My point was (and still is) this: you are clearly a very articulate person and a good writer. You hold certain values and opinions which you have shared. I think it is reasonable to believe that you have given much thought the formation of those values and opinions. I assumed they are based on a foundation of core principles. Because I disagree with you so profoundly, I was trying to get down to some core principles with what I though were basic questions. I was surprised that you were not ready to answer at that moment, and have not yet answered. I understand the desire to organize your ideas so that you can explain them clearly. And you certainly have the right not to answer questions that are put to you. However you joined the blog discussion voluntarily, so I am under the impression you like to discuss these things.

Here I am over at your blog as you requested. I’d still like to hear your answers, and although I expect we’ll disagree, I will respect you enough not to try to win you over to my side.

For reference, the questions were these: Do you believe in the concept of self defense? Do you believe it is moral to hold your own life in higher regard than the life of your attacker? Do you believe you have a moral right to defend and protect your children from a violent attack, even if it means you have no choice but to kill the attacker? I understand you would always rather find an alternative to violence, but do you think it is ever justified?

Thanks for the ping-back, Sherry.

BTW, Lou and Sherry, I don’t know how to do the new referrals or ping-backs. With a few tools, I’d be real dangerous. I’m a blabber-mouth as is.