First things first.
Here are the stats.
Read the whole thing. I'll wait.
hmm, hmm, hmm. ...coffee.. sandwich... ok ready?
Good. Let's cut right to the part Bob Ellis
always likes to talk about.
Table 71 page 80. No wait, first, pop back up
to the bottom of page 79 andread the little
blurb that introduces the chart.
Got it?
Super.
Now go to table 71.
(If you're not reading the whole report,
just click on the picture above to enlarge it.)
Ok, now having read that, and the rest
of the report, please explain to me
how in the world Bob reaches this conclusion:
"Further, the statistics on abortion prove
beyond a shadow of a doubt how woefully
ignorant you are on why abortions are performed.
"NOBODY uses abortion as a casual method
of birth control." Really? The latest statistics
from the SD Department of Health show 83.2%
of the abortions in SD were performed because
"The mother did not desire to have the child."
(He's responding to a statement
made by Michael Sanborn yesterday)
So...are my eyes bad?
Because I don't see any number
on that chart that indicates
that anyone in South Dakota
had an abortion as a
"casual method of birth control."
Do you dear readers?
For that matter, I don't find any evidence
of Bob's assertion that people get abortions
casually ANYWHERE in the whole report —
Far less "beyond the shadow of a doubt"
as Bob puts it.
Do you?
I have a lot to say here, but I'm thinking
some of you might too. So, guest host
here that I am, I want to
read your comments first.
Oh and fellas, would it be too much
to ask to let the women who want
to address these numbers give us
their read on them before you weigh in?
I think it's only fair, since, as Sanborn
rightly points out the chances of you guys
ever having to answer any of these questions
range from slim to none.
Of that I am certain ...beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Thanks.
_______________________
Summary comment:
As per above, this post was created to challenge
Bob Ellis's challenge to Mike. It was immediately
co-opted by a poster who insisted on blowing it up
into a larger discussion.
So we went there.
It didn't work out very well.
Discussions on this topic usually don't.
I shut down the comments for a few hours to
let things cool off.
They're back on now.
81 comments:
Or, it might make sense to let those of either sex respond as 50% of those whose deaths are reported in those statistics were guys, 50% girls.
Of that I am certain ...beyond a shadow of a doubt.
The statement "NOBODY uses abortion as a casual method of birth control." is impossible to prove.
On the other hand, since it's tough to know what "casual" means in this regard - let's drop that modifier all together.
We know that, in 2006, 84.6% of abortions were done as birth control. So, by and large, abortion in South Dakota is a birth control method.
I oppose abortion because I believe reason and science show that we become individuals at conception. I see no more clear delineation between non-personhood and personhood than conception. I believe someone to be no less a person before they pass through the birth canal than after.
Thus, abortion kills people. And so, to me, is wrong.
I'm not making an argument about current law or the constitution. I think that's a separate discussion. I'm simply talking about right and wrong.
I assume that those who wish abortion to be legal and available believe the unborn to be something other than persons and so support the use of abortion. Certainly some number of those who supported slavery and those who supported Nazi ideals argued (and believed) their victims were less than human persons.
If I thought the unborn were anything other than persons I'd have no problem with abortion. I'd view it as a medical procedure that was only the business of the only person effected by it - the mother.
But, as there is another person involved, the victim of abortion, there is a role for society to protect that victim.
Likewise with child or spouse abuse. What someone does in their own home is none of my business, is none of society's business. Until what someone does in their own home involves the abuse of another. Then it becomes the business of society to protect the victim.
As society has a role in protecting victims of abuse so I think society has a role in protecting victims of abortion.
I think it's only fair.
Carl said:
"I believe reason and science show that we become individuals at conception. I see no more clear delineation between non-personhood and personhood than conception."
Do you also believe that an acorn is an oak tree? And a fertilized chicken egg a chicken?
I mean these questions seriously, not in jest or mockery.
For what it's worth, neither science nor reason leads me to a clear idea about when personhood begins, or when a fetus becomes a human being. I believe there are two fundamentally important moments, though: conception and first breath. I don't know which one is more important.
I will say that my uncertainty on this issue is related in part to the fact that the majority of fertilized human eggs fail to attach to the uterus and therefore fail to result in pregnancies. (BF may have more precise data about this.) In other words, I find it difficult to place such importance on the moment of conception, when the majority of such conceptions result naturally in the "death" of a "person," as Carl suggests.
Neal, I have no idea.
As I note in my comment, there are differing views on the personhood of the unborn. I have mine (the basis for which is better explained by Professor Robert George here: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDRhMjcwNjkxOTQ4ZGQ4YjM0YTE4OGU5N2M1MDcwMDQ here: http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2009/06/more-from-robert-george-regarding-science-and-the-abortion-debate.html and elsewhere on the Gogglenets.). You have yours.
Some believe it's difficult to figure out the delineation between personhood and non-personhood. Yet, for many of our laws to make sense, we need to settle the question. I think George and others make a convincing case that we can know the delineation.
Some will suggest that, since nature kills many of the unborn it's no harm for abortionists to kill the unborn. That argument almost rebuts itself - nature through disease or natural catastrophe kills many children in infancy, or as toddlers, or later. Does that make it no harm if one were to kill a child?
Here are a few questions: if the objects of the abortions reported in the statistics at issue weren't individual persons, what were they? If we don't become persons at conception then when? Why?
Carl, I don't understand how you don't have an idea of whether or not an acorn is an oak tree, when you believe that a zygote is a person. Consistency, I believe, compels your answer: if a zygote is a person, then an acorn is an oak tree. I don't see how you can have it any other way.
But I also don't want to put words in your mouth or thoughts in your mind, so I would, sincerely, like to hear your response to this point, because, as I said, my mind is not made up.
As for your questions...
"if the objects of the abortions reported in the statistics at issue weren't individual persons, what were they?"
I don't know, but some of the thoughts that come to my mind are...
-- they are something with the yet-unrealized potential to become individual persons, in the same way that an acorn has the potential to become an oak tree.
-- they are merely fetuses, not persons.
-- they are indistiguishable from their host, the mother, so their individuality or personhood has yet to manifest itself. (When I say "host," I don't mean it in the parasitic context.)
These are just thoughts, not answers.
"If we don't become persons at conception then when? Why?"
As I said, first breath. Why? Because one of the most significant markers of death (or the end of personhood) is the last breath. So I see something very important -- and not just symbolically important -- in the first breath. (I think this is a very important moment in the Jewish faith, as well.)
Or, what happens to be my least favorite marker, at the point of "viability." Why? Because it is an important point in terms of the fetus beginning to be distinguishable from its mother. (And yes, I agree that separate heartbeat and DNA are also relevant considerations here.)
"Some will suggest that, since nature kills many of the unborn it's no harm for abortionists to kill the unborn."
Rather than focusing on harm, why not focus on value. If indeed a majority of zygotes die naturally, doesn't that have some bearing on the degree of inherent value of that zygote?
Not sure you can prove that 50/50 thing either "Carl" but whatever. But, ok, we'll go into that deeper if you wish.
Tell me this, if you have a gene that is not switched to "on" yet so as to manufacture certain tissues, are you really such an entity? i.e. just because you carry the "potential" to generate nerve cells but your switches are shut down so you only generate skin cells, are you still a nerve cell?
p.s. Why am I not surprised that you were the first one to check in on this?
And BTW, thanks for proving my point about Bob.
Whether the birth control is casual or not is irrelevent. To bother with Bob's point is to miss the point.
The bigger issues are: Are we killing people as a method of birth control and is that right? I say yes to the first and no to the second.
If I thought I could change minds I'd tussle around about this. But, I think, as a society, we're a generation or two from becoming enlightened and/or honest enough to reverse our stand on abortion.
So, I'll let my comments stand with no further defense. Dr. George makes the case better than I. Check out the links I noted.
Namaste.
Carl Lafong, I'm going to ask you a few questions and of course you don't have to answer any of them, but if you do, I implore you to answer them truthfully, if for no other reason than to protect your own integrity.
1. Is Carl LaFong your real name, or an alias?
2. If it's an alias, do you post on other blogs under other aliases than "CarlLa Fong?"
3. If so on 2, do you do this in order to create the impression that there are more people than just you who are expressing what is basically just your "real person's" specific set of words?
4. If so (or even if no) on 3, don't you think someone who does such things is kind of "stuffing the ballot box?" I mean, the secret ballot is one thing, but voting more than once is quite another.
I like this blog. You have well-chosen topics.
I'm enjoying commenting here. I like that the comments are dynamic and, near as I can tell, uncensored. War College bans commenters wholesale and Blogmore operates at the pace of snail mail.
When all posters are presented with the questions Fleming poses to me above, I'll probably still ignore the questions.
I'm more interested in what is written here than in who writes here. Content over packaging. A good idea is a good idea regardless the author. Likewise for a lousy idea.
Anyway, if you entertain the idea that Carl LaFong may be my real name even after I linked my name to the W.C. Fields bit on several previous comments, my answers to the other questions really wouldn't matter.
Glad you like it here, Carl. I always enjoy reading your stuff.
Carl said:
"If I thought I could change minds I'd tussle around about this."
That's a little disappointing to read, since I specifically said that my mind was not made up on this issue, and my questions to you were made in a good-faith effort to help clarify your thinking (and, accordingly, my own).
I really don't have a problem with you choosing not to continue this dialogue. But I'm a bit resentful of the suggestion that my mind is made up, or that I'm close-minded in any way on this topic.
Sigh.
Neal,
No offense intended. By and large most people have locked in to a position on this. I don't infer that makes them (or me) close-minded. I just think it's a generation or two before there will be enough movement on the issue for progress.
I really don't know anything about acorns. I really do think my position can be best understood by reading the articles I link above.
Dear readers,
Try this for the second of Carl's links,
click here
Sorry the software here doesn't make them hot automatically but it doesn't. You have to do the @#*&% code.
Sigh.
Thanks Bill.
And, as to acorns and oaks and people (and a bonus bit on Bevacizumab in Colorectal Cancer) I suggest - http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/351/16/1687.pdf
So Carl, back to my question above.
"Not sure you can prove that 50/50 thing either "Carl" But, ok, we'll go into that deeper if you wish.
Tell me this, if you have a gene that is not switched to "on" yet so as to manufacture certain tissues, are you really such an entity? i.e. just because you carry the "potential" to generate nerve cells but your switches are shut down so you only generate skin cells, are you still a nerve cell?"
I could be wrong, but I don't believe the articles you link us to address this point specifically, or rather, if they do, I believe the author's position would be that we don't become males until the male gene switches on.
It is for this self same reason that we don't think of skin cells as "people" even though they contain the whole set of DNA instructions necessary to instruct nature to assemble a fully functioning adult human being.
And I don't recall your author stipulating that a skin cell is a potential human being and thus it would be homocide to kill one.
But again, I could be wrong.
Please feel free to enlighten me.
Meanwhile, I'll argue that we are all females until the chromosome that makes us male switches on.
You're welcome, Carl.
where is my most excellent post on acorns, eggs, and zygotes?
Did something get lost, lr? I didn't see it, mon.
lexrex
nobody's been editing or "moderating." I checked my e-mail confirmation list and (according to that) you've made 3 posts today. One on this string and two on Munsterman's book string.
We would love to see your most excellent post, however.
i assure you it was most excellent. i'm sure it would've changed everybody's minds.
sorry, i must've messed it up, somehow.
neal, it was just something that helped me come to a conclusion. another time, i'll put it together, but think more in terms of biological classifications ... of zygotes, fetuses, persons, acorns, oak trees, chickens, eggs, etc.
and by that, neal, i mean classifications such as kingdom, phylum, family, genus, species, etc.
that was me in that last post. sorry, i'm in a hurry to go work out.
I have a real problem with lumping "does not desire a child" into one category. And that's your 84.6%. Don't you just hate it when you take one of those surveys and none of the answers you can choose actually represents the way you feel ?
If you were to take a hundred women/girls and get a more detailed explanantion, you would probably have a hundred more defined answers. The impact of a pregnancy can be devastating, not only to the woman, but to many around her. There are often many mitigating factors that lead to the abortiuon decision.
It is in our nature to harbor/raise/protect our children. The choice to terminate a pregnancy goes against everything that is in our hearts. This is as inherent to women as gathering and protecting are to men. So of course- you have exceptions.
Of the women I know that have terminated a pregnancy, it was a long, difficult process to make the decision. And some of us are never quite the same after. It is definitely not something you would ever forget. It sits in the back of your mind forever. But I also know, that not one woman I have spoken with has said she made the wrong decision. Too many lives would have been turned upside down.
Carl, I do know that some women have had more than one abortion. I find that repulsive. But I am so grateful that, for the majority of us, we still maintain the ability to have a choice in what happens in our lives and those around us.
Thank you, Donna. Good thoughts.
To follow up on Donna's point a little, of course, they didn't want to have the child. That's why they had the abortion!
Now, notice that if you add up all the %ages in each column you get more than 100%.
Why?
Obviousluy because the respondents were allowed to give more than one answer.
This isn't rocket science, you know.
(Unless of course you're Bob Ellis.)
I read one of your links, Carl (I can't get the other one to work, but I'll google it) and found this passage to be interesting:
"[T]he question of the morality of abortion is not about when the life of a human being begins---the answer to that is clear enough---it is about whether and, if so, when a human being's life has value and dignity."
It's interesting because I said something very similar in a previous post:
"Rather than focusing on harm, why not focus on value. If indeed a majority of zygotes die naturally, doesn't that have some bearing on the degree of inherent value of that zygote?"
Since Carl has left the conversation, leaving the rest of us to wallow in our unenlightenment, maybe lex (or someone else) will take a stab at answering my question...
As for your acorn post, lex, I look forward to reading it, if and when you get around to rewriting it.
I can lay out a little thought experiment regarding value if you like Neal. Maybe see if we can get some of the readers to play along?
neal, you ask: "If indeed a majority of zygotes die naturally, doesn't that have some bearing on the degree of inherent value of that zygote?"
i would say that the fact that a majority of the human species die naturally, doesn't matter.
for instance, does that my grandfather died of natural causes devalue the life of my father?
Go for it, Bill.
And lex, I'll respond to your post sometime later. I have to head out for the next several hours.
Have a good evening.
lexrex, thought experiment? Ok?
thought experiment? will i have to do much thinking? 'cause it hurts when i do too much.
No, thinking time is limited.
then let's do some thinking.
Ok, lr and Neal. I'll make it my next topic. Probably up this evening, around 9:00 or so. If not, for sure by tomorrow morning. Later.
lex asked,
"does that my grandfather died of natural causes devalue the life of my father?"
No, but I don't think your analogy holds up. The value of a living (born) human being is not at issue.
The question is, when is the fetus inhered with that value?
Yeah, I'm kind of scratching my head on that one too, lr.
Or, the question is, why wouldn't an individual be inhered with that value from the moment of conception?
I'm thinking "value" is a function of relationship and circumstance, a function of agreement and environment, and that we are perhaps kidding ourselves of we try to deal in absolutes.
See the thought experiment. It's up now.
The Nazis and the slaveholders predicated their evil on exactly that - a fuzzy notion of the value of individual human beings. If there is no absolute value and dignity attached to each person regardless their physical characteristics, then the door is open to marginalize people based on their race or their ethnicity.
Once you accept that it is OK to abort a person one month or three months or six months after their conception you have removed any reasoned argument against destroying a person ten months, one year, two years or more after their conception.
There is no basis for charity absent human dignity. And, once we start eroding human dignity by creating diminished definitions of personhood based on random factors such as stage of human development, we begin the erosion of human charity and human decency and we open the door to atrocities like slavery, genocide, and abortion. And lesser evils like racism, sexism, hunger in a world of plenty, labor abuse, and on and on.
"Once you accept that it is OK to abort a person one month or three months or six months after their conception you have removed any reasoned argument against destroying a person ten months, one year, two years or more after their conception."
These are the words of a zealot, not someone who is genuinely interested in having a dialogue.
Interesting philosophy, Carl.
In "The Myth of Sisyphus" Camus tells us that the only real philosophical problem mankind faces is whether or not to commit suicide.
He thus presents his philosophy of the absurd: man's futile search for meaning, unity and clarity in the face of an unintelligible world devoid of God and eternal truths or values.
It seems you have found yours, and I salute you for it.
As for me, I'm still grappling with some of the specious arguments being presented here in the name of science.
I don't think they are good science.
I don't think we as humans really know who or what we are yet — much less what it really means to be human.
And I likewise think we understand even far less the nature and/or the mind of God.
But I'm glad you do, friend.
Namaste.
Thanks for your judgment of me Neal. I assume you are using zealotry in some sort of pejorative sense?
In any case, your claim about dialogue is wrong on its face since, every comment I make here, and particularly make in response to other comments, is dialogue. You take a statement I make in the course of me engaging in a dialogue with Fleming and you claim that as evidence I am not interested in having a dialogue. You see the flaw?
I have beliefs. I have a philosophy. Don't you?
Is it wrong for a person, at some point in their lives to settle on a philosophy, a set of values, by which they live? I don't think so.
I have a set of beliefs. Given compelling reasons they may and do change. But, day to day, my beliefs and my values inform the decisions I make.
For the reasons Dr. George explains, I believe we become individual persons at conception. That's not so much a belief or a philosophy I think as it is an acceptance of sound argument and science.
Among my core beliefs is my belief that each human life, each person has dignity. Any of the too rare acts of charity I might perform are founded in that belief.
As to my statement that "Once you accept that it is OK to abort a person one month or three months or six months after their conception you have removed any reasoned argument against destroying a person ten months, one year, two years or more after their conception." well, that's not so much a belief as it is a simple statement of reason. It's algebra is all.
Premise - we become individuals at conception.
Premise - it's okay to kill, through abortion, individuals from the point at which they are conceived until a point six to nine months after their conception.
Conclusion - it's okay to kill individuals before they reach a certain point in their development.
It follows from that argument that the "certain point" is not fixed and there is nothing to prevent us from moving the point from six to nine months after conception to a point twenty four or thirty six months after conception. Will we? I don't know. But, by legalizing abortion we've created the logical basis for other forms of killing including infanticide.
That's not zealotry. That's simply looking at how things are.
You may have a different take. And that's okay. And that wouldn't be zealotry.
Two links for those unfamiliar with Camus's essay:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Sisyphus
http://www.nyu.edu/classes/keefer/hell/camus.html
Carl, to me (instinctively speaking) there is a point in your reasoning where your argument becomes absurd.
I'm not sure precisely where that point is, nor do I feel a burning need to go digging for it rationally in dialogue with you unless you're willing, but somehow I just sense it.
If you are interested in exploring it a little further, let me know.
Otherwise, we're probably at friendly impasse here, wouldn't you say? And as for me, I'd sooner protect the friendship than win (or lose) the argument.
But, my world has a God and truths and values.
I think my argument is sound.
If I tried to extend the argument back to sperm or eggs - I think that would be absurd.
But, knowing what we know, to suggest that I was a different being eight months after I was born than I was eight months before I was born? I think that's absurd. Did I change physically over that span? You bet. But, not so much as I would physically change over the next ten or twenty years of my life.
I don't think anyone can disprove that the entity who was Carl LaFong at conception has been Carl LaFong and no one or no thing else ever since.
I hear you Carl.
My world has a God and truths and values as well.
As well as paradoxes, and uncertainty.
(See quantum physics theory.)
Perhaps, Carl, it all boils down to this:
Do we want to live in the world we're in?
Or the one our minds make up?
Or deeper still, is there in fact one quark or gluon or Higgs particle of difference between the two.
And by the way, who is Carl LaFong, anyway?
Or Bill Fleming either, for that matter?
As to your point, I think it's fairly easy to prove that you are a different "thing" than you were at conception Carl. In fact I think it's fairly easy to prove that you are a different "thing" right now, reading this than you were when I started typing it. A different thing by billions if not trillions of atoms (mass), actually, and an entirely different energy structure as well.
p.s. If you don't believe me Carl, try wrapping yourself in saran wrap for about a week, hold your breath the whole time, and don't eat, drink or eliminate anything.
I'll leave the science to Fleming and Dr. George and others.
I do know that in law and reason and nature I have been me since I was conceived. Did the essence of me include different atoms? Yeah. But, still me throughout in the sense we understand individuals.
Good, so we're leaving the science out of it then, as far as your conversations with me are concerned then, Carl?
Fair enough then. On to the law.
I don't think the law says you are "you" until you are born, does it? Or at least you're not an American Citizen (as per the 14th amendment), correct? Or are you talking about some other laws?
I'm a little fuzzy on that.
Can you help me out?
Oh, and as for "nature" and "reason," isn't that what science is really all about?
I thought we were deciding not to go there, you and me.
Yes, or no?
Your call.
And one last question, what's an "essence" as far as the law is concerned?
Is that the same as a "person."
Carl said,
"Thanks for your judgment of me Neal. I assume you are using zealotry in some sort of pejorative sense?"
No, I was using it in a matter-of-fact sense.
There's nothing wrong with zealotry in and of itself. In fact, it is often a good thing, an essential thing. But it's not a trait that's very conducive to having a productive dialogue on a particular topic.
Your behavior on this thread leads me to believe you are a zealot on this issue, and that you are not interested in having a genuine dialogue on the question of when life is inhered with value.
It's not because you've made up your mind already. It's that you didn't answer the questions I posed to you. Instead you purported to withdraw from the conversation with the astonishingly condescending suggestion that those who do not agree with you are suffering from diminished enlightenment. Strike one.
Then you return, but what you write strongly suggests that you haven't read or considered what anyone else wrote while you were gone. I offered you three reasoned ideas about why the value of preborn life may be different than the value of born life. You ignored them all, then suggested an absence of reason. Strike two.
Nor do you even appear to be focused on the specific issue at hand. For instance, consider again this paragraph of yours:
"Once you accept that it is OK to abort a person one month or three months or six months after their conception you have removed any reasoned argument against destroying a person ten months, one year, two years or more after their conception."
First, we were talking about the value of life, or when life obtains value, not when it's ok to abort a person. Second, every word you write is tangential to the issue, and presumes that your premise is correct -- i.e., that life has value at the moment of conception. Your algebra problem illustrates this perfectly. But your premise is precisely the question we are discussing, and you have (again) forged on without sufficiently establishing that your premise is correct. Strike three.
Don't get me wrong. I admire the fact that you have a belief, I admire your conviction, and I find your belief, in terms of substance, to be honorable, if poorly defended.
I especially like where that belief leads you -- the stuff about human dignity and charity and decency (posted at 8:49 AM today). Love it.
But that said, dialogue isn't just (selectively) responding to certain comments. It also requires a particular state of mind -- one that, based on what you've written so far, I'm afraid you don't have, at least on this particular topic.
Reason strongly (if not definitively) suggests that a zygote and a born human being are not identical. Reason strongly suggests that the idea that a zygote and a born person are identical is not accurate.
To be fair, reason has led us to understand that a fetus has a separate heart beat, and separate DNA. Those facts are important, and deserve to be taken into consideration.
I don't think reason is or should be the only tool of analysis here. But I believe it's nonsense to pretend that reason only supports one side or the other. Clearly, reasonable arguments can be made on either side of this debate.
Actually, and ultimately, reason supports only one side of any debate.
Try this Neal: Mind your own business.
That is, make your own case, dialogue as you will and let me do the same. I didn't read all of your 1:36 comment, life is too short. But, I read enough to see you want to analize me and how I comment. Don't.
You do your thing and I'll do mine. Or not, it's also true that what you do is your business. Just don't expect me to bother with your take on my style.
"Mind your own business."
Good one Carl.
Now we're getting somewhere.
Back to where we started actually.
You know, with Bob Ellis and all?
No Bill. Again, you're misstating my position.
I haven't abandoned my notion that society has an obligation to protect the helpless - protect children and spouses from abuse, even in the privacy of their homes. Protect the unborn from abortionists.
Nice distraction though. I'd do the same if I had to argue your side.
BTW good conversation fellas.
And Donna, thank you sincerely for your generous, single, yet eloquent and succinct contribution above.
As per the original post, I really was hoping for more participation from women. But then, that's usually how it goes on this issue, it seems.
The women do all the heavy lifting, and the men do all the talking.
Carl, I didn't misstate your opinion.
I expressed mine.
Let's make a deal.
You don't take my inventory and I won't take yours, ok?
Bill, when you incorporate a quote from my comment to make your point as though I supported your point you misstate my position.
Make your deals with Neal - he's the one who knows how the rest of us should behave. I'm not interested in taking anyone's inventory.
Carl, you just did it... again. By telling me what I meant when I wrote. The truth is, you made an assumption, so own it.
I have already disclaimed my comment as my own opinion. Reread my post. The quotes were a segue.
A literary device. I have that license.
Unless of course you claim copyright on the words "Mind your own business."
But hey, what the hell, you know what Carl?
just for you, here it is again, my friend, sans quotes:
Carl LaFong, Bob Ellis, mind your own business.
There, how's that?
Ah poor Bill. Getting a little angry are we?
If I was trying to justify the work of abortionists with nothing more than your line of quasi metaphysical, pseudo Buddhist BS I'd get frustrated too.
Hang in there!
Not at all angry Carl.
But hat makes three times now that you've presumed to read my mind.
And now, with the personal insults?
Nice. Class act.
I'm leaving them up.
Got any more?
Heh, heh heh!
"I'm leaving them up."
Thanks Pat Powers, that's big of you!
Astute readers will now notice that Carl LaFong has long since abandoned any pretense of rational discussion here.
He's dodged all of Neal's "values" questions, cites science and then won't discuss it, won't even discuss specific questions pertaining to the law — again a points he, himself brought up — and has now resorted to personal insults and badgering.
Kind of like a troll in sheep's clothing.
If he had a Law Firm I would recommend that he name it "Pivot, Duck, & Weave."
Still, with each and every degradation of his once rather civil posts to this dialogue, he still advances the "essence" of the overall discussion and thus makes — at least in my mind — a significant contribution to the discussion, by modeling one side of the debate's general behavior.
I learned a long time ago that the way to get someone to show their true colors is to get them a little hot.
So flame on Carl La Fong.
I'm reading you now loud and clear, my brother.
You throw them insults up. I won't touch 'em.
If you want to retract them, take them down yourself. That's what Pat Powers does around here.
What he does on his own blog is of absolutely no concern to me.
Fact o' bidness, "it's none of my business."
Poor, poor Bill.
Faults me for name-calling. Calls me names. Faults me for presuming to know what he's feeling, presumes to know what I'm feeling.
I'd probably respond in the same childish, hypocritical fashion if I had his side of this debate.
Poor, poor Bill.
I could be wrong of course, Carl, but it has been my intention to address the quality of your arguments not your persona here. And yes, reluctantly, to monitor behavior, as per Mike's request. This is his blog, not mine.
If I have failed in these regards, and in your opinion crossed any lines with you, please accept my apology.
As I said, these last few post have involved me commenting on your seemingly aggressive behavior, but again, I could of course be wrong about that too. It's possible.
If your comments are meant strictly in jest as friend to friend, great.
Feel free to take mine in the same spirit.
As we both know, it's sometimes hard to discern ones intended true tone in written conversation, especially when neither the writers nor the audience knows any of the others personalities very well.
In your case, with a recently minted pseudonym, the problem is compounded somewhat exponentially. But we're dealing with it anyway.
So again, sorry if I have in any way offended you here. My intent is to keep my conversations somewhat detached and lighthearted.
Because after all, this is only a blog.
And I am, at long last, only me.
. . .
Whines that I take his inventory, takes my inventory.
Whines that I won't answer questions, won't answer my questions.
Don't know him. He claims me as a friend.
It's gettin' weird around here.
I should have stuck to my guns above where I noted that --
"If I thought I could change minds I'd tussle around about this. But, I think, as a society, we're a generation or two from becoming enlightened and/or honest enough to reverse our stand on abortion.
So, I'll let my comments stand with no further defense. Dr. George makes the case better than I. Check out the links I noted."
Nothing productive has occured since.
Sorry you feel that way, Carl.
Thank you for sharing.
Feel free to check back in anytime.
Note to readers, the fact is, I do know "Carl" and he knows me and I can prove it.
And I'm not going to.
That's neither the purpose nor the policy of this forum as I understand it.
Oooooh!
With the subtle threats - Fleming can delete my comments, Fleming can reveal my identity.
It's all very spooky.
Poor Bill.
Oh, maaaannn, knock off with the petty back and forth, okay? Tedious.
Just the facts, Carl.
Just the facts.
Just keepin' it real
over here.
p.s. I though you said you
had other things to do, mon?
If you're sincerely regretting your
experience here, why to you keep
popping back in?
Shall we shut down the comments on this thread, Bob? I think we have more than plenty. It has become pretty petty, I admit.
True dat!
Carl, Bob, it's all yours.
And again, Carl, thanks for being here.
It's nothing. Seriously.
Post a Comment