(March 25, 2016 at 5:37 pm)Esquilax Wrote: It's a red herring, in that it's an attempt to link a vaguely related boogeyman to the subject under discussion in every case, but it's also an appeal to consequences fallacy, in that "abortion is bad therefore premarital sex is bad due to risking abortion," is not a valid syllogism, because it fails to address the root cause of abortion, which is the thing they're actually objecting to, ostensibly. A properly formulated version of the argument would run "abortion is bad, therefore unsafe sex is bad, as it offers the highest risk of leading to abortions," but that's also not an argument our theist friends would ever make because they're also largely against contraception.
This is the sort of shit that people tend to get into when they try to disguise what it is they're arguing against: in this case, premarital sex is the objection, but they recognize that "we don't like it," is not a reason for other people to stop doing it, so we get all these pretenses as to why that don't address the real issue because they were only ever meant to obscure the real issue, which is the evangelical need to control other people.
I apologize. I am just learning all of this. Red herring? So it is a distraction or a misdirection.
I often hear the religious cry a lot about abortion. Then of course we see the bible full of Dog telling his people to kill all sorts of other peoples no matter man, woman, or child. It seems clear to me that the control factor is there and they want to use any and all ways to do so. It just seems it is easier to get people to side with the sob story of killing children than it is the "sin" of sex at the wrong time. Sorry I haven't slept since Kansas and now i'm in Iowa.
