TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,721
There are times where I often hear this argument both on the Internet as well as IRL (in the past, though I never brought it up anytime in the recent year or so). You would often hear this argument spoken by pro-lifers when they have no good counter-argument or anything constructive to say towards the pro-choicer's arguments, which is really a fallacy. The fallacy in particular is an "appeal to emotion". What does that mean? It means that the person (the pro-lifer) presenting this argument has no good constructive argument for their stance, so instead of addressing the opponent (in this case the pro-choicer), they resort towards eliciting an emotional response to try and shutdown the claim, and try to push their view. One could also stretch it and call it a diversionary tactic, a possible strawman (in some cases) that pro-lifers try to misrepresent the argument in order to reframe it in their favor, but I digress a bit (as other fallacies are for another thread and topic).
In my eyes, whenever someone uses such an argument, they effectively have no good argument and have already lost any credibility in their claim. It would be sad if (insert event or condition happened) is not an argument, but an appeal to emotion in hopes of shutting down someone or to get someone to change their views. It is also similar to emotional manipulation depending on the context and how far one uses it to further their views.
Don't get me wrong, when someone is dying or will be dying, it is a tragic event and as human nature proves, it is fine to be sad, but to discredit, shut down, and gaslight someone through manipulation and underhanded tactics is disgraceful. That part (the latter) is unacceptable. Furthermore, if one were to apply said argument (the non-construction argument of "it would be sad") then it can apply to many other things, such as jobs, relationships, opportunities, and more domains not just limited to the right to die and dying. In fact, you almost never hear about people saying "It would be sad if (some other domain/topic/thing) happens" and even if they did, they are often said and quickly forgotten. Most pro-lifers wouldn't just apply it to other situations, yet they feel the need to invoke it (appeal to emotion, manipulation, and such) when it comes to the topic of death and the right to die. Again, it just shows their hypocrisy.
In my eyes, whenever someone uses such an argument, they effectively have no good argument and have already lost any credibility in their claim. It would be sad if (insert event or condition happened) is not an argument, but an appeal to emotion in hopes of shutting down someone or to get someone to change their views. It is also similar to emotional manipulation depending on the context and how far one uses it to further their views.
Don't get me wrong, when someone is dying or will be dying, it is a tragic event and as human nature proves, it is fine to be sad, but to discredit, shut down, and gaslight someone through manipulation and underhanded tactics is disgraceful. That part (the latter) is unacceptable. Furthermore, if one were to apply said argument (the non-construction argument of "it would be sad") then it can apply to many other things, such as jobs, relationships, opportunities, and more domains not just limited to the right to die and dying. In fact, you almost never hear about people saying "It would be sad if (some other domain/topic/thing) happens" and even if they did, they are often said and quickly forgotten. Most pro-lifers wouldn't just apply it to other situations, yet they feel the need to invoke it (appeal to emotion, manipulation, and such) when it comes to the topic of death and the right to die. Again, it just shows their hypocrisy.
