Well, I read the post and understood it quite nicely. I think you are just leaning hard on semantics because you have no where else to which you might safely turn. It is simply dishonorable, madam. Prolife claimed Nathanson "…IS THE MAN THAT LAUGHED ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK AS HE MADE UP CATCH PHRASES LIKE ‘IT'S A WOMAN'S BODY’ AND ‘RIGHT TO CHOOSE’....a man......told you what to do....told you how to feel...and told you that you were proabortion....how about that, EZ?" There is no reason to now try to force Prolife into a position of having said Nathanson was technically the only one who made up the slogans. Prolife never said any such thing. From what I have seen, Nathanson was indeed a co-founder of NARAL, and so it is quite legitimate to claim he made up these things even if he did so with the assistance of others. People are all the time claiming I did such and such a thing, when in fact others did the heavy work. I simply directed the thing where I wished it to go and then made the final decision. If Nathanson, as co-founder of NARAL, directed a group in which these slogans were created, then it is quite valid to claim he made them up. I’m sorry, but Pro-life’s position is quite valid.
It is not that I wish to defend my “soul brother” here. I simply don’t like your lies and wish to defend against them. If Prolife’s position was unreasonable, I’d be the first to admit it or at the least say nothing in its defense. But it is quite reasonable and yet you are making it out to be a categorical lie. That is dishonorable, and I am now calling you to the bench for it.
You really must try to understand that I am not terribly concerned about wanting “others to be sensitive to the earnest pathos” in my self presentation “instead of the dark, dishonest underside of it.” If you see a dishonest underside, then point it out, logically, with logically compelling evidence, with reason. Simply claiming I am a liar just doesn’t cut it, and neither does running to the sacred horns of semantics against an opponent who is not given to such dishonorable tactics. Claiming I am defending a “habitual liar” is simply insufficient because you have not proven that anyone, other than yourself, is a habitual liar.
Obviously I am not the first zealot, E. After all, you Choicers were wagging your bloodstained tongues in the streets for the right to murder children long before I came along to zealously fight against you. You are certainly correct that even against my zealotry, your zealotry will still prevail. Abortion zealots will carve a path to the blood of innocent people regardless of any law, whether man-made or from God Almighty Himself. We all know this, you and I. Eliminating this fact is not my purpose and it is not the overall point here. Contrary to your belief, being a zealot is awful only depending upon the object of one’s zealotry. My purpose is in being a zealot for good, against your being a zealot who hungers for the right to suck the blood of the innocent unborn. I am well aware that I cannot defend against your brand of zealotry. There are too many of you and too few of me for that. Nevertheless I revel in the fact that I defend the good, that my doing so is what I am, that in doing so I ever remain what I am. I pity you and your zealotry for what is objectively evil.
On your lack of proof of Nathanson’s lies: I have absolutely no concern at all for protecting Nathanson. You have made claims about the man that I would like you to support. If you can’t produce the support, then it is just unreasonable to expect any thinking person to accept your claims. So sorry.
Kids asleep. Gotta run... |
