I agree. Not everyone who disagrees with me is evil. Many are simply wrong.
This is an attempt to change the subject of debate away from a discussion of the rationale of abortion, to a discussion of the motives of one side.
The OP was actually about something other than the rationale of abortion – a “what if” scenario about its effects on society – which I addressed. But it’s very hard to keep abortion discussions from sinking into the ritual black hole.
Which is problematic, because you have no information about those motives (beyond a quick scan of their posts which ignores the rational basis for their position), as well as no expertise in any related field, no personal experience of any poster or his motives IRL, and a demonstrated willingness to ignore rational argument in favor of personal attack.
I have every right to make inferences about posters’ motives based on their posts, or people’s mental sets based on their beliefs. I can’t do so with any authority as a psychologist, but I have made no such claim.
If there’s some rule on the SD board about not making inferences, please point it out to me, I’d be ever so pleased to see it.
No one on this thread or the other has made reference to a desire to force women’s choices as regards birth control.
Umm, if you’re opposing a woman’s ability to get an abortion, you’re opposing her ability to make choices in the matter. An inference, I admit, but a logically sound one. That’s control. (That’s not even an inference, just a statement of fact.)
Nonetheless, your magic insight into the thought processes of people you have never met allows you to judge that this is what they are really thinking. So you can now attack a position no one has taken, based on an assumption you have not proven, supported by evidence which you have not supplied.
Nah, you just don’t want to accept my inferences. That’s OK. I support your right to be wrong.
Which, as has been pointed out, is a game any number may play. If abortion opponents can be judged as control freaks, because they argue against abortion, certainly abortion proponents are equally likely to be motivated by subconscious lesbian urges. Since they secretly desire lesbian sex, they subconsciously reject the normal outcome of heterosexual relations, and wish for the destruction of pregnancy. Or they have severe father issues, and want to bring an end to the nuclear family which failed to protect them from abuse which they cannot consciously remember. Or they just hate people, and want to target the innocent for death.
That’s very true. You can make such inferences. But I don’t think many people will take them seriously. It’s not what you infer, it’s how well you “connect the dots” or draw out the links in your inference so that others may say, “That makes sense” or “That doesn’t make sense.”
Evidence? Why do you need evidence? It is pretty clear from their posts, wouldn’t you agree?
You can and should use evidence if you’ve got any. But a logical argument can stand on its own without cites. Ask any philosopher.