Yeah, I bet; though miraculously you did manage to avoid presenting any arguments. Temper tantrum is not an argument, you know.

The silliness I find in your and cw’s comments is the broad way in which everything is generalized to the convenience of the argument, from the availability of medical procedures at the stage described to the implication that there are no women who feel differently than you do.

Such rationalizations may ease one’s mind in the darker hours but are hardly reflected in the variety of the real world. I certainly believe in a few universals myself, but they do have to accompanied by the absence of contradictory evidence. The moment a single woman, either dispassionately or emotionally, enters the thread to contradict you (I suspect that may have happened already) the basis for your argument is gone.

As to the idea that a few posters “voting” that cw “wins” the thread… well, I find that amusing, and quite self-serving. It’s as though the notion that one agrees with someone to the point where they decalre them the victor completely obviates the need to consider any points of the opposition’s argument.

Why not just say your mind is closed to alternative ideas and be done with it?

Not that it matters much, but the truth is, if anything, exactly the opposite. If, indeed, viable fetuses are being routinely killed in the 7th, 8th or 9th month of pregnancy without sufficient medical reason (as Ron Paul’s quotes in the previous thread suggest) – not to mention in extremely barbaric way – then it’s you who sound callous and lacking in empathy. And also unpleasantly self-pitying, for no apparent reason.

No she doesn’t, not even close. That was a really bad comment.

All she had to say is “I feel that medically unnecessary late term abortions are never ever performed because I feel it would be irrational and I feel that all women are rational”. Well, fine, just type this phrase and avoid gratuitous insults and rhetoric that make the comment even sillier.

“:I’d be a lot more interested in the arguments of the “pro-life” crowd if those same people demonstrated such high regard for the sanctity of human life in other contexts besides abortion.”

Like opposition to the death penalty? (Raises hand) Concern for and donations to international children’s relief? (Raises hand). Opposition to euthanasia and abuse? (etc.) A certain selection of priests, bishops, and cardinals aside and those are pretty Catholic positions.

As before, I have to wonder if global talks to actual pro-lifers on a regular basis.

Of course, the line is a familiar one. Sometimes it’s played as a way to paint all (or let’s be charitable – most) pro-lifers as sex-prohibiting maniacs hiding behind the fetus but really not interested in human life beyond that little charade. Lest Moff raise the pretense that I’m building one of his straw men, let me add that I used the word “sometimes” and exgaggerate a bit for minimal comic effect. At other times, the line is code for, “our policies are really ones that promote the welfare of people whereas yours hurt them.” This is a common refrain among politicians who are pro-choice and like to empahsize that their focus on social justice and economic issues are somehow morall superior to a free market approach. Strangely enough, organized Catholicism is often well in tune with these individuals on those issues, to a large extent.

Sometimes it’s a bit of both.

Sometimes it’s just a line repeated as as bit of self-bolstering. I can’t speak for global but that last bit is the feeling I get from their post.

“I’d be a lot more interested in the arguments of the “pro-life” crowd” sounds pretty legit, but the generalization that follows (much like some of the same sorts of stuff in cw’s last post) presents an opponent consisting primarily of friendly, non-threatening (at least to the psyche) straw.

Maybe global could deal with the specifics of the contexts and sanctity they are referring to. I could be missing something, but since there are pro-lifers on both sides of the political aisle (as I’ve mentioned in another part of this blog – Nat Hentoff is a perfect example of a left-wing ardent pro-lifer) it’s hard to see how global’s assertion can be taken seriously as a real assessment of who “pro-lifers” are. The canard may be familiar, but it has little to do with real life. Most hasty generalizations don’t.

Grand Moff writes,

“Who, I’ve been both direct and clear, though I admit to having fun with language and toying with idiots like you.

I have answered you directly, which is why your only recourse has been to put words in my mouth, as you have done with others in another thread. Weak. But hey, if you can’t handle the subject I shouldn’t blame you for changing it.

Oh, and you’d have to change “admit” to “imply,” not “infer.” Nice of you to cite your straw man while accusing me of the same vice. If, in the future, I need yet another example of the ignorance of the anti-abortion movement, can I borrow you?”

I seldom do this, because unlike characters like Grand Moff Texan I prefer to try for at least some semblance of civilized discourse, but I have to point out that Moff calling me an “idiot” is more or less a compliment, given the lack of clarity and ludicrous quality of the arguments in his posts to me, and my general contention that moff seems to call people idiots as a way of dealing with the simple fact that they disagree with him. To put it in a way he seems to prefer, “Idiot, heal thyself.” You’ve only toyed with me the way a gazelle toys with hungry lion.

Enough of the faux chest-beating though. I don’t think moff’s an idiot in the conventional sense (beyond his underestimation of those who agree with him) He simply hasn’t answered my earlier objections at all. Moff, you’ve simply retreated to additional name-calling and presumptions, based on a willful disregard of the point I was trying to make earlier, and continuing pretenses that because people do see things exactly they way you do they are somehow more generally ignorant. I can understand and excuse this mistake to a point, but the belligerence it’s accompanied with is, to put it nicely, silly.

My earlier point centers around Moff’s suggestion (the nice way to put it) that pro-lifers (at least some) were ignorant because they didn’t know the differences between “blastocysts” and “human beings.” The fact is that the average pro-lifer knows what those differences are at a basic to advanced scientific level in terms of physiological differences, but from an ethical and moral standpoint holds that those differences are far less important than the difference between a genetically human individual life form and the ovum and sperm that came before it.

Moff accusation of ignorance thus stems not from any actual ignorance of the basics, but from disagreement with him (and others) that the differences he focuses on are somehow more meaningful, meaningful enough to decide that the life in question, although it is at a scientific level unquestionably human, can be freely destroyed.

The differences that Moff says pro-lifers are ignorant of are actually quite familiar to the pro-life movement. We simply and emphatically disagree that those differences are significant enough to destroy human life. The differences Moff wants to engage are shifting because they depend to a large extent on subjective definitions of nebulous concepts like personhood and human beingness (as opposed to humanness, which is the quality of being a member of the human race, something even zygotes qualify for at a scientific level).

So the straw man here is the conflating of different ethical valuations of certain differences with the outright ignorance of them. It’s a bit like telling people who don’t celebrate Chaunnakah that they are completely ignorant as to the existence of the holiday.

As to law, Roe v. Wade engaged the differences Moff focuses on with little to no legal precedent, settling on viability (which the SC essentially immediately overrode by offering another vaguary – the mother’s health – as an all compassing override switch for even viable fetuses.)

I’m happy to discuss the reasons I think such differences are ultimately unwieldy and unethical as grounds for the dividing lines of protection of human life, but Moff doesn’t seem interested in engaging me on anything I’ve raised beyond name-calling and self-delusional grandstanding.

As to words in one’s mouth, I would very much like to know where I babbled about ensoulement.

He does resort to ridiculous analogy, clumsy really since he never does address the differences I’m focusing on, regarding caviar and fish. He writes:

“The distinctions Who is asking for are much like the differences between caviar and fish. I can tell the difference. The proper descriptor for someone who can’t is ignorant.”

So, if I’m “asking” for certain distinctions, then clearly I can tell the differences since I want to make them. But the original differences Moff were alluding to people being ignorant of were the ones regarding blastocysts (which are not eggs as caviar are, but fertilized, partially developed but unimplanted individual human entities) and human beings (which as a term can mean either “persons” in the vague philosophical way or human organisms). Which is it? Either answer undercuts moff to some extent because if he’s suggesting the fish/caviar example is an analogy of the blastocyst/human being differences, he really doesn’t know what a blastocyst or caviar are. If on the other hand he’s suggesting that I’m settling on direct differences that are analogous to fish/caviar, then he fails to address why those differences shouldn’t be meaningful (probably relying the assumption that it is somehow self-evident, because he holds the view) and he doesn’t begin to address my assertion that because pro-lifers more greatly value certain differences that in no way makes them ignorant of other ones.

Perhaps Moff can make pie out of his rhetorical mincemeat here, but I’m skeptical. I feel a bit like I’m in the arguments I use to have with a young cousin, who replied to every comment I made, no matter how reasonable or paitient (and I’m honest enough to admit I can be pretty snarky sometimes) with the words “you’re just stupid.” After this gets repeated awhile in place of coherent answers, you begin to feel a certain irony set in.

Also, please look up “analogy” while you’re at it Moff. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy) When you compare two things to other things, even if you are being vague about those things, it’s analogous.

And also, one might note that infer and imply in certain contexts are synonyms. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infer) but why all the quibbles if you’re really interested in engaging people on the issue? An old English major won’t hold things like that against you if you’re willing to really address some these points. The problem is you haven’t.

That about sums up Holsclaw and his ilk.

Who precisely would be suing this depraved doctor for malpractice? The woman who wants the medically unneccesary abortion? That seems rather unlikely.

Do you have particular individuals on this thread in mind, or are you just saying that in a free form sort of way? Do you object to Catholics who don’t like the death penalty and who don’t like abortion?