I almost missed this. You deleted the code that references my post, so I got no alert, and Tapatalk doesn't always drop me at my last read post.
I don't respond to all abortion threads, so I might not have seen it to have called it out. Nor am I going to make a special trip over there just to do so. Doesn't mean my point is any less applicable. Isn't there a fallacy about claiming that an argument is invalid just because it wasn't universally applied by the one giving it? One of these days I'm going to take that class so I can keep these things straight. That said, I wasn't even the one that originally called you out on the issue of misdirection in putting this thread in the abortion forum. I did a rewording of the one who did, and we been at this since.
First I want to point out that you have done a word chance here. You used abortionist in your first argument on ulterior motives. I then used cancer surgeons as an example to show how that argument failed to hold up. Now you are using the word surgeon for those doing abortions. While a technically valid application of the word, the shift in use implies that our examples were the same, and I made no argument at all. If this was intentional, it is a poor move. But I can see it possibly being unintentional.
That said, yes by leaving your argument at abortionists might have ulterior motives, that leaves the impression that you are referencing at least the majority of abortionists. Had you use the word "some" or "a few", you then don't broad brush the profession. But this doesn't work with the apparent goal of demonizing abortion, as indicated by the placement of this thread, and that specific ommission.
Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk