Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:

I don't think that'll work, but I hope you have a nice ride.

1) I have used reason and argument to make the case for why abortion
is wrong. I have never anointed myself the "arbiter of right and
wrong" but have made a case against abortion on legal, moral,
and practical grounds. In any case, judging from the tone of
your snide little post, I'd guess you are incapable of even
acknowledging that right and wrong exist as objectively exist.

You have not made a case - rather you have made a weak and unconvincing
argument, even within just the context of your own society and culture.

Yes, you'd guess. It appears that you do that a lot.

2) "Your interpretation" is an argumentative ploy no more. If I were, say,
to take matters into my own hands and fly to Georgia and kill Russians
or start shooting abortion doctors iN NYC, you no doubt, would
likely disapprove. You're talking through your hat.

I would call the first unwise, and would call the second murder. It's
interesting that you limited the options for dealing with both issues to
the taking of lives - something I (and a great many other people) would
not have done.

Your "reason and logic" is simply one perspective that others may or may
not share. More, or louder, words do not make your message more
convincing. If you wish to end the practice of abortion, then words,
logic, and even legislation will not suffice - to accomplish that you
will need to remove its root causes, and I seriously doubt that you'd be
willing even to undertake the effort to discover all of those, let alone
put forth the effort to design a comprehensive strategy to effect the
necessary societal changes. Instead, as I said earlier, you find a way
to tolerate what you don't like.

3) You evidently skipped the part in high school civics in which it
explained that government is formed first to keep people free.
We appeal to those who govern not to "supply the blood, sweat, and
tears" but to act to defend liberty. Appealing to government on behalf
of those whose liberty is ripped from them before they can even speak
is not an act of cowardice (implicitly accused in your scratchings
above), but an normal act of a free citizen.

On the other hand, one need not limit oneself to appealing to those who
govern - and then washing one's hands saying: "I've done all I can do."
I wouldn't have labeled it 'cowardice' (but you can if you see it that
way) - I would have labeled it 'detachment' sufficient to make "not
tolerate" questionable.

4) You have NO idea just what I have- and have not personally done to
try and remediate evil of the sort you mention above. I feel no
particular reason to provide you with a list as it is none of your
business. What I do know is that when backed into a corner, people
with lousy ideas (like yours) always go after the speaker with whom
they disagree because they cannot defend their own ideas. Game, set,
match.

Nor would I be particularly interested in reading any such list - just
as you have neither interest nor knowledge of my ideas and actions
(which renders your opinion fairly worthless).

I can understand that you might choose to the the sole arbiter of
'lousiness' as well - and I'm perfectly willing to concede your superior
knowledge of how it might be most fully practiced.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/