life vs right to bodily domain. You can argue that BD wouldn't exist without first having right to life, but once you put someone else in the equation it's a different story. Logically, some people draw the conclusion that no one has the right to use someone else's body without their consent. And logically, some people draw the conclusion that pregnancy is a special case because the circumstances were in a way chosen, and thus the right to life overrules bodily domain. Are they both logical enough for you? Not for me. But then again, I've said the way I debate is entirly unorthodox.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:46 pm
Erasmas The thing about emotional appeals is, they only serve to change or discredit your argument by playing on your humanity. I seriously think most of the arguments for pro-choice are emotional. The thing is, we need to play to people's logic, not their emotions. Some people (especially women) don't really know the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:30 pm
Erasmas The thing about emotional appeals is, they only serve to change or discredit your argument by playing on your humanity. I seriously think most of the arguments for pro-choice are emotional. The thing is, we need to play to people's logic, not their emotions. Some people (especially women) don't really know the difference. Especially women? Now that sounds like an emotional argument to me, based on your own experiences which may have skewed your perception and therefore makes your opinions less valid... Would you like to show me where it's been scientifically and logically proven that the Y chromosome brings superior logic?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:47 pm
Seeing the Kraken I think that a lot of arguments for both sides are emotional appeals. I also think that what it essentially comes down to is right to life vs right to bodily domain. You can argue that BD wouldn't exist without first having right to life, but once you put someone else in the equation it's a different story. Logically, some people draw the conclusion that no one has the right to use someone else's body without their consent. And logically, some people draw the conclusion that pregnancy is a special case because the circumstances were in a way chosen, and thus the right to life overrules bodily domain. Are they both logical enough for you? I think so. Without getting emotions involved (or, at least, involving them as little as possible) this issue really comes down to the question: Does the Right to Life of the unborn human trump the Right to Bodily Integrity of the pregnant woman? Or: Does the Bodily Integrity of the pregnant woman trump the Right to Life of the unborn human?(basically the same thing, but, to me, it made sense to phrase it both ways *grin*) I feel that there are logical reasons behind both sides. But I, personally, think that the majority of people on both sides of this issue believe in what they do for emotional reasons. Or, at least, came to believe what they did originally for emotional reasons. I know that the very first time I heard of this issue, it was explained to me using emotional reasoning ("Women should be able to choose not to be mothers," I believe was what my mother told me). And I'm pretty sure that almost everyone involved in this issue has some emotional investment in the side they believe in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:32 pm
I was making a really long post but I guess that it too so long, I ended up loging out sweatdrop
Anyways
Teachically fetus is latin for unborn offspring so either way, call it an unborn baby/child/offspring or fetus doesn't both me since it's all basically the same thing but others seem to make a big deal out of so I usually just stick with offspring (even though the first few stages of pregnancy it isn't an offspring).
Of course the fetus doesn't look like an infant, that's just what people thing will they hear the word baby. Most people say "having a baby", the only time you usually hear the term fetus is in debates or from doctors. And usually only people that hates the thought of pregnancy call it a parasite.
Oh and the fetus starts at eight weeks. Though it technically starts to devolp the head and eyes aroud day 21 or 28 when it's still an embryo (can't remember which, I need to look at the medical dictionary again). At that time does it look human? No but the fact it that it is human life.
In debates, mostly emotional appeal is used and very little fact.
like rape? Fact, most abortions and most (unwanted) pregnacies arn't the result from rape. Fact the fetus is still a fetus either way.
Bodily rights? Fact, in order to have that right you have to be alive and have a body. Fact the fetus isn't a part of the mothers actual body, just temporarily using her body. I see a flaw in that argument, the fetus has its own body right (or developing one anyways)? Where is its right or why is it his/her body that ends up being destroyed?
In some causes, the woman's only option is abortion-false. The fact is in every pregnancy, there are many options if you wish to seek it or ask for help. In even life or death, the woman can and may choose to either risk death to have the baby or abort, both are options. Abortion isn't the only option, just one of many options (It's all about choices right?).
See pretty much a lot of things people say are emotional appeal and not actual fact or have some flaws in the argument.
I had more to say but I forgot it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 5:20 pm
lymelady Erasmas The thing about emotional appeals is, they only serve to change or discredit your argument by playing on your humanity. I seriously think most of the arguments for pro-choice are emotional. The thing is, we need to play to people's logic, not their emotions. Some people (especially women) don't really know the difference. Especially women? Now that sounds like an emotional argument to me, based on your own experiences which may have skewed your perception and therefore makes your opinions less valid... Would you like to show me where it's been scientifically and logically proven that the Y chromosome brings superior logic?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
