OpEdNews - Page 8 of Article: Why Funding for Abortions is Essential to the Nation's Health

Says you. Tell me, is it written down somewhere that university professors must be insufferably arrogant and self-glorifying pedagogues? Given the reputation universities have acquired of becoming indoctrination factories rather than forums for scholarship, you're in a poor position to be criticizing someone else's thinking. I suggest you clean out your own house first. You have not proved yourself anyone's superior save in sheer self-regard.

"Most of the posts here fail to come to grips with the points I have raised, which reflects the nature of many social conflicts: those who are most strident in their opposition to a woman's right to chose how her body should be used have given the matter the least through."

The least THOUGHT, O esteemed professor emeritus; the least THOUGHT. All of your points have been addressed; you just don't like the answers. That has a tendency to happen when you try to build an argument for ignoring irrefutable scientific facts in favor of some arbitrary standard you crafted yourself with your chosen ends already in mind, rather than choosing the ends based on the facts. That is not what thinking men do. That is what men do when they find thinking inconvenient. Or else fear to know what the product of that thinking would be, and prefer willful ignorance.

"No "liberal" should support the tyranny of giving the state control over a woman's use of her body."

No one proposes giving the state such control. They merely propose refusing to allow the woman to assert that control over the body of another; i.e., the unborn infant.

"Too many "libertarians" appear all too enthusiastic about denying the poor and the homeless, especially when they are women, rights that others in society are capable of exercising by the expedient of denying them the capacity to exercise them themselves."

That is one of the most appallingly constructed sentences I have ever seen. In fact it's so poorly written that it's difficult to discern exactly what you object to. It does stand, however, as a sterling testament to the academic notion that the true purpose of writing is to obscure poor reasoning, inflate weak ideas, and above all to inhibit clarity.
"that is completely wrong and morally corrupt."

No, the vivisectioning of inconvenient unborn and calling it progress is completely wrong and morally corrupt. Telling the woman (and the man, too) that there is a duty to finish what they started hardly qualifies as the human-rights violation of the century.

"No one committed to the Constitution and to human rights should take a stand that deprives women of their right to control the use of their bodies for reproductive or other purposes."

The Constitution does not come close to explicitly granting this right. It is instead the product of some highly imaginative (and activist) jurists. But then, the generation that both you and they represent has not been noted for its strong attachment to the notion of personal responsibility, or to morality in general.

"It is akin to sexual slavery and to prostitution, even if presented in the guise of a libertarian principle."

No. Slavery is where one human being is owned by another. The slave is chattel, property, ballast, to be used or abused as the owner thinks fit. The owner may sell the slave, or kill him, without penalty. And that is exactly the status you accord to the unborn. And whether a proposal is right or wrong has nothing to do with the presentation.

You don't impress me with your arrogance or your titles, James. They are but yappy barks intended to conceal a feeble bite.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-29 10:40:25 AM

The missing comma must have confounded your intellect, which is not saying a lot: "Too many "libertarians" appear all too enthusiastic about denying the poor and the homeless, especially when they are women, rights that others in society are capable of exercising, by the expedient of denying them the capacity to exercise them themselves." Alternatively, using a dash: "Too many "libertarians" appear all too enthusiastic about denying the poor and the homeless, especially when they are women, rights that others in society are capable of exercising--by the expedient of denying them the capacity to exercise them themselves." Either way, the point is impeccable.

I would not indulge in ad hominems but to accent that your posts are full of them. There must be more than a dozen in this last response alone, which hints at the poverty of your argument by changing the subject to the author of the argument. Why, I wonder, have you raised the question of my status as a retired professor? That is your doing, not mine. I can't imagine what leverage you expect to derive from doing so. My career is a matter of public record. I presume you are appealing to some deep-seated negative feelings toward academicians that you take to be present in this audience. I certainly hope that is not the case. But after spending 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, I can usually spot phony arguments a mile a way--and your posts are loaded with them!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9