[extropy-chat] The Language of Euphamism versus Life of my Son

[Damien Broderick]

At 02:24 PM 5/18/2005 -0500, John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote:

>even if one thought the unborn is not
>alive at the moment, abortion deprives the infant of whatever life it 
>possesses,
>the potential life it would have otherwise had.
>...Even those who use the awkward terminology of saying the
>unborn infant is not "alive at the moment" would have to admit the infant 
>has a
>legal interest in the life into which it will come into possession

Only an imbecile would make the mistake of claiming that a foetus (or a 
germinal cell, for that matter) is not alive. The salient claim, repeatedly 
presented on this list, is that human blastocysts, embryos and foetuses, 
while perfectly obviously alive and human, are not *persons*. There is no 
justified claim on life until the foetus has passed through a sufficient 
number of developmental stages that it can sustain its life, and the 
beginnings of its personhood, outside the womb.

It's understandable, then, that Brett would find himself goaded by this 
kind of preposterous misrepresentation to comment "But if you are going to 
try and call everything from a single fertilized egg to a nine month old 
fetus a child AND pretend that you are using non perjorative language then 
I am inclined to want to tar and [feather] you and run you out of town for 
the scoundrel that you are."

>Despite your code, despite whatever sick thrill
>you loyal partisans of death get out of promoting the death of babies as a way
>of life

This comment was helpful, a real clincher.

I don't think I've ever seen any writer self-destruct so comprehensively by 
abusing readers who, by and large, championed his work with great 
enthusiasm. (See the favorable archived discussions of John Wright's GOLDEN 
trilogy.) Well, Truman Capote managed it, but he was abusing socialites 
while wanting to hang out with them.

Damien Broderick