Issues Raised in the "Another Republican Lost" Thread

Actually, it's a prime example of the logical fallacy called "Poisoning the Well".

 

It is not true that anyone voting for Obama is a murderer; hence the name calling does poison the well and makes a meaningful debate impossible.

Nor does it matter if it is true or not to be the fallacy. From HERE. Emphasis mine.

Description

Discredit the other person before they speak. Or discredit the topic or argument that they may support.
There are many ways of discrediting the person. Call them names. Talk about their lies. Show them to be unworthy. Tell how they are unintelligent, crazy or otherwise undesirable, inferior and not worth listening to, let alone believing.
To discredit the topic or argument, indicate how it is patently absurd, proven to be false or that only fools would support it.

 

Who did that?

An if not I then why do you use this point to address me?

You made an allegation, an indictment: yet you run from proof cause you can find none which justifies your claim. In fact it is so false no one else comes to your defense by proving your point.

 

Catcher, you seriously need to get over the fact that not every point is addressed to you personally. I used your point to make a general observation, not saying you ever did this. I won't do your search for you. You are capable of searching on key word murderer on this forum for yourself. If I ever say, "Windcatcher YOU did so and so" then you will have reason to take offense. Until then, you still need that chill pill I offered you earlier! :laugh:

 

OK. How does "supporter of baby murderers" grab ya ? [personal attack deleted]

 

Your argument is so filled with error, I hardly know where to begin, so I'll just hit a couple of points for you. Not only Christians, but I think any decent person will agree that murder is wrong. The point is there is great divergence in science and among theologians about when life begins. Killing a baby is wrong. But many, including Christians, would not agree that a blastocyst is a "baby". Even misusing the term "baby" makes meaningful debate impossible, as in most cases we seem to not be talking about a baby, but a mass of cells with the potential to someday become a baby. Nobody wants to kiss and cuddle a mass of cellular matter.

This is the point that could be debated if not made impossible by outlandish language...a debate about when life begins. But to call anyone you disagree with on that matter a murderer would be over the top to the extreme. And you would do well to study to see how indeed this amounts to well poisoning.

 

Yet another personal attack. Can't seem to discuss the issue?

 

Neither disagreement between scientists and theologians nor whether or not someone wants to kiss the baby is a standard for truth in this matter.

We can create all the terminology to represent the child we want but in the end the child exists, grows, progresses, advances, and performs functions (ie moves limbs, sucks thumbs etc). But we fear to add to that list one simple word....."live".

However, when scientists look at evolutionary theory and consider the mythical primordial beginnings of the one celled creatures we have no problem ascribing the word "life" to that.

 

I absolutely agree with you. I am pointing out that when life begins is a subject that people of good will may debate and disagree over. It is something that can be discussed without engaging in hyperbole. If you and I disagree on a matter, how will I ever have any hope of a meaningful discussion if I call you vile names, rather than showing you where I believe you are in error; or vice versa.

 

The problem is mistrust. Mistrust that those who support abortion actually believe or are concerned for the truth about the child. But instead are willing to knowingly sacrifice the child so that women may have their way because they see women as more important under any circumstance.

 

Then for one so schooled in logic, it is amazing that you fail to see that you are confusing your interpretation of scripture for the teaching of scripture. Of course a fetus is a developing human life. But nowhere in scripture does it say life begins at the exact time of conception. In fact, it takes quite a leap of logic to assert such, since there is silence on the matter. Typical scripture used to support your view would be John the Baptist in Elizabeth's uterus and the verse about God knowing us before we were formed. Neither of these address early term pregnancy or even conception prior to implantation. Neither science, nor scripture, have an answer to this question.

 

Take that mistrust and apply it further to discussions on this board, that while some may not take part in an abortion themselves they are willing to sacrifice children through their vote to attain what they see as a larger political goal. And that mistrust often causes conversations where posters talk past each other.

 

Again we are willing to call one celled creatures who are believed to be the Genesis of all life, life but not a growing, active, moving, functioning pre-born child.

 

I believe your impression on this is wrong. I know of nobody, nor have I ever heard of anybody, who thinks abortion is a great thing. I suspect the decision to abort is always one filled with mixed feelings, emotional turmoil, and is not easy for the woman. I will agree that it is all too often used as a convenience rather than having used contraception. However, I don't think it is about a woman "having her way".

Also, as I have pointed out, sometimes (e.g. ectopic pregnancy) makes abortion necessary to keep the woman from dying a painful and needless death; and one which there is no chance of a baby being the outcome anyway. These are issues of great moral and ethical import, but if we are to ever reduce the number of abortions (which all agree is a good goal), extremism and ad hominems only get in the way of achieving that goal.

 

Oh, I think we all know it is alive. Even sperm are alive. But are they a person? THAT is the question. A blastocyst has potential to become a fetus, then a baby. I abhor that abortion is ever necessary. But I still maintain that hyperbolic rhetoric accomplishes nothing except making the goal of reducing abortions further away. People harden their positions to be even more obstinate.

 

What you are unwilling to accept is that what, those who use strong language do so out of a sincere conscience. This is why you see it as hyperbole. We see it as correct terminology and anything less minimizes the lives of those children.