An example of a Pro-Life "Appeal to Emotion" argument.

This is a comment on another post, but I thought it worth reposting here. The commenter rewords my belief that an abortion should be between a woman, her medical provider and her own god:
________________________

Slight rewording:
"I believe that whether or not to rape should be between a man, his medical practitioner, and his own God. The law has no business meddling in private reproductive decisions."


Please don't spout such illogical drivel when it it is so easy to turn the tables on it.

You are denying the humanity of others.

________________________

At least they said "please".

I'm afraid no one with a background in logic or argument would call that turning the tables.

If I spout drivel then I modestly claim that it is better considered drivel than yours. I published your post specifically to demonstrate the kind of logic pro-lifers tend to use.

That is, a logical fallacy called Appeal to Emotion.

Rape is a horrific violation of a woman's rights in all circumstances; abortion is NOT a horrific violation of a woman's rights in all circumstances. Yet by comparing abortion to rape, the above commenter is trying to make abortion as horrific as rape. The argument, if it could be called that, relies on our abhorrence of rape to try to provoke the same abhorrence for abortion.

However, comparing abortion to rape is fallacious. Rape is sex performed against the will of the woman - it is assault. No doctor will perform an abortion on a woman who is specifically telling him not to, he knows that would be assault. If all women are aborting against their will, they aren't telling their doctors at the time.

Rape is the violation of the rights of a living, breathing, self-conscious human being with a full life and full knowledge of its pain and future losses. That is why it is against the law and people are sent to jail for it.

A foetus is only living at the discretion of the mother, can not breath on its own until at least 24 weeks (and even then it needs expert medical help), is not self-conscious and cannot possibly have any knowledge of its pain or losses. That is why women are not sent to jail for aborting despite the law in Victoria.

Abortion and rape are two very different things. Once we see that their argument falls over.

Even if I were to concede that the foetus was a child (which I won't), I would still maintain that a non-conscious, not yet born individual does not take precedence over a fully functioning conscious individual.

As for denying the humanity of others: The commenter holds the position that all human life is sacred, it's called "the sanctity of human life", it is a religious premise clung to by fundamentalists and does not actually reflect the value of the unborn in the bible (look up "abortion" in The Oxford Companion to the Bible for a better set of quotes and explanations than I can provide here).

This idea that human life is sacred from conception is historically very new, even for the Catholic Church. Until the last few hundred years (precise date escapes me, not going to look it up for you, sorry) ensoulment was at quickening, not conception.

Again, drivel? maybe. Illogical? rarely, and not this time.