The hypocrisies, anti-Christian practices and in-American actions of the “pro-life” proponents are so obvious and so easily attacked in their (utter lack of merits). Is it really necessary to stoop to an extended “you’re ugly and your family doesn’t love you” ad hominem attack?
Thank you for your comments. Ad hominem would be an attack against an individual for who or what he is. This is not that. There are no names of Alabama state senators used. And in fact, many of them and their peers may be 10s and utterly adored by their families. Whether they actually feel that way is highly doubtful. Admittedly, this is not a standard policy analysis of recent anti-choice legislation. It is an attempt to peer into the dark psychological place one has to be in to want to force women you’ve never even met into carrying the results of rape or incest to term. There probably are various other psychological contributory factors. They are worth looking into—whether at first by conjecture formed over many decades of observation, or at some point hopefully by genuine psychological inquiry.
To be clear, I don't disagree with you that the folks behind the latest attacks on personal freedoms (the latest in a long line of them from "pro-life" hypocrites) are indeed hypocrites and vile. Nor that they have some truly twisted psychological processes going on.
I'm just wary when things really devolve to the "your wife and kids hate you" level.
When "women you’ve never even met" is made part of what's objectionable about their actions, how is it then OK for our side to make declarative statements about the private feelings of people we've never met?
You're right in that the dictionary definition of ad hominem refers to an individual, but if we don't get pedantic and split hairs I think it's fair to characterize something that criticizes the various members of a group for supposed personal characteristics rather than their actions is very much ad hominem. Making personal attacks on multiple people at once and then declaring that that somehow means they aren't personal attacks because you're not naming each individual person is ridiculous.
"You weren't popular in high school." "You're marriage is loveless." "Your wife has had better then you." "You're a bad father and don't love your kids." "You're insecure."
"Your children don't love you." "You have no 'sexual self-discipline' (whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean). These sentiments are attacks on the person (people) whose actions and positions you're disagreeing with rather than attacks on those actions and positions.
Granted, the whole article isn't that way and starts off very strong and clear. It's just unfortunate that you didn't end the article about 5 paragraphs sooner.
Sorry you are offended. For me and for many others, if not for you, there is a context. I have daughters coming into womanhood and already there, and I feel somewhat personally assaulted by these statehouses and their absolute madness. Taking my gloves off verbally in the face of a full on legal assault doesn't qualify in my book as crossing any significant line. I hope they are much more offended than you are.
The hypocrisies, anti-Christian practices and in-American actions of the “pro-life” proponents are so obvious and so easily attacked in their (utter lack of merits). Is it really necessary to stoop to an extended “you’re ugly and your family doesn’t love you” ad hominem attack?
Thank you for your comments. Ad hominem would be an attack against an individual for who or what he is. This is not that. There are no names of Alabama state senators used. And in fact, many of them and their peers may be 10s and utterly adored by their families. Whether they actually feel that way is highly doubtful. Admittedly, this is not a standard policy analysis of recent anti-choice legislation. It is an attempt to peer into the dark psychological place one has to be in to want to force women you’ve never even met into carrying the results of rape or incest to term. There probably are various other psychological contributory factors. They are worth looking into—whether at first by conjecture formed over many decades of observation, or at some point hopefully by genuine psychological inquiry.
Huh. Apparently the layout of the page is that, to be read in the order posted, replies should be read from the bottom up.
To be clear, I don't disagree with you that the folks behind the latest attacks on personal freedoms (the latest in a long line of them from "pro-life" hypocrites) are indeed hypocrites and vile. Nor that they have some truly twisted psychological processes going on.
I'm just wary when things really devolve to the "your wife and kids hate you" level.
When "women you’ve never even met" is made part of what's objectionable about their actions, how is it then OK for our side to make declarative statements about the private feelings of people we've never met?
You're right in that the dictionary definition of ad hominem refers to an individual, but if we don't get pedantic and split hairs I think it's fair to characterize something that criticizes the various members of a group for supposed personal characteristics rather than their actions is very much ad hominem. Making personal attacks on multiple people at once and then declaring that that somehow means they aren't personal attacks because you're not naming each individual person is ridiculous.
"You weren't popular in high school." "You're marriage is loveless." "Your wife has had better then you." "You're a bad father and don't love your kids." "You're insecure."
"Your children don't love you." "You have no 'sexual self-discipline' (whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean). These sentiments are attacks on the person (people) whose actions and positions you're disagreeing with rather than attacks on those actions and positions.
Granted, the whole article isn't that way and starts off very strong and clear. It's just unfortunate that you didn't end the article about 5 paragraphs sooner.
Sorry you are offended. For me and for many others, if not for you, there is a context. I have daughters coming into womanhood and already there, and I feel somewhat personally assaulted by these statehouses and their absolute madness. Taking my gloves off verbally in the face of a full on legal assault doesn't qualify in my book as crossing any significant line. I hope they are much more offended than you are.
Who said I was offended? Bothered that you put words in my mouth rather than respond to what I actually wrote, perhaps. But not offended.