I must come clean. A part of me really wants to like Amanda Marcotte. She is tough. She stands up for what she believes. She has a nasty streak a mile wide and uses a healthy portion of sarcasm. Sometimes, I even actually believe that she was shocked at the backlash over her being hired to run John Edwards’ campaign blog.
Then I listen to her Reality Cast here on RHReality check and I have to wonder how she comes up with this stuff. It is almost as if she has some “Magic 8 Ball” manufactured by Planned Parenthood that produces fictional positions to excoriate. A deadline is coming so she runs to her computer, violently shakes up the ball, and her straw men start to materialize through the mysterious blue liquid like magic.
If you want to sound smart and make your opponent sound stupid, straw men are the way to go. Who cares what people are actually saying, that involves thinking and reading. Here is how we do it.
1 – Find your opponent
2 – Make up some crazy and stupid position
3 – Attribute this position to your opponent
4 – Point out how obviously stupid and crazy the position is
5 – Look smarterer than them without doing any real work
Based on the profile of your average pro-lifer (oops, anti-choicer) I have to say that I agree with her. Listen to how horrible they are in Amanda’s own words (Ms. Marcotte’s Comments Italicized):
Pro-lifers are “demanding that abortion be banned to protect women, who are, as you know, too stupid to breathe without a man and the government telling us how to do it.”
How about this gem:
“I spend a lot of time on this program documenting the way that the anti-choice movement has embraced this strategy of claiming that they want to protect women. The idea is that it's a way to escape the rather inescapable conclusion that they want to bring women's bodies under state control because they hate us. The argument is something like, ‘We don't hate you. We just think you're inferior to men and need to be controlled for your own good."
Pro-lifers are so ignorant “They seem to really believe that there's a fully formed baby growing in there just moments after a man ejaculates.” (Classy, how could John Edwards pass on that insight?)
BEWARE!!: “Repeat and tell your friends. The so-called "pro-lifers" want to ban your pill, your patch, your diaphram, and eventually even your condoms.”
Such monsters!! I hate the lot of them!!
The only real problem is that I have never met anyone anywhere that fits this description.
I used to know a guy who talked to himself quite a bit. He was a lonely and odd fellow and he actually formed arguments and counter arguments and worked them out without any outside source or conversation. He did very well in these arguments all the way up until the point that he interacted with an actual human being. Then you would see the look of frustration as the real discussion failed to progress in the manner that the imaginary argument had. Straw Men are great because they do not talk back. Beat them, burn them, mock them, and celebrate your phony victory over them. Just do not kid yourself that you have actually accomplished anything by engaging in them.
For the record, I know a great many individuals who identify themselves as pro-life who do not hate women, do not want to steal your birth control, and are very familiar with the developmental processes of unborn human beings. They even adhere to a sophisticated approach to our moral obligations to the unborn based on the nature or substance of human life. This group includes women who are professional lawyers, doctors, teachers, computer programmers, etc. Heck, it includes my wife. All of these people are dramatically different than the farcical characterizations of Ms. Marcotte. But I hope Amanda is smart enough to know that. As long as she can score her rhetorical points she appears happy.
If you listen all the way to the end you will get hear Amanda pat herself on the back while mocking Bill Bennett for something that Bill Kristol said. I can think of no better way for her to close this piece off than being so obviously factually inaccurate.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Romney, McCain, and Abortion for 25 Years [SK]
I'm stuck in the Denver airport and CNN has a news flash.
Romney is out. John McCain will be the GOP nominee. Now what?
Some conservatives have reportedly formed a suicide voters pact, meaning they'll vote for Hillary just to punish McCain.
This position is stupid. It's also immoral.
It puts one's emotions ("I hate McCain") above our moral obligation to save as many lives as possible given current political realities.
I realize that some conservatives feel we must purify the party with an electoral loss. Sure, losing an election tends to do that. But at what cost? That is to say, what, exactly, do these purists think a reconstituted and purified GOP will reasonably accomplish in future election cycles? Are the purists prepared to wait 25 years to undo the damage done by Hillary or Obama court appointees? Do purists really think a future GOP Congress will just march right in and undo a federal health care plan that includes universal abortion coverage and destructive embryo research?
For me, I vote to limit the damage. Greg Koukl is right: A second-class fireman is better than a first class arsonist.
Romney is out. John McCain will be the GOP nominee. Now what?
Some conservatives have reportedly formed a suicide voters pact, meaning they'll vote for Hillary just to punish McCain.
This position is stupid. It's also immoral.
It puts one's emotions ("I hate McCain") above our moral obligation to save as many lives as possible given current political realities.
I realize that some conservatives feel we must purify the party with an electoral loss. Sure, losing an election tends to do that. But at what cost? That is to say, what, exactly, do these purists think a reconstituted and purified GOP will reasonably accomplish in future election cycles? Are the purists prepared to wait 25 years to undo the damage done by Hillary or Obama court appointees? Do purists really think a future GOP Congress will just march right in and undo a federal health care plan that includes universal abortion coverage and destructive embryo research?
For me, I vote to limit the damage. Greg Koukl is right: A second-class fireman is better than a first class arsonist.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Monday, February 4, 2008
Ban This? [SK]
Gee, how many times have I heard liberal educators insist that any law against abortion--even a modest one--is unenforceable?
For some, the solution is to ban this instead.
I can't wait to see them try.
For some, the solution is to ban this instead.
I can't wait to see them try.
Links [SK]
In case you didn't know, Francis Beckwith is blogging over at What's Wrong with the World. His case for John McCain is here. His case against Obama is summed up in the following quote:
Glenn Statile outlines Robert P. George's article "Embryo Ethics," published in Daedalus (Winter, 2008). The full article from George is not on-line, but I have it in print form and it's superb.
John Piper connects the dots on abortion, Down's Syndrome killings, and terrorism.
Jivin J writes about a conversion story and an abortion-choicer who gets at least one thing right.
Atheism and Violence is a piece by Edward T. Oakes. Meanwhile Steve Wagner links to a World Mag post on abortion-choicers acting violently toward pro-lifers. Not surprising, there's a deafening silence from the media on both points.
Obama's message: I will end the politics of division by attractively stipulating the correctness of my views and thus implying that those who don't agree are ugly and want to perpetuate the politics of division.Years ago, Frank labled this the "passive aggressive tyranny trick." Indeed.
Glenn Statile outlines Robert P. George's article "Embryo Ethics," published in Daedalus (Winter, 2008). The full article from George is not on-line, but I have it in print form and it's superb.
John Piper connects the dots on abortion, Down's Syndrome killings, and terrorism.
Jivin J writes about a conversion story and an abortion-choicer who gets at least one thing right.
Atheism and Violence is a piece by Edward T. Oakes. Meanwhile Steve Wagner links to a World Mag post on abortion-choicers acting violently toward pro-lifers. Not surprising, there's a deafening silence from the media on both points.
Blog Worth Reading [SK]
Gosh, am I dumb. My friend Steve Thomas has a blog and I'm just now finding out about it?
Steve and I were in grad school together at Biola (Christian apologetics). He's a very smart guy.
Don't be ignorant like me. Go there now.
Steve and I were in grad school together at Biola (Christian apologetics). He's a very smart guy.
Don't be ignorant like me. Go there now.
Friday, February 1, 2008
My Debate with Nadine Strossen of the ACLU [SK]
Nadine Strossen is President of the ACLU and I consider her a friend. She is pleasant and I enjoy her company each time we debate. I wish more of my opponents were like her.
Last night at Malone College's World View Forum, we debated in front of a full house of 1,000 students, faculty, and others. The ACLU of Ohio even reserved 100 seats in advance.
The theme of our exchange was "Abortion: Legal Right or Moral Wrong?" I thought the event went very well despite a structure that did not allow for adequate rebuttal speeches.
The structure of the forum was as follows:
1. Each speaker had 20 minutes to make opening arguments.
2. Each speaker had 5 minutes to cross-examine the other.
3. A student panel then asked each speaker 3 questions, followed by 45 minutes of Q&A from the audience.
4. Each speaker had 5 minutes for closing statements.
The coin toss went to Nadine which meant she got to speak first. Nadine tried to frame the debate with an appeal to reproductive freedom. To summarize her case, reproductive freedom means the ability to choose whether or not to have children according to one's own personal religious beliefs. That freedom is necessary if all persons are to lead lives of self-determination, opportunity, and human dignity. She repeatedly stressed our need to work together to reduce the high number of abortions, by which she meant pro-lifers should support tax-funded contraception programs.
Notice the question-begging nature of her claim. She simply assumes, without argument, that the unborn are not human beings. Would she make this same claim for human freedom and self-determination if her neighbor suggested killing toddlers as well as fetuses?
Thus, I began my own opening speech by saying the following (paraphrased for brevity):
I then argued scientifically that the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. I quoted from numerous embryology textbooks to support my claim. Philosophically, I argued the unborn differ from you and I only in terms of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency and none of the four differences justifies killing you at that earlier stage of development. (You can get a fully summary of my scientific and philosophic case here.)
Nadine did not seriously challenge my case scientifically (other than to deny, without any evidence, that science tells us the kind of thing the unborn is) or philosophically. During the cross examination, I asked her why she was troubled by the high number of abortions. After all, if abortion does not take the life of a defenseless human being without justification, why be troubled by the high number of abortions? Why seek to reduce it? She never really answered that question.
Throughout the debate, she insisted that humans had natural rights in virtue of their humanity. I agree completely. Thus, I asked her this question:
"Nadine, you agree with me that humans have natural rights simply because they are human and that government has a duty to protect those rights. You also agree that those rights come to be when we come to be. Science establishes that we came to be at conception. Thus, shouldn't the same government that protects your natural rights protect those of the unborn?"
Again, she didn't really answer the question other than to say the unborn were potential life and people disagree about when life begins. I countered by reading, again, select quotes from embryology text books that establish, without any doubt, when human life begins. I then asked why, given this overwhelming consensus, we should believe her claim instead of the embryologists?
I've got to run catch my plane to Chicago. I will try to say more later today.
Last night at Malone College's World View Forum, we debated in front of a full house of 1,000 students, faculty, and others. The ACLU of Ohio even reserved 100 seats in advance.
The theme of our exchange was "Abortion: Legal Right or Moral Wrong?" I thought the event went very well despite a structure that did not allow for adequate rebuttal speeches.
The structure of the forum was as follows:
1. Each speaker had 20 minutes to make opening arguments.
2. Each speaker had 5 minutes to cross-examine the other.
3. A student panel then asked each speaker 3 questions, followed by 45 minutes of Q&A from the audience.
4. Each speaker had 5 minutes for closing statements.
The coin toss went to Nadine which meant she got to speak first. Nadine tried to frame the debate with an appeal to reproductive freedom. To summarize her case, reproductive freedom means the ability to choose whether or not to have children according to one's own personal religious beliefs. That freedom is necessary if all persons are to lead lives of self-determination, opportunity, and human dignity. She repeatedly stressed our need to work together to reduce the high number of abortions, by which she meant pro-lifers should support tax-funded contraception programs.
Notice the question-begging nature of her claim. She simply assumes, without argument, that the unborn are not human beings. Would she make this same claim for human freedom and self-determination if her neighbor suggested killing toddlers as well as fetuses?
Thus, I began my own opening speech by saying the following (paraphrased for brevity):
"Men and women, I agree completely with everything Nadine just said. She's right that abortion is a personal, private matter that should not be restricted in any way. She's right that we shouldn't interfere with personal choices. She's right that pro-lifers should stay out of this decision. Yes, I agree completely IF. IF What? If the unborn are not human beings. And if Nadine can demonstrate that the unborn are not members of the human family, I will concede this exchange and so should everyone else who is pro-life.In short, I was willing to buy her argument for freedom and self-determination--but only after she demonstrated that the unborn were not human beings. I agree with Frank Beckwith: It won't work to say we should be a society that supports choice when the very question of who is part of that society, that is, whether or not it includes the unborn, is itself under dispute in the abortion debate. Nadine needed to make a case against the humanity of the unborn.
Contrary to what some may think, the issue that divides Nadine and I is not that she is pro-choice and I am anti-choice. Truth is, I am vigorously "pro-choice" when it comes to women choosing a number of moral goods. I support a woman’s right to choose her own health care provider, to choose her own school, to choose her own husband, to choose her own job, to choose her own religion, and to choose her own career, to name a few. These are among the many choices that I fully support for the women of our country. But some choices are wrong, like killing innocent human beings simply because they are in the way and cannot defend themselves. No, we shouldn’t be allowed to choose that. So, again, the issue that separates Nadine and I is not that she is pro-choice and I am anti-choice. The issue the divides us is just one question, What is the unborn?
Let me be clear: If the unborn is a human being, killing him or her to benefit others is a serious moral wrong. It treats the distinct human being, with his or her own inherent moral worth, as nothing more than a disposable instrument. Conversely, if the unborn are not human, killing them through elective abortion requires no more justification than having your tooth pulled."
I then argued scientifically that the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. I quoted from numerous embryology textbooks to support my claim. Philosophically, I argued the unborn differ from you and I only in terms of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency and none of the four differences justifies killing you at that earlier stage of development. (You can get a fully summary of my scientific and philosophic case here.)
Nadine did not seriously challenge my case scientifically (other than to deny, without any evidence, that science tells us the kind of thing the unborn is) or philosophically. During the cross examination, I asked her why she was troubled by the high number of abortions. After all, if abortion does not take the life of a defenseless human being without justification, why be troubled by the high number of abortions? Why seek to reduce it? She never really answered that question.
Throughout the debate, she insisted that humans had natural rights in virtue of their humanity. I agree completely. Thus, I asked her this question:
"Nadine, you agree with me that humans have natural rights simply because they are human and that government has a duty to protect those rights. You also agree that those rights come to be when we come to be. Science establishes that we came to be at conception. Thus, shouldn't the same government that protects your natural rights protect those of the unborn?"
Again, she didn't really answer the question other than to say the unborn were potential life and people disagree about when life begins. I countered by reading, again, select quotes from embryology text books that establish, without any doubt, when human life begins. I then asked why, given this overwhelming consensus, we should believe her claim instead of the embryologists?
I've got to run catch my plane to Chicago. I will try to say more later today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)