When I’m reading your writing I get the impression that you’re actually buying into the half-truths and partial logical narratives. Alternately it’s as if you’re ADD and don’t get to the substance before you get busy and moved on to other thoughts so you just write a witty conclusion and push send. Could that be the case – despite your little insult about us being the kids? Worse – and I’m not saying this is your situation – it appears that you don’t know you’re not making the case – that you’re omitting substance. Perhaps you don’t consider us thoughtful opponents so you don’t need to say much to us. In any of these cases my solution is to respond to what you’ve written and tell you more about why I think you’re incorrect. So here goes:
RE: “No RTL commits violence, by definition” That’s exactly what muslims say about muslim terrorists. “They’re not really muslims because islam is peace, by definition!” It flops for muslims, and it flops for you.
We have to disagree here. The “Flop” you hear is the logical flip-flop required to explain your opinion. Let’s examine “I’m Muslim; Islam is a religion of peace; I am peaceful; therefore Muslim terrorists are poor Muslims and don’t reflect on me.” This logic stands. A person who breaks the ethics of their group (premise #3) does not redefine the group’s ethic. They repudiate it.
I hold and you disagree that persons of any faith background can know abortion as its practiced now is a horrible wrong. If any of those persons claim to be ProLife and then commit a violent act it does not somehow support the theory that we’re all violent.
Moving on: you say government doesn’t inflict childbirth on women. That’s true today, because USA is pro-choice. If, however, government were to prevent a woman who wanted an abortion from getting one, then that government WOULD BE inflicting childbirth upon her.
Sir, Could you believe that the government doesn’t cause childbirth (let alone inflict it)? Sex causes childbirth.
It’s like, I see that a piano is falling towards me. I try to get out of the way. You block me, and becuase I can’t get out of the way, the piano kills me. Then you say “I didn’t kill OC; it was the piano!”
This analogy is only apt if you continue it to where the pregnant woman (not you) is lifting the piano with her own hands (sex). She then discovers that this force of nature that she put in place – the potential energy of the falling object (the natural process of procreation) is difficult and that the rope is slipping. The man involved has pulled the rope but can be partially, completely or possibly maliciously clear of the piano’s path of fall.
I cannot be faulted for “blocking the way.” If anything I’m putting up a fence around the piano lifting site with warning signs that say “If you lift the piano you might find its heavy.” Girls who accompany their boyfriend into the fence are often surprised at how this culture has lied to them.
Another flaw to your analogy is that most (80%+) abortions occur when there is no danger to the health let alone the life of the mother. They’re done for social and economic reasons. This clearly weighs against the argument that we’re putting women in danger then blocking their exit path. You argue that the very inconvenience of pregnancy –even a healthy one – warrants a woman’s right to kill the child. Reasonable people can disagree but in your explanation there is no substance.
And I am still not an anarchist; I am an ADVOCATE OF LIMITED GOVERNMENT. You know, like the Founding Fathers, and the folks who signed Magna Carta. You, I assume, object to the Chinese “one-child-per-family” law. Does that make you an anarchist? No.
Sir, I claim the right to this slight exaggeration of the very apt one word condensation of your (admitted as yet undiagnosed by a licensed philosopher) proclivity toward severely limited government as “anarchy.” If you do not allow me this then you have no literary license to call me a “murderer.” No?
Even if your heroes are Alexis de Tocqueville or Robert Heinlein’s characters there are few true anarchists. The problem is that you’re selective. Hollywood’s cinematic folks correctly depicted Heinlein’s most free society as racists (or more correctly xenophobic) NeoNazis. From where we stand that amount of government control of life is unthinkable. However there are things that government does and it varies on the situation. Your declaration for limited government is dishonest when you and I know that sometimes you declare war, outlaw a drug, tax a product or ban (that word again) an unwarranted medical procedure.
You say “government can and should protect and regulate the good”. Well, sobriety is good. So should government re-institute prohibition of alcohol? If not, why not?
Again you cite the extreme. From where you view things – or at least from how you present them – you are the anarchist proclaiming any government action beyond defending the coasts and delivering the mail as intrusionist. I firmly believe we should raise the drinking age to 25 and make is a serious felony to furnish alcohol to a minor. There’s no chance of that in today’s society, however I see good science and practical experience support this. There’s less chance prohibition even as shaky as the last attempt would ever be enacted much less succeed. It’s not the government’s role like regulation and discouraging (banning!) abortion should be.
I suspect we actually agree more in this area than you’d like to hear right now. But this isn’t about political philosophy it’s about a specific – abortion.
Almost forgot–you say right-to-lifist is only 1/100 of the violence committed by pro-choicers? So far, pro-choicers have murdered ZERO right-to-lifers, bombed ZERO right-to-lifist workplaces, etc.
Sir, You have missed the argument. If you get to say that Scott Roeder is a Right-to-Life activist (and he is not; the necessity defense cannot and should not apply) then I clearly can use the data on violence by Abortion Rights activists. Deflating that data by 99% I still get more violence by Abortion activists than Anti-Abortion activists.
Finally please comment on the essay concerning abortion prayer activism as a protective circle around clinics. You won’t like it but comment on the human power of people who say “violence hurts everyone so we won’t and we’ll stand here – possibly being subject to violence – to say that.” You don’t have to concede that the prayer part works; just the physical realities protect people.
PLEEEEZ try to argue on a higher level. I already spend too much time explaining things to kids.
I do trust that if you do this ‘splainin’ as part of paid employment that you have proctors, supervisors and other paid staff present to keep you from warping the poor little ones’ minds. It is a professional hazard for the teacher that they can get to pontificating instead of teaching the skills of critical listening and analysis. At least you are serving as a bad example for the brighter of them.
And I’m not proposing to “re-define” marriage. I’m proposing to DE-define it, and let the participants do the defining in future.
As I wrote previously “marriage” is already defined. Go choose another word. This one is taken. Its participants have correctly and properly understood its definition for hundreds of generations. Your “de” is just “re” with you getting to choose the new definition. Even more ironically you the anarchist are asking the government to do the redefining.