His reply invites several avenues of attack, and I intend to critique it thoroughly. In fairness to Chuck, however, I think it’s going to have to wait for the following reasons:
- Chuck stated in his comment that he’s very busy at the moment and doesn’t have the time to engage me in a rejoinder-surrejoinder kind of debate.
- My original post was somewhat gauche in that I addressed Chuck personally in it without contacting him directly. I fully expected that he would notice it and respond at some point (which he obviously did), but it would have been far more gentlemanly for me to contact him and say, “Hey, I’ve written about your stance on abortion at my blog. You’re welcome to respond.” My apologies, Chuck. That was discourteous and cowardly. The Internet is a haven for anonymous, hotheaded rhetorical warfare that excels at inflaming tempers and persuading no one. If I really stand for reasoned discourse that is irenic in its tone and reflective of Christian charity, then I have to conduct myself differently online.
I plan to e-mail Chuck and suggest that we cross-post on the subject of how a Christian ought to respond to abortion at one another’s blogs — when he has time, of course. I envision it this way:
- We would each prepare a short bio and our position (perhaps in 2000 words or less) for the other to post on his blog.
- We would then make a formal rebuttal on our own blogs, which we could each comment on thereafter at our leisure.
If he agrees, I think it will make for an interesting exchange — to say nothing of the fact that it will break new ground for The MonT-SteR REPORT.
aka The MonT-SteR