Alicorn,

I'm pretty confused by how you're interpreting my words. Three examples:

ONE

What i said, direct quote:

The point you raise about 'the deontological answer' is discussed by Greene in his article. I had to do a lot of cutting to keep this article as short as it is, and it's still pretty long. I can't pre-respond to every possible objection. Perhaps you could raise the issue and allow me to respond instead of assuming I haven't considered the points you raise and am therefore worthy of your disappointment?

What you heard me say (disconnects from what I actually said, in italics):

His article was too long anyway and I should read the rest of the quoted author, rather than expecting that Luke would mention it or abridge his selected quotes differently if he was aware of the issues therewith and wished to disclaim them.

TWO

What I said, direct quote:

So now your objection is to my tone? That's only DH2 on the disagreement heirarchy. I'll take another look at my tone, but it's not much of a disagreement if we're disagreeing about tone.

What you heard me say (disconnects from what I actually said, in italics):

It is wrong of me to complain about his tone.

THREE

I'm similarly confused with the abortion thing. Here's the play-by-play as I see it above:

1. You point out that one reason pro-lifers wouldn't press charges against a woman who has an abortion is that it's not illegal.

2. I ask:

   Why not seek the murder charges in court so that abortions come to be considered murder? [...because of a court overruling the previous laws that make abortions not count as murder; was this the part that was unclear?] Why not seek to change the laws so that women who commit abortions will be convicted of murder, or at least for paying a doctor to commit murder?

3. You repeat the previous point about not "charging women with crimes the scope of which does not legally apply", even though I had just moved the question to: "Why not change the laws so that the murder charge does apply to women who commit abortions (either via a courts victory or new laws passing)?"

4. I point out that I've already moved beyond the point that the 'murder' charge doesn't apply (because abortion isn't currently illegal or counted as murder) by asking instead why pro-lifers don't seek to make abortion illegal (and murder).

5. You claim I still haven't responded to your point.

...Is one or more of us just too tired to follow a conversation or something? Outside help wanna chip in?