Dafydd-

I am appalled by both killings, and I think that every intelligent person of good will (remember that phrase) feels the same.

So, where do I stand? Well, since you asked --

Consider the following abstract argument:

1. There are two diametrically opposed positions on an important issue. Call these Side A and Side B. *

2. On both sides, there are significant numbers of intelligent people of good will. Not necessarily a majority, but significant numbers.

3. Any person who cannot accept Proposition 2 probably does not belong to the group of people described therein.

4. The remainder of this discussion concerns only the arguments, positions, and actions of those intelligent people of good will.

5. Advocates on both sides of the issue have heard the opposing arguments but are nonetheless convinced their own side is correct.

6. Both sides can act on their own convictions insofar as their personal behavior is concerned without directly affecting anyone on the other side.

7. Many advocates of Side A think that everyone, whether they agree with this position or not, should abide by Side A’s judgment. Side B’s proponents would allow others to either follow Side B’s philosophy or Side A’s, according to the dictates of their own conscience.

Intelligent people of good will on Side A should think carefully about imposing their will on those who happen to disagree with them. Remember that your arguments, including those you consider to be “moral imperatives,” while you may find them persuasive, have been rejected by intelligent people of good will on Side B.

* (Note that the argument is not that there are only two sides. Some might claim to hold a “middle ground” position. Such people are often regarded by advocates of Side A and Side B as actually belonging to one of their sides (usually B). Anyone who feels that their position is not properly represented by either A or B is excluded from this discussion.)

FWIW, Fox News posted a substantial report of the incident the day that it happened.

Hmm ... no responses at all. I guess I can put a QED on it.

Does this mean the controversy is now at an end? Will you "intelligent people of good will" go out and proselytize others to the newly revealed Great Truth? Peace and harmony -- Side A and Side B arm-in-arm singing Kumbaya? No more killings?! (No, no, Side A. Those intelligent people of good will on Side B don't regard what you're thinking about -- the raison d'être of Side A -- as "killing.")

Update: Sorry, but I misstated my case a bit earlier. I intended to exclude "middle ground" positions and their advocates from my argument; I did not mean middle ground ideas are unworthy of discussion. Middle grounders should, however, remember that many who do not share their precise middle ground notion will regard them as actually belonging to either Side A or (more likely) Side B. Our genial host, for example, would probably describe his own position as a middle ground. I trust he would also agree that advocates of Side A -- and many others -- would consider him as being firmly on Side B.

Also sorry for being so abstruse. I was just trying to avoid inflammatory terminology and make an argument that could, theoretically, apply to any underlying issue.

Dick E.:

I suspect you received no specific reply because you insisted upon speaking in terms of "Side A" and "Side B," rather than simply use the normal words for these positions (pro-life and pro-choice). Folks were probably confused whether you meant these specific sides on this specific issue -- or a generic issue with two sides, A and B.

Our genial host, for example, would probably describe his own position as a middle ground. I trust he would also agree that advocates of Side A -- and many others -- would consider him as being firmly on Side B.

Of course I wouldn't describe myself as "middle ground;" that's a cop-out, and I never use it. I am unquestionably pro-choice: I support a woman's right to abort up to the point where the foetus' cerebral cortex is functionally complete and activated. After that point, I consider it a baby, not a foetus, and I want abortions banned except to save the life, not merely the health, of the mother.

Further, if the mother's life is in danger, and there is any way to remove the baby without killing it and either reimplant it in another womb or else incubate it, it should be mandatory to try -- unless that itself puts the woman's very life in danger.

I take firm positions on every issue, though often my firm position is "I am unlearned enough on this issue that I cannot hold a responsible opinion." I never say I'm "middle of the road," "moderate," or anysuch dodge.

As it happens, however, my opinions don't line up neatly within any large ideological group: I'm not a conservative, a liberal, a libertarian (though that may be closest), a librarian, a Randroid, a Discordian, a believer, or an atheist.

Dafydd -- now back at Lizard Central!

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)