Overheard at Table 2: Sea Turtles and Unborn Babies

Niall Carter, sitting with Millie Nagadoces, is ruminating over a mocha latte. "You know," he says, "The pastor mentioned something last Sunday that still hasn't quite seeped through the mental webbing, if you know what I mean."

"As I rarely do," Millie interjects.

"But he was on his series about the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, and you know I told you the week before the Meek are apparently those with the backbone enough to tell the government to kill Social Security, but this week was those who thirst for righteousness, and apparently we do not 'thirst for righteousness' if we live in a country where the rights of a sea turtle are protected more than those of an unborn child."

"He said that?"

"He did. Now, there's something logically incorrect about that statement, but I can't put my finger on it. There's some fallacy of logic there."

"It's simple. They're completely separate issues. I call it the False Juxtaposition. You put them together for an emotional statement. It's an emotional appeal to make people think that those who try to protect the environment want to kill unborn babies."

"i.e. 'Liberals'."

"And Progressives. Apparently we're all out to eat your fetuses. But really, the laws or lack therof trying to save a species that will go out of existence, because there are only 1300 of them left were developed in a completely different vacuum than the much more all-encompassing debate of abortion slash right-to-choose. To put them together narrowly reframes the context so that any moral human being would have no other decision, morally, than to be outraged against the abortion. But the argument should have never been framed, because there are so much more facets to each - and separately."

"I knew there was a reason why I like talking to you. Another cappucino?"