Welcome to Gaia! ::

I don't see how pointing out my actual individual rights weakens any part of my logic.
To me it sounds a lot more logical to be able to exercise your rights than just have them unless you intend to exercise them or are in a specific situation.

I don't agree. I think that appealing to emotions is always an emotional ploy when it comes to this issue. It is an attempt to use someone's emotional reaction to something to convince them of something when a logical point wouldn't.

Some of them are just bad, like that "In Mommy's Tummy" poem thing on the front page. I'm typing this here so thar I don't bump that stupid poem in the hopes that it will fall back down into obscurity, so hackneyed, shmaltzy and cheesy it is.

I think some emotional appeals are meant to enhance one's argument, instead of demean the opposing argument. We see more emotional ploys than emotional appeals, I will admit. But I don't think they're always the same.

There's a fair amount of emotion on both sides. Unless we get a bunch of Asperger's patients to debate for us, there is going to be emotion. That's why I hate when their (or "you all"s) side acts like they will concede a point when they see proof. That's bullshit. You'll concede a point when you're convinced you're wrong. Even if you give them proof, they're going to b***h about minutiae like wording or the year it was written. Emotional appeals to enhance your argument are fine because you're making your argument better. You're not attacking someone else's argument to be spiteful.

Your interchangeable use of "you" and "they" is rather confusing. Which is why I tend to stick to "one" when I can, even though it leads to somewhat convoluted sentences. *grin*
Well, maybe in your opinion. But, frankly, many Pro-Choicers simply do not see the medical facts about pregnancy and abortion or the legal cases dealing with abortion and with bodily integrity as giving support to the Pro-Life side of things (though at times this is only the case when one has a pre-existing bias). To such Pro-Choicers, there are no logical points that back up the Pro-Life stance, and so they really don't (seem to) understand why anyone would be Pro-Life (or, in some cases, they put very wrong reasons behind the Pro-Life stance).
Well, many Pro-Choicers seem to try and keep up to date on all medical reports and studies about pregnancy and abortion. So when new data is thrown into the debate at hand, they want to know the source. When the information has since been refuted, they often counter with more recent information (or sometimes just say that isn't true and don't bother to back it up - but usually there are other sources).

What is "proof" for you is not always proof for everyone, mind. Pro-Choicers often see legal personhood not applying to unborn humans as "proof" that abortion should always be legal, but you obviously don't see that as proof, right? Can you see how something can be "proof" for one view point and not proof for another?
Just because using emotions doesn't always put down someone doesn't make it a good choice. When it comes to debating abortion, trying to use emotions to convince another of the "right-ness" (or "wrong-ness") of a given point, one is far more likely to put off the very people one is trying to convince than to sway them.