House votes to defund Planned Parenthood

[CaptainCourtesy]

Charing another with "emotional fallacy" is really quite amusing when it is YOU who jumps through hoops attempting to rationalize the premeditated ending of a human life as anything other than murder. It demonstrates a total lack of morality, what parent would willingly take the life of their child in order to make their life easier? Life is present, regardless of how you wish to rationalize that fact away by calling the life anything other human, that life must be placed to death to end it. Such is a total act of fascism, by declaring your life more valuable because you are the more mature and stronger example of life in that species you have reduced your status from being a rational, caring human being that has empathy toward toward other life, to that of nothing more than an animal.

A perfect example of Darwinian Cultism that promotes, "Survival of the fittest"....in fact he dedicated an entire study in demonstrating how human society was weak because they placed life above the collective good. He said that modern medicine should cease all attempts to treat the terminally ill and elderly, those born with a handicap should be allowed to die or placed to death..etc.,

In the dictionary, under the term "appeal to emotion logical fallacy" is the above post. Other that that exposure, there is nothing of substance there.

 

[Walter]

In the dictionary, under the term "appeal to emotion logical fallacy" is the above post. Other that that exposure, there is nothing of substance there.

And this DEFLECTION precludes your FAULTY REASONING from existing? Really? Another attempt to rationalize the guilt of your inhumane position? I am sure someone that is mentally handicapped in the area of reasoned logic can find NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE in any reasoned and logical position...or they would not find themselves LACKING in that area in the first place. What's new under the sun? This is much like the liar, who must lie perpetually to cover the last lie, but in reality they are deceiving no one other than SELF.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

And this DEFLECTION precludes your FAULTY REASONING from existing? Really? Another attempt to rationalize the guilt of your inhumane position?

MORE appeal to emotion logical fallacy. Keep going. Disputing you requires such little effort.

 

[Gladiator]

The GOP has been busy this week

This is good we should not fund a pro abortion group


House votes to defund Planned Parenthood - David Nather and Kate Nocera - POLITICO.com

The House just approved Rep. Mike Pence’s amendment to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood, checking off a hot-button social issue even as it set up a bigger showdown over defunding the health care law.

The vote was 240-185 with 11 Democrats voting for the amendment, and seven Republicans voting against. One member voted present. A group of Republicans on the floor applauded when the vote hit 218.

Read more: House votes to defund Planned Parenthood - David Nather and Kate Nocera - POLITICO.com

The anticipation of defunding Planned Parenthood was discussed in an earlier DP thread, referenced wtih this Link:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/85139-pro-life-controls-us-house-and-possibly-senate.html


Assisting with family planning actually saves tax payers money. Irresponsible parenting involved with unwanted children is a considerable expense for taxpayers. If the Republicans were serious about reducing the budget of the government, they would do well to recognize that money spent on family planning is a cost effective investment for reducing goverment expenses.


"The direct medical costs associated with unintended pregnancies in 2002 were $5 billion.vi Title X-funded services produce significant cost savings to the federal and state governments; services provided at Title X–supported clinics accounted for $3.4 billion in such savings in 2008 alone.vii"


http://www.nfprha.org/images/insert...ng_Public_Health_ Saving_Taxpayer_Dollars.pdf




Statistics show that for every government dollar spent on family planning, $4 of tax money is saved. I think its a good buy. OK Grannie

 

[Jerry]

I don't dismiss them as a reason... and I think I said that. But your terminology of them being a "deeper" problem represents something more ominous or emotional. THAT'S what I reject. Those issues have lots of consequences. There are also lots of other reasons one would choose to have an abortion. If you are going to indicate that it is an example of a "deeper" problem you need to be a bit more descriptive and present a more filled out argument.

For example, let's look at rape. Let's say a woman is raped and becomes pregnant as a result. If she chooses to have an abortion, your explanation seems to be that this is a result, or an offshoot of the trauma. Firstly, the trauma will exist regardless. But, secondly, having the abortion may have nothing or little to do with the trauma. It may be because the woman had no intention of getting pregnant. Or it may be because she neither wants a child nor wants to go through a pregnancy. These are not examples of "deeper" issues.

You are reading way to much into my casual use of "deeper problems". I've explained what I meant by it, you can choose to accept it or not, your choice. At this point you're simply derailing the conversation, so I choose not to participate in your RedHerrings any further.

 

[Jerry]

And right now, in this time, it is not murder. Using the term is an appeal to emotion logical fallacy.

It's an appeal to emotion when used in a legal context. Someone explaining that they view abortion as murder ethically is not committing any fallacy, because an act can be against ethical standards while within the letter of the law.

I invite you at this point to contribute more to this thread then semantics games.

 

[Hoplite]

Someone needs to drive on the roads for ya...If you want food, clothes or need medical assistance I am sure you enjoy those roads just as much as I do.

EXACTLY! I pay for those roads because I benefit from their use. YOU pay for Planned Parenthood because you benefit from it's use.

Abortion..nope I dont need it nor use it at ALL. As I said before...I would dish out more money for a newborn child then to kill one. Dont pick and choose my words...

You dont pay for abortions. Federal money is not used to provide such services per already existing federal law.

I have consented and paid for 2 of my children to be aborted, I have given 2 sons up for adoption, suffered through a late-term miscarriage, and currently have 2 sons whom I'm fighting for custody of.

Based on the fact that I do have a lot of real life experience on the matter and have been on different sides of the issue, I strongly suspect that your comments apply more to you than to me.

Then I would expect you, of all people, to understand the importance of a place that provides family planning for people who need it the most and it makes me extremely sad that you seem so incensed against it without considering the consequences.

More than that, I want to prevent them form even turning the lights on.


As you said, I want to yank funding from P.P. for performing the abortions; whether or not P.P. is paying for the abortions isn't even a secondary concern.



I.

Don't.

Care.

And that's really what it comes down to. You dont care. You are in it for you and yours and the rest of the world can hang.

I'm sorry, but I have never been so disgusted in my entire life. Prior to this, I had yet to see a post that made me PHYSICALLY ill to read it, until now. There is nothing constructive that can be gained from this.

I'm done with this thread and everyone in it.

Enjoy your new world.

 

[Jerry]

EXACTLY! I pay for those roads because I benefit from their use. YOU pay for Planned Parenthood because you benefit from it's use.

You dont pay for abortions. Federal money is not used to provide such services per already existing federal law.

Then I would expect you, of all people, to understand the importance of a place that provides family planning for people who need it the most and it makes me extremely sad that you seem so incensed against it without considering the consequences.


And that's really what it comes down to. You dont care. You are in it for you and yours and the rest of the world can hang.

I'm sorry, but I have never been so disgusted in my entire life. Prior to this, I had yet to see a post that made me PHYSICALLY ill to read it, until now. There is nothing constructive that can be gained from this.

I'm done with this thread and everyone in it.

Enjoy your new world.

Finlay you and I have a proper understanding, that there can be no compromise between us. Negotiating with pro-choice is exactly like negotiating with terrorists.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

You are reading way to much into my casual use of "deeper problems". I've explained what I meant by it, you can choose to accept it or not, your choice. At this point you're simply derailing the conversation, so I choose not to participate in your RedHerrings any further.

Your expansion of "deeper problems" in your other examples, takes the stance that an elective abortion represents something other than simple personal choice.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

It's an appeal to emotion when used in a legal context. Someone explaining that they view abortion as murder ethically is not committing any fallacy, because an act can be against ethical standards while within the letter of the law.

I invite you at this point to contribute more to this thread then semantics games.

Invite all you like. The term is being misused. Misusing terms are misrepresenting an issue/position, logical fallacies, or both. I see them, I'm going to call people on them. Murder is commonly used as a legal term. I have no issue with the word "killing". Murder is an appeal to emotion logical fallacy.

 

[Gapeach]

EXACTLY! I pay for those roads because I benefit from their use. YOU pay for Planned Parenthood because you benefit from it's use.

I just have to say, I do not benefit one single bit from planned parenthood. I do not gain anything from this "program". My life would be more complete knowing any tax dollars weren't going to this chaos.

 

[jamesrage]

Another appeal to emotion logical fallacy term.

So you are saying that dictionaries are wrong in its definition of pro-aboriton?

 

[jamesrage]

The truth is, I'm not anti-abortion or pro-abortion, I just frankly don't care.

If for some reason abortion became illegal and was treated no different than murder you wouldn't care one way or the other?

In this world that we live in, we have the recources to end world hunger tommorow, we could cure all of the earths ills within 50 years if we worked together, but nope, we as a race allow 22, 000 children a day to die because of poverty, and you're worried about some chick in detroit who lives in a trailer park and can't support a child and opts for abortion...

You got to worry about lives in your own country first before you go worrying about the lives in other countries.

I just have better things to worry about. That may sound harsh, but people who support things like the war in Iraq which led to the deaths of 100, 000's of people and then has the audacity to judge a woman for making one of the hardest decisions in her life... I just don't see the point in caring. But feeling that you have to impose your morals on them especially when morals are subjective.

The war in Iraq is just a drop in bucket compared to the number of lives abortion has taken.

I don't know dogg, abortion is not usually something I argue. But I'll tell you, it is a redundant argument at the end of the day.

Then why put in your two cents if you don't give two ****s about abortion?

 

[Walter]

Invite all you like. The term is being misused. Misusing terms are misrepresenting an issue/position, logical fallacies, or both. I see them, I'm going to call people on them. Murder is commonly used as a legal term. I have no issue with the word "killing". Murder is an appeal to emotion logical fallacy.

Again, you are committing "emotional fallacy" not logical fallacy because clearly anyone that has no cognation to basic logic is not capable of detailing a fallacy that might or might not exist in another's perception to logic. For instance the declaration that "murder" is simply a legal term when you do as much to rationalize the premeditated act of taking an innocent gestating human life as being a synonym for KILLING when in fact the act of KILLING can be "justified" when that action comes in self defense of life or when killing is an act of execution in the righteous judgment of society for crimes against humanity....murder being one such righteous act of punishment for the taking of the human right to life.

Murder indeed is a term that best suites the action of abortion on demand which in essence is a premeditated act of taking an innocent life void of any due process whatsoever, might less having any crimes against humanity being proved against that innocent gestating life. The very first LEGAL DOCUMENT represented by the United States Congress (the declaration of independence) specially details the documented position of this Nation, neither LIFE nor LIBERTY is subject to be
"alienated" (transferred) by man or the government of man, void of DUE PROCESS.

Murder is a term applied to an act of immorality, regardless of the legal status of that act as no law can legislate morality it can only reflect the morality or lack thereof of the men who instigated said law. In the circumstance of ABORTION on demand said law came from the BENCH in direct violation of the United States Constitution. Prior to Roe v. Wade and the 200 + years of legal precedent in this nation, NO ACT of LEGISLATION was ever drafted by the Legislative Branch of any Government, either State or Federal that defined abortion on demand as a Legal Action. Thus you are constructing your definition of a Logical Fallacy on a false premise, that being Abortion is indeed representative of the morality of WE the PEOPLE and thus legal, when in fact said legality was instituted by an act of Totalitarianism stemming from a Judicial Oligarchy which does not represent the morality of THE PEOPLE as do all laws that are representative of that morality when drafted by THE PEOPLES representatives.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

So you are saying that dictionaries are wrong in its definition of pro-aboriton?

Nope. What I'm saying is using a term in a certain way is an appeal to emotion logical fallacy. It is pretty clear how each side of this issue identifies themselves: pro-life vs. pro-choice. Use any other term and you are appealing to emotion.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Again, you are committing "emotional fallacy" not logical fallacy because clearly anyone that has no cognation to basic logic is not capable of detailing a fallacy that might or might not exist in another's perception to logic. For instance the declaration that "murder" is simply a legal term when you do as much to rationalize the premeditated act of taking an innocent gestating human life as being a synonym for KILLING when in fact the act of KILLING can be "justified" when that action comes in self defense of life or when killing is an act of execution in the righteous judgment of society for crimes against humanity....murder being one such righteous act of punishment for the taking of the human right to life.

Murder indeed is a term that best suites the action of abortion of demand which in essence is a premeditated act of taking an innocent void of any due process whatsoever, might less having any crimes against humanity being proved against that innocent gestating life.

Murder is a term applied to an act of immorality, regardless of the legal status of that act as no law can legislate morality it can only reflect the morality or lack thereof of the men who instigated said law. In the circumstance of ABORTION on demand said law came from the BENCH in direct violation of the United States Constitution. Prior to Roe v. Wade and the 200 + years of legal precedent in this nation, NO ACT of LEGISLATION was ever drafted by the Legislative Branch of any Government, either State or Federal that defined abortion on demand as a Legal Action. Thus you constructing your definition of a Logical Fallacy on a false premise, that being Abortion is indeed representative of the morality of WE the PEOPLE and thus legal, when in fact said legality was instituted by an act of Totalitarianism stemming from Judicial Oligarchy which does not represent the morality of THE PEOPLE.

Keep appealing to emotion, and I'll just keep pointing it out.

Here's the definition of murder:

Definition of MURDER

: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Murder - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Your morality is irrelevant in regards to logic. You appealing to emotion with every post.

 

[jamesrage]

Nope. What I'm saying is using a term in a certain way is an appeal to emotion logical fallacy.

The term is used because it is accurate. It is not a emotional logical fallacy.There is nothing deceptive or erroneous about using the term pro-abortion or abortionist to refer to people who support legalized abortion. The only reason you people dislike being called pro-abortion or an abortionist because abortion itself has a negative connotation even to you people.

It is pretty clear how each side of this issue identifies themselves: pro-life vs. pro-choice. Use any other term and you are appealing to emotion.

Pro abortion is just as much as an appeal to emotion as pro-choice.

 

[nonpareil]

Hmm, well when you can qualify your opinion maybe I'll be able to distinguish your voice from the other Micheal Moore movie extras.

So you do realise that you are no better than a "Micheal Moore movie extras". Your opinion is not "qualified" in any way, and yet you think others should?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

The term is used because it is accurate. It is not a emotional logical fallacy.There is nothing deceptive or erroneous about using the term pro-abortion or abortionist to refer to people who support legalized abortion. The only reason you people dislike being called pro-abortion or an abortionist because abortion itself has a negative connotation even to you people.

It is not accurate as it is not what the "movement" is called. It is an appeal to emotion logical fallacy, because it is folks on your side who use it to claim that those who are on the pro-choice side are FOR abortions. This is not necessarily accurate. Pro-choicers are just that: FOR CHOICE. Doesn't mean that are FOR abortions... it means they want the option available. Using the term "pro-abortion" denotes a different definition than what the position stands for, a definition that is not accurate, but attempts to cause an emotion of anger/disgust/something else. Hence, it is an appeal to emotion logical fallacy.

Pro abortion is just as much as an appeal to emotion as pro-choice.

Not at all. But by your logic, so is pro-life.

 

[X Factor]

It is not accurate as it is not what the "movement" is called. It is an appeal to emotion logical fallacy, because it is folks on your side who use it to claim that those who are on the pro-choice side are FOR abortions. This is not necessarily accurate. Pro-choicers are just that: FOR CHOICE. Doesn't mean that are FOR abortions... it means they want the option available. Using the term "pro-abortion" denotes a different definition than what the position stands for, a definition that is not accurate, but attempts to cause an emotion of anger/disgust/something else. Hence, it is an appeal to emotion logical fallacy.

Not at all. But by your logic, so is pro-life.

Well, to be fair though, how about when we're referred to as "anti-choice", "anti-woman" or even "pro-oppression" (as I was told once)?

 

[nonpareil]

No I can name a service family has a history with which is religious.



No, the example I gave is addiquit. You can do your own Google at this point.

So you're full of bull**** when you say there are "any number of other institutions". You just say it off the top of your head because that sounds good for your arguement even though you don't know any other than the one you are familiar with.

In your opinion, which means nothing.

Right back at ya.

So we can agree on something.



If they provide it illegally, then they are committing assault at least, and those people need to know that the law already allows citizens to use force to intervene on anther's behalf.

I strongly suggest any such institution remain within the law, whatever the law may be. Changing the law is the path to take, because if they go outside the law, others might also.



Yup, to bad.



Oh then we need to legalize all "murder" of every kind because no law outright banning such behavior "stops" it from occurring at all. Right.

No. Did I say that? We are down to strawman now?

Class 5 felonies for everyone eace



And then they'll become license plate specialists.



"Family planning clinics"? I don't believe I said anything against your typical nameless generic "family planning clinics". I take issue with elective abortion providers.

That's what it will lead to. Most non-religious family planning clinics will refer people for abortion, if abortion becomes illegal, there will still be people working there who knows someone.

What it comes down to is that your position is impractical and harmful to society.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Well, to be fair though, how about when we're referred to as "anti-choice", "anti-woman" or even "pro-oppression" (as I was told once)?

All those terms are equally inaccurate and appeals to emotion logical fallacies. I especially love calling pro-choicers out when they start calling a fetus a parasite. Ridiculous appeal to emotion.

 

[X Factor]

All those terms are equally inaccurate and appeals to emotion logical fallacies. I especially love calling pro-choicers out when they start calling a fetus a parasite. Ridiculous appeal to emotion.

Ok, one more question along this line, regarding an appeal to emotion, how about this ad (there's a description of it at the link if you can't see the YouTube video)

Lisa Edelstein in Coat Hanger Abortion Ad

 

[OKgrannie]

Murder indeed is a term that best suites the action of abortion on demand which in essence is a premeditated act of taking an innocent life void of any due process whatsoever, might less having any crimes against humanity being proved against that innocent gestating life. The very first LEGAL DOCUMENT represented by the United States Congress (the declaration of independence) specially details the documented position of this Nation, neither LIFE nor LIBERTY is subject to be "alienated" (transferred) by man or the government of man, void of DUE PROCESS.

The courts have decided that the pregnant woman herself, no one else, is qualified to judge "due process" in this instance. Since a fetus is neither guilty nor innocent, you might just as well declare a rock "innocent." But of course, we recognize that is more of your appeal to emotion.

Murder is a term applied to an act of immorality, regardless of the legal status of that act as no law can legislate morality it can only reflect the morality or lack thereof of the men who instigated said law. In the circumstance of ABORTION on demand said law came from the BENCH in direct violation of the United States Constitution. Prior to Roe v. Wade and the 200 + years of legal precedent in this nation, NO ACT of LEGISLATION was ever drafted by the Legislative Branch of any Government, either State or Federal that defined abortion on demand as a Legal Action. Thus you are constructing your definition of a Logical Fallacy on a false premise, that being Abortion is indeed representative of the morality of WE the PEOPLE and thus legal, when in fact said legality was instituted by an act of Totalitarianism stemming from a Judicial Oligarchy which does not represent the morality of THE PEOPLE as do all laws that are representative of that morality when drafted by THE PEOPLES representatives.

An act is considered to be legal until a law is passed against it. No law was passed against abortion until the 19th century, abortion was legal and practiced in this country until the mid-1800's. Our laws do not represent "the morality of THE PEOPLE" at all, the morality of the people varies greatly, and in fact, we each have a right to determine our own morality according to our own consciences until our acts cause disruption of order in society. The courts correctly determined that the private act of abortion does not disrupt order in society, and that every woman has a right to her own freedom of conscience.

 

[jamesrage]

It is not accurate as it is not what the "movement" is called.

It is too accurate.Read the definitions.

It is an appeal to emotion logical fallacy, because it is folks on your side who use it to claim that those who are on the pro-choice side are FOR abortions.

You people are just ashamed of being called what you really are. Pro-abortion means that you are for legalized abortion, just like pro-life or anti-abortion means you are against legalized abortions.

This is not necessarily accurate. Pro-choicers are just that: FOR CHOICE. Doesn't mean that are FOR abortions... it means they want the option available. Using the term "pro-abortion" denotes a different definition than what the position stands for, a definition that is not accurate, but attempts to cause an emotion of anger/disgust/something else. Hence, it is an appeal to emotion logical fallacy.

They are for legalized abortions which is what pro-abortion is defined as.

Not at all. But by your logic, so is pro-life.

Pro-choice implies that the other side is anti-choice. That somehow if you are against abortion then you not for people making choices. So it is just as much an appeal to emotion as pro-abortion.