Thursday, June 4, 2009

Two comments on abortion which I’ve submitted to MgS’s blog

Unable to handle anything but approval or timid disagreement, MgS has banned me from commenting at her blog, but I’ve submitted two more comments to her blog anyway, one in the discussion (well, it was a discussion) at the post to which I linked yesterday, and the other at her latest sojourn into the absurd:


"It's because they've listened to one too many ranting tirades by the fetus fetishist crowd that takes itself seriously."

No. Once again: denouncing something as wrong incurs no reponsibility for someone else doing something wrong in an absurd atttempt to right the initial wrong (absurd because two wrongs don't make a right; try to keep that one in mind).

"Terry's more worried about the political fallout than he is about the role that the rhetoric of his organization and others like it have played in this travesty."
(my emphasis)

Mr. Terry and his allies played no role whatsoever; two wrongs don't make a right.

"BTW - I didn't say what I thought would be appropriate punishment did I?"

Er, yes you did, you said that the assassin is

"a man who deserves to be treated far worse than how he treated Dr. Tiller."

Good deeds deserve rewards, bad deeds deserve punishments. Or are you making up your own definitions of these terms? If so it would be helpful for you to state them.

"I merely said that he deserved far worse than he gave Dr. Tiller - your imagination filled in the rest, quite incorrectly I might add."

My imagination? No, my reason. Two simple syllogisms explain it:

Syllogism 1.:
Major: the Tiller assassin "deserves to be treated far worse than how he treated Dr. Tiller." (Proof: they're your words.)
Minor: the virtue of justice is a habit inclining the will to render to each one what he or she deserves. (Proof: that's the definition of justice.)
Conclusion: Those who have the virtue of justice want the Tiller assassin to face a far worse punishement than just shooting.

Syllogism 2.:
Major: Those who have the virtue of justice want the Tiller assassin to face a far worse punishement than just shooting. (Proof: by 1.)
Minor: MgS has the virtue of justice. (Proof: I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and making a presumption in your favour.)
Conclusion: MgS wants to see the assassin face a far worse punishment than just shooting.

Ah, but it's clear where I went wrong: I gave you the benefit of the doubt (when will I learn?) and presumed that you are just.

I'm still wondering: what precisely do you have in mind for the Tiller assassin? Something really horrible, like, say, cutting his head open unanaesthetised and having his brains sucked out? You'll do it to little babies, so presumably you can't reject inflicting it on a grown man (unless, perhaps, that's not "far worse" enough than shooting, and you need the punishment to be preceded by some kind of torture).

"You may consider yourself banned from this blog."

Wow, reasoned rebuttal of your abortion-related ravings is that big a threat, is it?
Your comment has been saved and will be visible after blog owner approval.


"The first one gets it ..."

Oh, this just gets better and better! Do you even know whom you go on to quote? Prof. Robert George, the Robert George of that comment, is a Catholic, i.e. pro-life, i.e. "fetus fetishist", philosophy of law lecturer at Princeton Uni, so you've just destroyed your case (which was wrong logically, and you have now proven wrong factually) that "fetus fetishists" encourage, by their anti-abortion lobbying, people to do wrong in order to make right another wrong!!!

"His focus on Dr. Tiller's professional work misses the point - Dr. Tiller was murdered by a man because of that man's judgment of Dr. Tiller."
(your emphasis)

The assassin's judgment was based on what Dr. Tiller did, i.e. his "professional work". How, then, does focussing on that work miss the point of the assassin's judgment?! You really don't have a leg to stand on here do you, MgS?

And then it gets even better--you're really in full swing here aren't you:

"In doing so, the author has tacitly approved the murderer's actions."

Whaaaaaaaa??? How, I beg you, how?! Mr. Kushiner's very first sentence is

"Alas, notorious abortion "doctor" George Tiller went to meet his Maker today, the victim of a homicide."

How is anything there or in the rest of the comment 'tacit approval' of what the author himself calls "homicide"? Two wrongs do not make a right! Mr. Kushiner knows this!

"It wasn't the shooter's fault at all, it seems - no, it was a "bad law"."

Well, at least your critique is right on one point. Mr. Kushiner deserves to be criticised for saying that "bad laws make bad men", though he does not seem to deny that such a 'bad man' still ought to be held accountable.

"Let's be very clear about two things here. Dr. Tiller was murdered"

Who has disputed this? Certainly not Mr. Kushiner.

"Well, no, it didn't."

We can agree on this, at least.

"The constant howling from the fetus fetishists calling abortion murder and showing lots of lovely blood-soaked images gave him the sense of horror he needed to justify what he did."

This raises two interesting points:

1. I am, as you know, pro-execution, and if the anti-execution movement launched some kind of ad campaign using images of murderers being hanged I wouldn't mind at all, because I know that it is right to hang murderers. The pro-abortion movement thinks that it is right for women to kill their unborn children if they want to, so why are they so opposed to the dissemination of images of babies being killed in abortion?

2. And if that hypothetical anti-execution ad campaign resulted in vigilante attacks on executioners, would that mean that the campaign creators are 'directly or indirectly responsible' for that vigilanteism?
Your comment has been saved and will be visible after blog owner approval.


I still encourage you, my readers, to continue to challenge her at her blog, and please let me know whether or not she publishes your comments.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Pentecost Thursday, A.D. 2009

No comments: