Dear Michael S.,

You begin your most recent message by noting that in my message I did not "defend Jean Porter's Commonweal essay."  It seems to me that you say this as if it is significant--revealing--that in my post I did not "defend" Jean's essay.  If Jean's essay needs defending, Jean is quite capable of defending it herself; she certainly doesn't need me to do it for her.  So I am happy that you have e-mailed Jean.  In any event, what is at issue is not whether Jean's position in her essay (as distinct from Robby's position) is correct, but whether Jean's position is reasonable--or not.  I infer from what you have said in this exchange with me that you not only believe that Jean's position is not correct but also doubt that it is a reasonable position.  Am I mistaken in my inference that you doubt that Jean's position is reasonable?  Perhaps you are presently agnostic about whether Jean's position is unreasonable; perhaps you need to hear from Jean before you can decide whether her position is, in your view, unreasonable.

Next, in your message you ask me whether I was "accusing [you] of trying to stifle conversation by suggesting that anyone who holds a contrary view is unreasonable?"  My answer:  No, Michael, I was not accusing you of that offense--the offense of trying to stifle conversation.  (Admirably, you seem quite eager for conversation about the moral status of human beings at the earliest stage of their development!)  What I was doing is what I did:  namely, say that  in such conversations we should be very, very wary about accusing those who disagree with us of being not only incorrect but unreasonable.  (Again:  Not that we should never do so!)   Such an accusation (a) often reflects that the accuser has minimized the complexity of the issue at hand and moreover (b) makes productive engagement with those who disagree with us more difficult than it need or should be.

Were you in fact suggesting that those who disagree with Robby's position on the moral status of human beings at the earliest stage of their development are not only incorrect but unreasonable?  It seemed to me that, in the context of your exchange with Lisa, that is exactly what you were doing.  MOJ-readers can judge for themselves.  (Click here.)  However, if you now say that you were not suggesting what it seemed to me that you were suggesting, I stand corrected.

Be well, Michael.

Michael