"[CatholicDemocrats.org] is not saying that “abortion IS a surgical procedure that is safe for the mother.”"
Who are you going to believe? Campbell or your lying eyes?
I'm not sure you're using the term "postmodern" in the correct sense here. See Postmodernism and Postmodernity for some aid.
Also, this is rather dishonest of you, as the context Gerald's quote reveals that he is not contradicting definition, but is actually focusing the on semiotic aspect of the CD passage. Hence, his entire point is about the intention and reference of the CD passage:
CD is not saying that “abortion IS a surgical procedure that is safe for the mother.” They are not attempting to define abortion in those gross terms. If abortion were defined as nothing more than a surgical procedure, such claim would not be correct — for reasons you indicate.
What CD is doing is pointing out that, in practical terms, a woman who decides to have an illegal abortion (this presumes the laws have been changed) would not be able to find a doctor that would perform such abortion because they would be prohibited from doing so by law. They would thus be forced to turn from a “surgical procedure” to the use of a drug, namely, “Misoprostol”. CD then points out that this drug is correlated with birth defects and maternal death. In addition, it would become part of an illicit drug trade.
These are consequences — and there are probably among many others — that would result from making abortion illegal.
Would you please, in good faith, either alter your post or eliminate it? I have a lot of respect for you, Christopher, and it pains me to see you misrepresent deliberately.
Poli,
I don't think Gerald's explanation is at all satisfactory. Abortion is not "a surgical procedure that is safe for the mother"- not in practical terms or in any other terms. This is a dangerous untruth and should be opposed vigorously. Practicality is concerned with "how to do". The speculative is concerned with "what is", period. "Abortion is a medical procedure which is safe for women" attempts to describe what is the case. Gerald draws many unwarranted conclusions from the distinction between the practical and speculative intellects. The distinction is one between ways in which the intellect operates, not separate intellects which investigate separate realms of reality. The intellect is one and truth is one. When it comes to fighting abortion, our practice should flow from truth, not from statements like that given at CD. Gerald's defense of CD here may be well- meaning, but it is still incoherent.
Michael,
Once again forgive my philosophical incompetence. I'm quite amenable to changing the title to something more accurate.
As for the rest of Gerald's explanation (or I should say obfuscation), I've provided a direct link to the remainder of the piece -- which I think will more than suffice.
Br. Matthew Augustine,
I know that you do think the explanation by Gerald is unsatisfactory, and I do not want to move that discussion here. My only concern with this post is that it represented Gerald as plainly contradicting the CD website in his statement about it, making him appear rather incompetent. This was not and is not the case.
Christopher,
Thank you for changing the title of the post to reflect your concern over Gerald's defense/elucidation of CD's statement.
I know that you do think the explanation by Gerald is unsatisfactory, and I do not want to move that discussion here.
Fair enough. Honestly though, I have been a little curious regarding your thoughts on this matter.
My thoughts on CD's stance on abortion or on Gerald's positions on Obama's candidacy?
Policraticus,
The former.
Poli,
The full context does nothing to save Gerald's statement, which is a frankly shocking examble of Orwellian double-talk.
It is, quite frankly, the toleration and defense of that kind of obfuscation in defense of abortion proponents which causes me to finally give up on Vox Nova. I think you had a very interesting idea -- having a wide variety of commentator from across the ideological spectrum bring a Catholic perspective to issues -- but an increasing percentage of the posts and comments and descended into shrill partisanship, some of which is frankly disgraceful coming from a proclaimedly Catholic website.
The Catholic Leaque has been getting many phone calls and e-mails regarding Barack Obama's support for Infanticide.
Barack Obama led the fight to deny medical care to infants born alive as a result of botched abortions and let them die unaided in hospital rooms.
go to this web address
http://www.catholicleaque.org/
chatterbox.php?#139
http://www.catholicleaque.org/ch...chatterbox?
#139
I know this thread is old, but I finished arguing against the doublespeak on the Vox Nova blog. I was rewarded with the natural liberal response... censorship. They switched on their moderation.
I charged the blog authors with the dissention, in which they requested that I either refrain from commenting in such a manner or provide evidence to my claim. I thought that was a ridiculous request as it would be impossible to post every blog entry from every one of their authors into a single combox and expect them to read it.
Commenting by HaloScan
