Bookmark and Share
My Photo


    Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.


« Bishop Jaime Soto speaks the truth in love about love... | Main | Message On a Bottle | An Interview with Tim Busch of Trinitas Cellars »

Monday, September 29, 2008



This is a good example of the vacuity of total indoctrination. Very little thought went into that letter. The writer was on automatic pilot all the way.

The "parasitic" argument is apparently de rigueur among abortionists right now. Sick. See Peter Kreeft debate the issue here:


"It really bothers me when people impose their moral beliefs on others."

I really get weary of that nonsense. And it was essentially the Joe Biden argument for which Carl Anderson took him to task.
I've yet to meet anyone who held that idea consistently, not just selectively for abortion. As you illustrate, Carl, the same people would and have imposed moral standards on those who consider others less than human, for whatever reason. Every law is an imposition of a moral belief. Period. So to be consistent the person objecting to moral beliefs being imposed must advocate for total anarchy. As Jackson says, this person was on autopilot, without thinking about the irrationality of the argument.

To cap that, the writer is accusing someone that is exercising free speech of "imposing". Sadly, that is the current state of the debate in this Presidential election as well, particularly between Catholics. The only way declaring a pro-life position could be imposing is if the hearer has a conscience issue about their own position.

It seems the writer actually might be making a rational argument about the beginning of life, but then swerves into subjectivism once more with that canard that it is only life if the mother declares it to be so. Sorry, either it is, or it isn't life, in all cases. Someone might like to argue the objective fact of the matter, which would at least be rational, although science has resolved the issue.


What always frightens me about people who make these arguments is the "conclusion" Carl sardonically posits. Don't these people realize how freakin' dangerous this argument is? You look human, but you're not really a human being, because I, the person in power, say so??? I'll bet you that this young lady would vociferously defend "human rights," at least in theory, if you asked her. Yet the whole principle of human rights requires that they are inherent to all human beings by the simple fact of being human. Anything else opens the door to-- the Holocaust, slavery, the subjugation of women, the Tuskegee experiements, etc. etc. ad nauseam. "What are they teaching in schools these days?"

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ignatius Insight


Ignatius Press

Catholic World Report


Blogs & Sites We Like

October 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        
Blog powered by Typepad