Moho, #105:
“Beth, I’m afraid I can’t understand the argument for you. If you can prove through argument that there was no logic in my statement, then I suggest you do that. If you don’t, like Delia, you are basically admitting you can’t understand the logic in the argument, and that you can’t admit that fact.”
Surrealist #1: “Why did the chicken cross the road?”
Surrealist #2: “A fish.”
I knew this exchange was reminding me of something, and I’ve remembered. I would worry for my sanity if I could understand the “logic” in Moho’s statement to me, given the cognitive slippage it would take to do so (or more indulgence in “Oaksterdam’s” best than is prudent). Was it one sentence, or one paragraph, in which Moho was ascribing two mutually contradictory positions to me?
Meanwhile, there’s simply no logic in the statement that my declining to comply with Moho’s “demand” is an admission that either I’m not capable of doing so, or that it’s not possible to prove his/her/its statement attributing mutually contradictory positions to me is illogical. Besides, Moho, I don’t got to show you no steenkin’ badges … or let you frame this exchange. Which brings us back to:
#102: “it is for all intents and purposes a part of her body which she allows to live.” Not quite. It’s attached to her body, it’s enveloped in her body. It’s dependent upon her body for life–up to a certain point. Once it could live on its own if no longer attached to/enveloped by her body, what makes it her choice whether it gets to live or not? (Look at all the reduction ad absurdam chiming in to ask about a “right” to “fourth trimester abortion,” which Peter Singer has asserted.)
I think a demand much more pertinent to this discussion is that Moho explain at what point (if any?) it’s no longer the mother’s choice to “allow” a fetus/baby to continue existing, and provide a logical basis for whatever assertion that might be.
I will continue to state that it’s wrong to kill a viable fetus (babyescent?) except in legitimate self-defense, based on a fair reading of the principle of an inherent human right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Moho appears quite concerned with disabusing me of that notion (or simply abusing me if I don’t drop it), so I’m curious as to what “logic” might be able to do so.
