Sunny Days in Heaven
Spiritual/Political/Philosophical Blog on the Nature of Truth and Falsehood and Heaven

Tuesday, May 31, 2005  

InstaPilate responds

I sent an email to Glenn Reynolds which he deigned to respond to (so I must have touched a nerve as you will see).

I wrote:


If you want embryonic stem cell research, why don't you and your wife donate your own fertilized eggs, Glenn. Put up or shut up if it's so important to you. Why not cannibalize yourselves for the sake of your future health? You're all for killing the lives of others, but not your own offspring.

Let's see you put your "reproduced tissue" on the research line of destruction.

What? Oh, not going to do it are you. Why's that? Because you are a complete hypocrite.



Instaman replied:

I don't regard fertilized eggs as my offspring. If I did, I would regard God as a murder par excellence, since my wife and I have had 5 miscarriages.

Followed by me:


What you write is a non-sequiter. I'm sorry you've had five babies die, but your mentioning it to stake some sort of emotional, political ground is cheap and beside the point. Donate your own fertilized eggs if they mean nothing to you, but science research does.

Everything dies. That's the process. You took that risk when you decided to have children. Do you really think you are reasoning clearly about Diety?

Funny how you libertarians become so emotional and irrational when your silly logic is thwarted.



Everybody wants a trump card when it comes to their opinions. When discussing foriegn policy, a military vet might cite his service as giving him greater authority. Reynolds cites his sad experience in producing children as some sort of immunity from moralizing sorts like me regarding his indifference to innocent human life. (And in a strange way, states he is indifferent to what occurred to his miscarried offspring or he would have to call God a murderer.)

So in the same breath, Reynolds mentions the five miscarriages for effect while claiming they have no real meaning.

The book of Job in the Bible illustrates an interesting situation regarding suffering (which Reynolds implicitly invokes on his side to derail my criticism).

After Satan has destroyed Job's prosperity and all his children (but still blesses God), the Accuser observes that until Job is touched himself, made miserable in his flesh, it's easy for a man to praise God. He's only been indirectly hurt.

So by those standards, those of us who have horrid, chronic, and acute diseases trump everyone else when it comes to citing our misery index to deflect argument.

posted by Mark Butterworth | 12:31 PM |