Adolescent Arguments in the Abortion Debate

Association for Interdisciplinary Research in Values and Social Change Vol. 17, No. 3 ^ | July/August 2002 | Wanda Franz, Ph.D.

[XBob]

You said earlier, about demons - "It should have been posted three times!"

Perhaps you could tell me what demons look like, since you seem to endorse the idea so heartily.

[XBob]

You wrote, quoting me:

If there is an all powerful God/creator, Is there or isn't there? You brought "God/creator" and your host of other deities into this.

It's not my host of dieties, it is all those other people, like .30Carbine for example, who believes in demons. I can find neither proof of God nor disproof of God, so, I am an agnositic.

There is one thing about this game called 'life', you can't get out of it alive. What point are you making? That life is valueless?

Actually, now that you mention it, exactly the opposite, as most of those who argue that, seem to argue that a life is worthless. All those who say that a fertilized egg has the same value as human baby (already born) or even a child or full grown adult, are arguing that there is no intrinsic value to all accomplishments after the sperm enters the egg. When everything is of equal value, there is no point to doing anything. - MHGinTN believes that a fertilized egg is worth the same as a fully grown, and accomplished adult, therefore, a person's life experiences, and accomplishments add nothing to the value of the sperm and egg. So, therefore, a 'life' is essentially worthless. Remember, there can be no light, without darkness to compare it to.

If there is an all powerful God/creator, he is also a destroyer,< Stupid logic. GM builds cars, cars wear out and break down, therefore GM destroys cars. Moron.

Now, there you go, doing exactly what the author of the article is accusing pro-abortionists of doing, using loaded words and insults. As far as being a moron, I think you are pretty ignorant if you think that GM doesn't design cars to fail, therefore destroying cars. About 30 years ago Porche designed a prototype car, which basically wouldn't wear out. It cost about 5 times as much to build as a regular Porche, and would basically, with reasonable care, last forever. They decided not to build it for production, as it was a good way not to sell new Porches, and make more money. And in a similar time frame, when the average person traded their car about 3.2 years after putting on a new Muffler, Midas designed 'Lifetime' mufflers to last 3.6 years. Of course GM designs cars to fail. How else could they sell new, replacement cars

... who kills 100% of the people he created.?? I don't like your God/creator. If he destroys life then f#ck him.

You must criticize your 'friends' and fellow 'deists' here, not me. That is why they dreamed up 'life everlasting', and 'ever lasting soul', because it is very apparent, people always die, so if 'God' is all powerful, they must give their God an 'out', and so they invented the 'ever lasting soul'. Interestingly enough, I was listening to woman on the radio tonight, expound on how Jesus, was a living physical body, (specifically not a spirit, but a 'body' - 'corporeal') and had a body, and was living somewhere up in space called the 'third level of heaven', or something similar. That he was not a spirit, but a physical body.

[.30Carbine]

They look like liars.

[XBob]

59 - "Why? Nothing of your own to believe in nothing of your own to say?"

Actually, yes, I do. I studied this problem of 'God', the universe, and a creator, and could not answer the questions:

1. If the universe had to have a creator, and that Creator was 'God', then who created the 'Creator'? And if 'he always was, and always shall be, then why could not the universe 'always be and always shall be'.

2. Where are we? - On earth, in the solar system, in the Milky Way Galaxy, in the Universe, and just where is the universe?

So, I figure that if there is a God, at least a God I would believe in, he would understand my questions. And if there is an afterlife, he would rather have an 'Honest' agnostic, rather than a hyocritical believer.

I am happy for 'believers' that they 'believe', as I know that 'believing' gives a lot of psyhological comfort. Life is much easier when you 'know'. But it is much harder on those who you try to force your beliefs. Just look at all the Muslim 'believers', who basically say - 'believe my way or I will kill you'. And the Spanish conquistadors, who poured molton gold down the throats of the Aztecs, to 'save' them, and make them 'Christian'.

[XBob]

so, demons look like 'liars'? Well, what does a 'liar' look like? I know what one liar looks like - Bill Xlinton. Do they all look like him, or any other liars specifically?

[XBob]

As you will not take the trouble to answer my questions, I will not take the trouble to answer your foolish accusations, which exactly parellel what the original post is about, and have little weight or integrity and are mostly incorrect, insults, and name calling.

And now you are calling me a liar too!!!

" Lying to win points? Abortion has always been a legal option for the physician treating the life of the woman, electable if the pregnancy is an imminent threat to her life."

You obviously don't remember those times, and the reasons for passing Roe v Wade to begin with - there were many places and states where abortion was illegal, for any reason, period, even to save the life of the mother. You should know better than that. And I have had numbers of people on FR argue that there is no reason, period for an abortion, even to save the mother's life, to save their wife's life, or even to save their own life.

And how can you begin to justify an abortion to save the mother's life, when, as you repeatedly argue, it has exactly the same value as a fertilized egg? What kind of logic is that?

PLEASE GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE AND ANSWER MY QUESTIONS !!!!

[.30Carbine]

There is one thing about this game called 'life', you can't get out of it alive.

My eternal life in the Son of God has already been given me. I am already partaking of the joys of it.
Though my body is subject to decay, my spirit can never be dead again. The spirit is what matters.

Your spirit is already dead because of your trespasses and sins. Already dead. I want you to get that.

You celebrate a culture of death because that is all you know. It is all you can know in your sinful state.

But God the Father makes the same offer to all through His Son Jesus Christ: Have LIFE, and have life abundantly! In order to do so you must be born again, not of the corruptible seed of your earthly father, but of the Father who is in Heaven, who sent His one and only Son to die on the cross for YOUR sins.

Your sins are the chains that keep you bound in death. You have not the currency to pay your way out of that bondage.

Trust in the Lord with all your heart, believe in His substitutionary death for YOU, His victory over death itself, and you will live.

This is YOUR ultimate choice.

Jesus said:

"You don't have to wait for the End. I am, right now, Resurrection and Life.
The one who believes in me, even though he or she dies, will live."

[.30Carbine]

A liar looks like you do on this forum.

[DaGman]

Excellent read and thanks for posting.

I think this one cuts both ways. I think the same case made here about pro-abortion folks could just as easily be made about anti-abortion folks. Just depends on your point of view.

[TigersEye]

TE: 59 - "Why? Nothing of your own to believe in nothing of your own to say?"

Actually, yes, I do. I studied this problem of 'God', the universe, and a creator, and could not answer the questions:

Yet you can't put forth one proposition on the subject of abortion without basing it on what 'God' is or isn't, thinks or doesn't think or does or doesn't do.

You must criticize your 'friends' and fellow 'deists' here, not me.

Why? They are not talking to me about God you are. Every response you've made to me has been propped up with "if God thinks this" and "nature is like that" or "god/nature must be such and such". Take the concept of a creator out of your comments and you have said exactly nothing. You seem to be trying to impress me with your knowledge of what other people think. Is that because you don't? Or can't? I don't know what you mean by fellow deists either. What is that supposed to mean?

[ought-six]

"It seems to me, I keep running into those conservatives who think we have endless resources, and that an embryo is a person, who are always going ballistic."

You lost me there. What does abortion have to do with endless resources? Are you saying that there is an endless resource of humans? I admit, what with overpopulation, that argument would indeed seem to have some merit. As for a human embryo, it is a human in its earliest stages of development.

[ought-six]

"You really should review this thread and other abortion threads, and see just who is 'pathalogically rabid' about abortion. I have personally found that it usually anti-abortion conservatives."

I disagree. While I aadmit there are some folks who are rabid about the issue (i.e., people who shoot abortion doctors and blow up abortion clinics, both of which are actions that should be roundly condemned), they are few and far between when compared with abortion activists. While I disagree with the abortion-rights crowd about the status of a fetus, and I think Abortion R Us is wrong, I also think that in some instances abortion may be necessary and warranted (i.e, if the life of the mother is indeed in jeopardy, and not just because she wants to fit into her prom dress; or in the event that the child will be so significantly disabled -- such as being brain damaged, or unable to live without mechanical life support; and in cases of rape or incest: However, in the case of the latter examples, rape and incest, abortion should only be performed in the first tri-mester).

[TigersEye]

It's not my host of dieties, it is all those other people, like .30Carbine for example, who believes in demons. I can find neither proof of God nor disproof of God, so, I am an agnositic.

He's AGNOSTIC! ROTFLOL Agnostic. There's a winner of a belief system. The pinnacle of reasoned thought and logic. LOL, I mean c'mon!

At least an atheist can look himself in the mirror and say "I know what I believe and why." If you believe that science is the greatest discipline and logic is man's greatest faculty then atheism is an understandable conclusion to come to. A creator cannot be proved to exist by reason alone and creation of the universe can't be duplicated in a test that is repeatable and verifiable by 'objective' observers. So the atheist can construct a rationale of logic that works.
But what does an agnostic believe?

ag·nos·tic
n.
One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

So an agnostic is someone who thinks "I don't have the power or faculties to know if there is a God" but he will contemplate the idea anyway. "Knowing God is impossible but I'll spend time trying." The dictionary is kind to describe an agnostic as 'noncommittal'. It could also say "willing to beleive what is unbeleivable if I can find proof of the unprovable". Or "not afraid to waste time spinning my wheels". That is the most profoundly illogical (and useless) view of life I can think of. It would be better to think that this is all a dream and I'll wake up when I "die". Whether you were right or wrong that would be better because at least you wouldn't waste your time thinking about something you think isn't worth thinking about.

That was the first of several definitions of agnostic I found. The others just deepen the quicksand. Interestingly the word agnostic was coined in 1870 by Thomas Huxley. The only thing I know about him is that he was the father of Aldous Huxley. I wonder if Brave New World came from experiencing the vacuousness of daddie's mind?

XBob reminds me of this old conundrum:
The following statement is true. The preceding statement is false.
He's the walking talking version of it. Every point he makes is premised on the nature of creation and its creator and is then followed with the disclaimer that he is using someone else's belief to explain things and besides he hasn't decided whether to believe it or not. Proceeding from his theology/nontheology everything he says is naturally meaningless/meaningless. And you can't prove that it means anything either.

[TigersEye]

There is one thing about this game called 'life', you can't get out of it alive. If there is an all powerful God/creator, he is also a destroyer, who kills 100% of the people he created.

When I look at the sentiments expressed there and see that you were a 'parts trouble shooter' for the Space Shuttle it makes me think how inspiring that must be for the astronauts. By any chance were you in charge of foam insulation adhesive?

[TigersEye]

Actually, yes, I do. I studied this problem of 'God', the universe, and a creator, and could not answer the questions:

1. If the universe had to have a creator, and that Creator was 'God', then who created the 'Creator'? And if 'he always was, and always shall be, then why could not the universe 'always be and always shall be'.

2. Where are we? - On earth, in the solar system, in the Milky Way Galaxy, in the Universe, and just where is the universe?

Yada, yada, yada. Blather, blather, blather ... What makes you think I give a rats ass what you think about 'God' or the Universe?

[TigersEye]

You said earlier, about demons - "It should have been posted three times!"

I said nothing about demons. You are lying if you say I did. Here is the part of the post I thought bore repeating.
Look closely at the pictures and read the descriptions of the 'procedure'.

Is spontaneous abortion thought out and done with deliberate intention like this? Are natural causes of miscarriage called a procedure?
Obviously not.

The only demons I know are demons of thought created in the mind that would justify saying what amounts to this:

"Yes it is deliberate because some people say 'God' does it but I don't know if there is a 'God' so I don't say 'God' does it so I'm not responsible for saying 'yes' but that's my answer. Now it's up to you to unravel my words because I'm so tangled up inside I can't come right out and say abortion kills a human being and shouldn't be done for frivolous reasons."

[MHGinTN]

Sadly, you're wasting time with Xbob ... he loves the attention but doesn't consider the prenatal to be a full human being until born, regardless of at what age from conception 'it' is born or ripped from the womb. But even that description is too simple for X's twisted mind since there is a sliding scale for humanity that starts with conception or thereafter and changes according to the number of hours, days, weeks from conception. The poster has chosen to defend the indefensible (child killing in the womb or partially out of the womb) so everything must be bent to fit that preset belief system. It is common to the defenders of abortion slaughter. This poster just happens to enjoy the attention of contention and plays baiting, switching, and dissembling games to achieve the max enjoyment he craves. There is a bitter soul beneath this game he plays ... he's mad at the Creator because his body is not perfect at this age in his lifetime. Were it not for the horrific dehumanization this poster plays with for attention, I could feel sorry for him ... but I passed that milestone long ago. Now I just pray for him.

[XBob]

67 - Ah, now I am a terrible sinner, who's spirit is already dead, and is 'bound in death' (what ever that means - I sure don't know).
You wrote:

"Your spirit is already dead because of your trespasses and sins. Already dead. I want you to get that. You celebrate a culture of death because that is all you know. It is all you can know in your sinful state."

Please list my sins, as you are so all knowing. one who can't even describe how the demon's he believes in look.

I started responding to these threads, because I wish stem cell research to progress to save many people's lives, who now suffer from debilitating chronic diseases. And those who believe that a fertilized egg is a 'person' wish to deny that.

I want to help millions of already born people, and save millions of lives of already born people, while so many here want to, and allow ('fertilized egg' - potential people) to die and allow many already born people to suffer and die.

PLEASE LIST MY SINS. You can't seem to even describe your own beliefs (demons), but you are so ready to declare that I am a terrible sinner. You are hilarious.

And why should i want to believe in a religion which thinks that everyone else is a terrible 'death worshiping' sinner. I have too many good friends, who are Bhuddists, Hindus, and Muslims who you also condemn. I would much rather be among them than among your hate filled kind.

Quit trying to fill the world with hate.

[Psycho_Bunny]

Fallacies:

Peter A. Angeles Dictionary of Philosophy-- published by Barnes and Noble, copyright 1981.

Fallacy, classification of informal. Informal fallacies may be classified in a variety of ways. Three general categories: (a) Material fallacies have to do with the facts (the matter, the content) of the argument in question. Two subcategories of material fallacies are: (1) fallacies of evidence, which refer to arguments that do not provide the required factual support (ground, evidence) for their conclusions, and (2) fallacies of irrelevance (or relevance) which refer to arguments that have supporting statements that are irrelevant to the conclusion being asserted and therefore cannot establish the truth of that conclusion. (b) Linguistic fallacies have to do with defects in arguments such as ambiguity (in which careless shifts of meanings or linguistic imprecisions lead to erroneous conclusions), vagueness, incorrect use of words, lack of clarity, linguistic inconsistencies, circularities. (c) Fallacies of irrelevant emotional appeal have to do with affecting behavior (responses, attitudes). That is, arguments are presented in such a way as to appeal to one's prejudices, biases, loyalty, dedication,fear, guilt, and so on. They persuade, cajole, threaten, or confuse in order to win assent to an argument.

Fallacy, types of informal. Sometimes semi-formal or quasi-formal fallacies. The following is a list of 40 informal fallacies which is by no means eshaustive. No attempt has been made to subsume them under general categories such as Fallacies, Classification of Informal [which I will also include].

1. Black-and-white fallacy. Arguing (a) with the use of sharp ("black-and-white") distinctions despite any factual or theoretical support for them, or (b) by classifying any middle point between the extremes ("black-and-white") as one of the extremes. Examples: "If he is an atheist then he is a decent person." "He is either a conservative or a liberal." "He must not be peace-loving, since he participated in picketing the American embassy."

2. Fallacy of argumentum ad baculum (argument from power or force.) The Latin means "an argument according to the stick." "argument by means of the rod," "argument using force." Arguing to support the acceptance of an argument by a threat, or use of force. Reasoning is replaced by force, which results in the termination of logical argumentation, and elicits other kinds of behavior (such as fear, anger, reciprocal use of force, etc.).

3. Fallacy of argumentum ad hominem (argument against the man) [a personal favorite of mine]. The Latin means "argument to the man." (a) Arguing against, or rejecting a person's views by attacking or abusing his personality, character, motives, intentions, qualifications, etc. as opposed to providing evidence why the views are incorrect. Example: "What John said should not be believed because he was a Nazi sympathizer." [Well, there goes Heidegger.]

4. Fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance). The Latin means "argument to ignorance." (a) Arguing that something is true because no one has proved it to be false, or (b) arguing that something is false because no one has proved it to be true. Examples: (a) Spirits exist since no one has as yet proved that there are not any. (b) Spirits do not exist since no one has as yet proved their existence. Also called the appeal to ignorance: the lack of evidence (proof) for something is used to support its truth.

5. Fallacy of argumentum ad misericordiam (argument to pity). Arguing by appeal to pity in order to have some point accepted. Example: "I've got to have at least a B in this course, Professor Angeles. If I don't I won't stand a chance for medical school, and this is my last semester at the university." Also called the appeal to pity.

6. Fallacy of argumentum ad personam (appeal to personal interest). Arguing by appealing to the personal likes (preferences, prejudices, predispositions, etc.) of others in order to have an argument accepted.

7. Fallacy of argumentum as populum (argument to the people). Also the appeal to the gallery, appeal to the majority, appeal to what is popular, appeal to popular prejudice, appeal to the multitude, appeal to the mob instinct [appeal to the stupid, stinking masses]. Arguing in order to arouse an emotional, popular acceptance of an idea without resorting to logical justification of the idea. An appeal is made to such things as biases, prejudices, feelings, enthusiasms, attitudes of the multitude in order to evoke assent rather than to rationally support the idea.

8. Fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam (argument to authority or to veneration) [another of my personal favorites]. (a) appealing to authority (including customs, traditions, institutions, etc.) in order to gain acceptance of a point at issue and/or (b) appealing to the feelings of reverence or respect we have of those in authority, or who are famous. Example: "I believe that the statement 'YOu cannot legislate morality' is true, because President Eisenhower said it."

9. Fallacy of accent. Sometimes clasified as ambiguity of accent. Arguing to conclusions from undue emphasis (accent, tone) upon certain words or statements. Classified as a fallacy of ambiguity whenever this anphasis creates an ambiguity or AMPHIBOLY in the words or statements used in an argument. Example: "The queen cannot but be praised." [also "We are free iff we could have done otherwise."-- as this statement is used by incompatibilists about free-will and determinism.]

10. Fallacy of accident. Also called by its Latin name a dicto simpliciter asd dictum secundum quid. (a) Applying a general rule or principle to a particular instance whose circumstances by "accident" do not allow the proper application of that generalization. Example: "It is a general truth that no one should lie. Therefore, no one should lie if a murderer at the point of a knife asks you for information you know would lead to a further murder." (b) The error in arumentation of applying a general statement to a situation to which it cannot, and was not necessarily intended to, be applied.

11. Fallacy of ambiguity. An argument that has at least one ambiguous word or statement from which a misleading or wrong conclusion is drawn.

12. Fallacy of amphiboly. Arguing to conclusions from statements that themselves are amphibolous-- ambiguous because of their syntax (grammatical construction). Sometimes classified as a fallacy of ambiguity.

13. Fallacy of begging the question. (a) Arriving at a conclusion from statements that themselves are questionable and hae to be proved but are assumed true. Example: The universe has a beginning. Every thing that has a beginning has a beginner. Therefore, the universe has a beginner called God. This assumes (begs the question) that the universe does indeed have a beginning and also that all things that have a beginning have a beginner. (b) Assuming the conclusion ar part of the conclusion in the premises of an argument. Sometimes called circular reasoning, vicious circularity, vicious circle fallacy [Continental Philosophy-- sorry, I just couldn't resist]. Example: "Everything has a cause. The universe is a thing. Therefore, the universe is a thing that has a cause." (c) Arguing in a circle. One statement is supported by reference to another statement which is itself supported by reference to the first statement [such as a coherentist account of knowledge/truth]. Example: "Aristocracy is the best form of government because the best form of government if that which has strong aristocratic leadership."

14. Fallacy of complex question (or loaded question). (a) Asking questions for which either a yes or no answer will incriminate the respondent. The desired answer is already tacitly assumed in the question and no qualification of the simple answer is allowed. Example: "Have you discontinued the use of opiates?" (b) Asking questions that are based on unstated attitudes or questionable (or unjustified) assumptions. These questions are often asked rhetorically of the respondent in such a way as to elicit an agreement with those attitudes or assumptions from others. Example: "How long are you going to put up with this brutality?"

15. Fallacy of composition. Arguing (a) that what is true of each part of a whole is also (necessarily) true of the whole itself, or (b) what is true of some parts is also (necessarily) true of the whole itself. Example: "Each member (or some members) of the team is married, therefore the team also has (must have) a wife." [A less silly example-- you promise me that you will come to Portland tomorrow, you also promise someone else that you will go to Detroit tomorrow. Now, you ought to be in Portland tomorrow, and you ought to be in Detroit tomorrow (because you ought to keep your promises). However, it does not follow that you ought to be in both Portland and Detroit tomorrow (because ought implies can).] Inferring that a collection has a certain characteristic merely on the basis that its parts have them erroneously proceeds from regarding the collection DISTRIBUTIVELY to regarding it COLLECTIVELY.

16. Fallacy of consensus gentium. Arguing that an idea is true on the basis (a) that the majority of people believe it and/or (b) that it has been universally held by all men at all times. Example: "God exists because all cultures hae had some concept of a God."

17. Fallacy of converse accident. Sometimes converse fallcy of accident. Also called by its Latin name a dicto secumdum quid ad dictum simpliciter. The error of generalizing from atypical or exceptional instances. Example: "A shot of warm brandy each night helps older people relax and sleep better. People in general ought to drink warm brandy to relieve their tension and sleep better."

18. Fallacy of division. Arguing that what is true of a whole is (a) also (necessarily) true of its parts and/or (b) also true of some of its parts. Example: "The community of Pacific Palisades is extremely wealthy. Therefore, every person living there is (must be) extremely wealthy (or therefor Adma, who lives there, must be extremely wealthy." Inferring that the parts of a collection have certain characteristic merely on the basis that their collection has them erroneously proceeds from regarding the collection collectively to regarding it distributively.

19. Fallacy of equivocation. An argument in which a word is used with one meaning in one part of the argument and with another meaning in another part. A common example: "The end of a thing is its perfection; death is the end of life; hence, death is the perfection of life." 20. Fallacy of non causa pro causa. the LAtin may be translated as "there is no cause of the sort that has been given as the cause." (a) Believing that something is the cause of an effect when in reality it is not. Example: "My incantations caused it to rain." (b) Arguing so that a statement appears unacceptable because it implies another statement that is false (but in reality does not).

21. Fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. The Latin means "after this therefore the consequence (effect) of this," or "after this therefore because of this." Sometimes simply fallacy of false cause. Concluding that one thing is the cause of another thing because it precedes it in time. A confusion between the concept of succession and that of causation. Example: "A black cat ran across my path. Ten minutes mater I was hit by a truck. Therefore, the cat's running across my path was the cause of my being hit by a truck."

22. Fallacy of hasty generalization. Sometimes fallacy of hasty induction. An error of reasoning whereby a general statement is asserted (inferred) based on (a) limited information or (b) inadequate evidence, or (c) an unrepresentative sampling.

23. Fallacy of ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion). An argument that is irrelevant; that argues for something other than that which is to be proved and thereby in no way refutes (or supports) the points at issue. Example: A lawyer in defending his alcoholic client who has murdered three people in a drunken spree argues that alcoholism is a terrible disease and attempts should be made to eliminate it. IGNORATIO ELENCHI is sometimes used as a general name for all fallacies that are based on irrelevancy (such as ad baculum, ad hominem, as misericordiam, as populum, ad verecundiam, consensus gentium, etc.)

24. Fallacy of inconsistency. Arguing from inconsistent statements, or to conclusions that are inconsistent with the premises. See fallacy of tu quoque below.

25. Fallacy of irrelevant purpose. Arguing against something on the basis that it has not fulfilled its purpose (although in fact that was not its intended purpose).

26 Fallacy of 'is' to 'ought.' Arguing from premises that have only descriptive statements (is) to a conclusion that contains an ought, or a should.

27. Fallacy of limited (or false) alternatives. The error of insisting without full inquiry or evidence that the alternatives to a course of action have been exhausted and/or are mutually exclusive.

28. Fallacy of many questions. Sometimes fallact of the false question. Asking a question for which a single and simple answer is demanded yet the question (a) requires a series of answers, and/or (b) requires answers to a host of other questions, each of which have to be answered separately. Example: "Have you left school?"

29. Fallacy of misleading context. Arguing by misrepresenting, distorting, omitting or quoting something out of context.

30. Fallacy of prejudice. Arguing from a bias or emotional identification or involvement with an idea (argument, doctrine, institution, etc.).

31. Fallacy of red herring. Ignoring criticism of an argument by changing attention to another subject. Examples: "You believe in abortion, yet you don't believe in the right-to-die-with-dignity bill before the legislature."

32. Fallacy of slanting. Deliberately omitting, deemphasizing, or overemphasizing certain points to the exclusion of others in order to hide evidence that is important and relevant to the conclusion of the argument and that should be taken into accoun of in an argument.

33. Fallacy of special pleading. (a) Accepting an idea or criticism when applied to an opponent's argument but rejecting it when applied to one's own argument. (b) rejecting an idea or criticism when applied to an opponent's argument but accepting it when applied to one's own.

34. Fallacy of the straw man. Presenting an opponent's position in as weak or misrepresented a version as possible so that it can be easily refuted. Example: "Darwinism is in error. It claims that we are all descendents from an apelike creature, from which we evolved according to natural selection. No evidence of such a creature has been found. No adequate and consistent explanation of natural selection has been given. Therefore, evolution according to Darwinism has not taken place."

35. Fallacy of the beard. Arguin (a) that small or minor differences do not (or cannot) make a difference, or are not (or cannot be) significant, or (b) arguing so as to find a definite point at which something can be named. For example, insisting that a few hairs lost here and there do not indicate anything about my impending baldness; or trying to determine how many hairs a person must have before he can be called bald (or not bald).

36. Fallacy of tu quoque (you also). (a) Presenting evidence that a person's actions are not consistent with that for which he is arguing. Example: "John preaches that we should be kind and loving. He doesn't practice it. I've seen him beat up his kids." (b) Showing that a person's views are inconsistent with what he previously believed and therefore (1) he is not to be trusted, and/or (2) his new view is to be rejected. Example: "Judge Egener was against marijuana legislation four years ago when he was running for office. Now he is for it. How can you trust a man who can change his mind on such an important issue? His present position is inconsistent with his earlier view and therefore it should not be accepted." (c) Sometimes related to the Fallacy of two wrongs make a right. Example: The Democrats for years used illegal wiretapping; therefore the Republicans should not be condemned for their use of illegal wiretapping.

37. Fallacy of unqualified source. Using as support in an argument a source of authority that is not qualified to provide evidence.

38. Gambler's fallacy. (a) Arguing that since, for example, a penny has fallen tails ten times in a row then it will fall heads the eleventh time or (b) arguing that since, for example, an airline has not had an accident for the past ten years, it is then soon due for an accident. The gambler's fallacy rejects the assumption in probability theory that each event is independent of its previous happening. the chances of an event happening are always the same no matter how many times that event has taken place in the past. Given those events happening over a long enough period of time then their frequency would average out to 1/2. Sometimes referred to as the Monte Carlo fallacy (a generalized form of the gambler's fallacy): The error of assuming that because something has happened less frequently than expected in the past, there is an increased chance that it will happen soon.

39. Genetic fallacy. Arguing that the origin of something is identical with that thing with that from which it originates. Example: 'Consciousness orinates in neural processes. Therefore, consciousness is (nothing but) neural processes. Sometimes referred to as the nothing-but fallacy, or the REDUCTIVE FALLACY. (b) Appraising or explaining something in terms of its origin, or source, or beginnings. (c) Arguing that something is to be rejected because its origins are [unknown] and/or suspicious.

40. Pragmatic fallacy. Arguing that something is true because it has practical effects upon people: it makes them happier, easier to deal with, more moral, loyal, stable. Example: "An immortal life exists because without such a concept men would have nothing to live for. There would be no meaning or purpose in life and everyone would be immoral."

41. Pathetic fallacy. Incorrectly projecting (attributing) human emotions, feeling, intentions, thoughts, traits upon events or ojects which do not possess the capacity for such qualities.

42. Naturalist fallacy (ethics). 1. The fallacy of reducing ethical statements to factual statements, to statements about natural events. 2. The fallacy of deriving (deducing) ethical statements from nonethical statements. [is/ought fallacy]. 3. The fallacy of defining ethical terms in nonethical (descriptive, naturalistic, or factual) terms [ought/is fallacy].

[XBob]

67 - Ah, now I am a terrible sinner, who's spirit is already dead, and is 'bound in death' (what ever that means - I sure don't know).
You wrote:

"Your spirit is already dead because of your trespasses and sins. Already dead. I want you to get that. You celebrate a culture of death because that is all you know. It is all you can know in your sinful state."

Please list my sins, as you are so all knowing. one who can't even describe how the demon's he believes in look.

I started responding to these threads, because I wish stem cell research to progress to save many people's lives, who now suffer from debilitating chronic diseases. And those who believe that a fertilized egg is a 'person' wish to deny that.

I want to help millions of already born people, and save millions of lives of already born people, while so many here want to, and allow ('fertilized egg' - potential people) to die and allow many already born people to die.

PLEASE LIST MY SINS. You can't seem to even describe your own beliefs (demons), but you are so ready to declare that I am a terrible sinner. You are hilarious.

And why should i want to believe in a religion which thinks that everyone else is a terrible 'death worshiping' sinner. I have too many good friends, who are Bhuddists, Hindus, and Muslims who you also condemn. I would much rather be among them than among your hate filled kind.

Stop filling the world with hate !!!