Wednesday, June 3, 2009

The latest from MgS: Her Honour hands down the sentence for the Tiller assassin and, by her logic, encourages abortionites to carry it out

Having shot herself in one foot in her post railing against my “misquoting”, “deliberately misunderstanding”, “intellectual dishonesty” and “typically circular reasoning” (when in fact she was wrong on all four points!), MgS has now taken out the other foot with an extravagant but muddle-headed denunciation of “fetus fetishists” (!) who, in MgS’s addled brain, “[d]irectly or indirectly … are responsible for [the killing of late-term abortionist Dr. George Tiller]”. And in the course of doing the very thing that she so floridly condemns (and not only doing that, but going further than almost anyone in the pro-life movement would correspondingly dare to go), she makes a rather revealing statement that shows that her opposition to the death penalty (and to torture, apparently) is (are) a sham. Read her post and then read these comments of mine (here, because I suspect that she won’t be publishing them at her blog):


"So, I see that Randall Terry is out flapping his gums about how George Tiller was a mass murderer - as if that justifies some nutcase gunman shooting him in church."

Mr. Terry implies no such thing; the non sequitur is entirely your own (two wrongs don't make a right).

"He's not - he's a vigilante, a murderer and a criminal ... and a man who deserves to be treated far worse than how he treated Dr. Tiller. [...]It is time to recognize that [the "fetus fetishists'"] judgmentalism is giving the worst society has to offer the license to kill."

This is truly vintage MgS. Few can shoot themselves in the foot as artfully as you can. In the second quoted sentence you denounce "fetus fetishists" for giving murderers a "license to kill" because of their denunciations of abortionists(despite the fact that two wrongs don't make a right). But in the first quoted sentence you go much further than a mere denunciation of Dr. Tiller's assassin--you prescribe the punishment of which you adjudge him deserving. So if someone from the pro-abortion movement were to assassinate the assassin, are you then guilty, and all the more strongly than the anti-abortion movement, of handing out a "license to kill"? By your logic the answer is an emphatic 'yes'. (But of course the pro-abortion movement is only comfortable killing defenceless babies, so I'm sure you've no need to worry about someone acting on your advice.)

Now knowing how dense you are, I suppose I'm going to have to spell out the logic there for you like I've had to do on other occasions, so here we go, step by step:

1. You think that the denunciation of abortion makes the denouncers directly or indirectly responsible for the killing of abortionists.
Proof: "Directly or indirectly, they are responsible for what happened in Kansas today."

2. You have denounced the assassin (rightly, of course), but have also gone one step further and prescribed the punishment that he ought to face.
Proof of your denunciation: "[the assassin is] a vigilante, a murderer and a criminal"
Proof of your sentencing of the assassin: "[the assassin is] a man who deserves to be treated far worse than how he treated Dr. Tiller."

3. Now if denunciation of an action incurs reponsibility for acts that are intended to stop, or even just to punish, that action, then a fortiori, denunciation of a vigilante, coupled with the pronouncement of what amounts to an extra-judicial sentence for that vigilante (and as shown in 2., you have done both these things), incurs responsibility for any attacks on that vigilante (by 1.). So if someone from the pro-abortion movement decides to act on Your Honour's sentence, then you are responsible for that act. Q.E.D.
4. And furthermore, this process turns into a vicious cycle that can only be brought to an end once all denunciations of vigilanteism cease. But of course, the cycle can be avoided altogether simply by acknowledging that two wrongs do not make a right!, and hence he who denounces something as wrong incurs no responsibility for those who try to remedy that wrong with another wrong.
Your comment has been saved and will be visible after blog owner approval.

[Second part (too many characters for one comment)]

"The Fetus Fetishists ..."

Have we been elevated to that encyclopedia of fetishists, the D.S.M., yet? We haven't? Oh well, there's always next edition. I'd better start lobbying for our inclusion in that august tome, that way you'll have no choice but to respect our feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings!

"last I checked the pro-choice lobby doesn't go around murdering doctors in cold blood."

Yeah, the pro-abortion lobby would never choose prey who could respond with proportionate force or take evasive action. And shooting is sooooo passé--the pro-abortion lobby likes to be a bit creative; never in my darkest nightmares could I have come up with the idea of killing babies by slicing their heads opening and sucking their brains out by vacuum suction (keeping the head three inches inside the mother's body, of course, so as to preserve the illusion of your all-important 'biological dependence'), but that's just another day at the office for courageous men (are there many female abortionists?) like Dr. Tiller.

"It's things like this that make me downright furious most days ..."

You poor thing. It must be terribly draining to be a standard-bearer for the angry Left.

"When we hear politicians musing about introducing abortion controls ..."

Good to be reminded of what you stand for: a completely uncontrolled power of life and death of mothers over their children, whether born or unborn up to the equivalent of nine months gestation, unrestricted with respect to both the timing of the abortion and its method.

Now let's conclude by reflecting a little on what you said about the punishment that the assassin deserves:

"the wingnut who shot Dr. Tiller [is] a man who deserves to be treated far worse than how he treated Dr. Tiller."

Now how the assassin 'treated' Dr. Tiller was to shoot him, and you want to see the assassin treated "far worse" than mere shooting. So it seems that MgS, that staunch opponent of that wicked practice, the death penalty (which you labelled "murder"), is now advocating not only the death penalty, but presumably the death penalty preceded by some kind of torture (and a particularly excruciating torture, it would seem, since the assassin's treatment has to be "far worse" than a quick kill). Thank you, MgS, for proving beyond all doubt that the only thing giving your ethics any consistency is your own tastes and preferences. How pathetic.

(This time I really don't expect you to publish this comment--it's possibly even more ego-deflating than the one where I refuted that post you did raging against me, and you're already "furious"--but I'm publishing it at my blog, where you're welcome to comment; I'm certainly not afraid to defend my opinions in open, mature discussion.)
Your comment has been saved and will be visible after blog owner approval.


Do consider paying MgS a visit and letting her know what you think of her opinions and the quality of her blogging.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Ember Wednesday of Pentecost, A.D. 2009


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Cardinal Pole said...

(I deleted that comment on request from the author.)