I'm beginning to think that some people feel so strongly about certain issues that they really shouldn't opine on them at all, at least not in public.He says my rhetoric "turns everyone into a baby-murderer", but my reply is simple: nothing I do makes anyone into a baby murderer. When a woman kills her baby because it's more convenient than dealing with the consequences of her actions, she makes herself a baby murderer. (It just so happens that most of the direct blame falls on people who are women, by virtue of biology; I know many men also share responsibility for the state of our society as a whole.)
Xrlq advocates "fair" discussion, without resorting to emotional rhetoric or subjective labeling, and that's an ideal I aspire to myself. I'm generally polite and intellectually honest, and Xrlq attributes my approach to the abortion debate to excessive emotional involvement. However, the truth is that my style of argument regarding abortion is carefully calculated -- not to maximize objectivity or honesty, as is normally the case, but to win.
It's fine and good to win a debate fairly without resorting to emotional rhetoric, but sometimes the issue is so important that it's better to win at any cost than to worry about intellectual niceties. Such is the case with abortion. I'm all for detached, objective discussion in most cases, but one-third of my generation has been murdered by their parents. I'm more concerned with stopping the butchery than with dispassioned objectivity, and I purposefully use emotional terminology to tailor my message in the manner I believe will be most effective in convincing my readers.
Xrlq is concerned with the integrity of the process, whereas I'm more worried about the actual results. Ideally, I'd like to win the debate in the manner Xrlq advocates, but it's more important to me to win than to play fair.