Unfortunately, Rod is a remote cousin of mine and someone I enjoyed debating with until he started lying about me to stop the debate. It used to be that lying was not Christian but things change I guess.
While blogging at:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon
on a thread called:
Cardinal Egan: “I know what I saw.”
The full thread address is:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/10/cardinal-egan-i-know-what-i-sa.html
Rod Dreher has been a commentator at the National Review Online and the Dallas Morning News for many years. He also writes in other conservative columns. He has vehemently opposed abortion rights and is an extreme right-wing, conservative Catholic. The blog mentioned above shows the picture of a fetus and references an article by the Catholic archbishop of New York. In the thread there are also many more graphic pictures of aborted fetuses. In the thread I argue with some of these folks about pro-choice. If you read the thread you will see that at one point Rod accuses me of calling the person I’m debating with a fascist. He censored the thread and asked me to leave the discussion. I love to debate and have done it for years. I have never called anyone a fascist which I regard as losing an argument. Rod made this up, lied, so he could justify censoring the post. The context of this post can be seen in the thread (apparently, the comments have been disabled now) but in summary Erin is trying to push the argument for choice into an extreme position characterized by, why not genocide if abortion is legal? Here is the post that was censored:
“Erin,
Many of us have principles and the vast majority of us are not into genocide. I think we have decided to kill innocent humans already born by democratic vote in Iraq and Afghanistan if you voted for Bush anyway. You may have found some way to excuse yourself but many of us in this country and in Europe hold you responsible. I did not condone those wars nor would I condone any killing of human life. I would agree that there are times when it is necessary but we should be repulsed by it (if we really are human). You seem to be content to setup your own straw men to argue with but no one has even remotely stated what you said. If you can push the argument in that direction you are right but most of us get off that train before it gets to the station. Genes are not human life neither are cells. Humans make decisions regularly about the viability of human life, i.e., capital punishment, “just” (or unjust) wars, euthanasia, etc. Where the lines are drawn is always up for discussion. There are no absolute, clearly defined rules for how we make those decisions. Again, you have participated in making life and death decisions already if, for example, you voted for Bush. I could just as easily push the argument to ludicrous extremes by asking you why you think you and your representatives are entitled to kill innocent women and children on Iraq and Afghanistan. Is life and death a decision that you and your representatives made for others without their consent and without any culpability on their part? The answer is obviously, Yes. Therefore, according to you, if you draw the line at certain folks and not others why not ‘ol dad and inferior races? Can’t you see how shifting the argument into all or none can equally indict you as well? If drawing these lines make us guilty then we are all guilty – you too! Your innocence is feigned at best and hypocritical at worst. In any case, very few of us want to take joy in these decisions and fashion a fascist, god-philosophy about who lives or not. To insist that one has to go to that extreme to do what all of us already are doing (whether we want to admit it or not) is to ignore the reality of the situation and engage in a dialog with yourself. Maybe you can find a neo-Nazi group to have that discussion with but making the rest of us parrot those extremes is really only to discredit your argument. I think most people know the difference between extreme ideologies and reasonable ideologies. When you push it as far as you like you become a McCarthy and the rest of us walk out of the room. I know you have lots of ways of justifying your intolerance but I, for one, hold you accountable and refuse your simplistic argument style. Those of us that are pro-choice have principles that we believe are just as valid as yours. We do not like abortion and would not think of becoming genocidal maniacs – that is really all about you Erin.”
Erin has also moderated this board and is very involved in the Republican, anti-abortion movement. I saw at least one person that already protested the censorship (but it may be censored by now as well). Beliefnet is a good, impartial site dedicated to fair and open discussion of religious, political and social issues. Rod only runs one small portion of the board (crunchycon). If you are interested in protesting this censorship I would invite you send a post to the link above (only email and screen name required) protesting censorship on this site from the right or engaging in the topic of the thread yourself. Let’s take action in whatever small ways we can folks!