Again, he didn’t assert that they transcend the laws of matter. He said nothing about emotions being free from determinism. At least not in what you’ve quoted.
What did he write that makes you think he thinks emotions transcend the laws of matter?
Inevitable is hardly indicating that that it’s transcending the determinist laws of matter.
Again, he seems to be saying that it is inevitable and natural. What about those words lead to you thinking our reaction outside of determinism?
You wrote OK, twice. But opted not to respond to the main part of the post, which was a direct response to your request. Of course one could look at the abortion issue, but since I do not judge abortion morally wrong, I don’t know who to respond to that issue. Why isn’t another moral issue where I do feel like what someone did was wrong - the getting hit by a stranger in the street with a hammer - a good one for the issue. Can’t you respond to that? I understand that the abortion issue is a moral issue and one can mount an argument for why someone should or should not be held responsible given deteminism. But certainly it’s not the only one, and any argument holding someone responsible for a different action, would be the same kind of argument, and thus useful for the issue of holding people responsible for their actions in a deterministic universe.
Or maybe when you said OK, you meant you will respond to this post…