Turn up the speakers and enjoy this stellar video presentation produced by Catholic Vote. It attacks the false notion, embraced by many Catholics (and some Evangelicals), that all issues are equally moral when it comes to voting.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Couric's Question and Framing the Debate [Jay]
So why is it so hard to answer the Katie Couric question? Even some of my pro-life and radically behind Palin friends are concerned that she did not answer the question. But is this an indication of some inability to articulate her pro-life beliefs? A little bit, but it is also a pure and simple fact that most politicians are Jacks (or Jills) of all trades and masters of none. So when she is asked a question about abortion it would be silly to expect her to respond with the same proficiency as Frank Beckwith or Scott Klusendorf. She simply is not working on this issue at that level.
But let’s not miss the nature of the question. This is the real rookie mistake that most people make in dealing with interviewers. The question is:
If a 15-year-old is raped by her father, do you believe it should be illegal for her to get an abortion, and why?
What if we flipped the field on the interviewer? What if we offer a question for an answer?
Let me answer you by asking you this question. An innocent human being is conceived after a father rapes his daughter. Why should we be allowed to kill that human being?
The problem with Katie Couric’s question is that it presupposes that abortion is a right that pro-lifers wish to restrict or deny. This is simply not the case and we must be clear about that at all times. We live in a land with unjust laws as it pertains to the unborn. I recognize that many nations allow and often times even help pay for abortions but that does not make it a right as we understand natural rights. So do not play that game.
If you think that Couric does not presuppose that then look at the follow up:
But ideally, you think it should be illegal for a girl who was raped or the victim of incest to get an abortion?
What is missing from both questions? Perhaps the unmentioned human being that will be killed by the abortion? Both the question and the follow up focus on a woman her situation and a procedure. What kind of person wants to stop her from getting an abortion? She needs an abortion because she is a victim. Of course the women in question are victims of terrible crimes and those crimes and the criminals that perpetrated those heinous assaults must not go unpunished. But every abortion is a violent and deadly assault against a human life and that fact is absent in either the question or the response.
Palin must not answer this question the way it is posed. She must clarify what is missing from this discussion; the innocent human being that is being killed to pay for another’s crime.
Abortion is wrong because it kills an innocent human being for elective reasons. Anytime anyone asks a question that leaves the unborn human being out, it is our responsibility to put them right back in front and center.
But let’s not miss the nature of the question. This is the real rookie mistake that most people make in dealing with interviewers. The question is:
If a 15-year-old is raped by her father, do you believe it should be illegal for her to get an abortion, and why?
What if we flipped the field on the interviewer? What if we offer a question for an answer?
Let me answer you by asking you this question. An innocent human being is conceived after a father rapes his daughter. Why should we be allowed to kill that human being?
The problem with Katie Couric’s question is that it presupposes that abortion is a right that pro-lifers wish to restrict or deny. This is simply not the case and we must be clear about that at all times. We live in a land with unjust laws as it pertains to the unborn. I recognize that many nations allow and often times even help pay for abortions but that does not make it a right as we understand natural rights. So do not play that game.
If you think that Couric does not presuppose that then look at the follow up:
But ideally, you think it should be illegal for a girl who was raped or the victim of incest to get an abortion?
What is missing from both questions? Perhaps the unmentioned human being that will be killed by the abortion? Both the question and the follow up focus on a woman her situation and a procedure. What kind of person wants to stop her from getting an abortion? She needs an abortion because she is a victim. Of course the women in question are victims of terrible crimes and those crimes and the criminals that perpetrated those heinous assaults must not go unpunished. But every abortion is a violent and deadly assault against a human life and that fact is absent in either the question or the response.
Palin must not answer this question the way it is posed. She must clarify what is missing from this discussion; the innocent human being that is being killed to pay for another’s crime.
Abortion is wrong because it kills an innocent human being for elective reasons. Anytime anyone asks a question that leaves the unborn human being out, it is our responsibility to put them right back in front and center.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Corporal Punishment and Pro-Life Arguments [Jay]
Now this is interesting to me. The Slate, a proudly left internet magazine, has an article by Alan E. Kazdin called Spare the Rod on the ineffectiveness of corporal punishment and the need to address the issue here in the United States beyond merely banning it in the public school system.
The article states that there is scientific evidence that corporal punishment is harmful to children. As such, we must ask whether we as a culture should take a principled stand and make it illegal across the board including in the privacy of one’s own home. Mr. Kazdin acknowledges that such a law would be ineffective at actually stopping people from using this form of punishment on their children. However, it would help in educating people and if passed in conjunction with a nationwide effort to inform public opinion (he draws on littering and smoking comparisons and I would add drunk driving and seat belt laws to that) then the law itself would serve to both dramatically reduce the instances of corporal punishment and educate the populace at the same time.
It sounds so logical when someone talks about it in those terms. Laws reduce the specifically addressed action and inform our community morally? Now how does this differ from proposed restrictions on abortion? Why are these arguments so much more compelling when we are talking about spanking your child rather than tearing your unborn children limb from limb and then sucking the parts out of the uterus to be reassembled like a grisly puzzle on the table?
Oh yeah, women have a constitutional right to kill their offspring as long as they have not yet been born. Then we have a responsibility as a society to protect that child even from spanking. Another noticeable difference is that in one case the cool Europeans agree with you. Never underestimate how important that is.
The article states that there is scientific evidence that corporal punishment is harmful to children. As such, we must ask whether we as a culture should take a principled stand and make it illegal across the board including in the privacy of one’s own home. Mr. Kazdin acknowledges that such a law would be ineffective at actually stopping people from using this form of punishment on their children. However, it would help in educating people and if passed in conjunction with a nationwide effort to inform public opinion (he draws on littering and smoking comparisons and I would add drunk driving and seat belt laws to that) then the law itself would serve to both dramatically reduce the instances of corporal punishment and educate the populace at the same time.
It sounds so logical when someone talks about it in those terms. Laws reduce the specifically addressed action and inform our community morally? Now how does this differ from proposed restrictions on abortion? Why are these arguments so much more compelling when we are talking about spanking your child rather than tearing your unborn children limb from limb and then sucking the parts out of the uterus to be reassembled like a grisly puzzle on the table?
Oh yeah, women have a constitutional right to kill their offspring as long as they have not yet been born. Then we have a responsibility as a society to protect that child even from spanking. Another noticeable difference is that in one case the cool Europeans agree with you. Never underestimate how important that is.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Sorry. [Jay]
I apologize for disappearing for a while, but I had a banquet to prepare for the CPC at which I work. Oh, and there was one other thing that has eaten into my spare time of late. Her name is Rio Nika and she is a pocket sized beauty. She was born on 9-11-2008.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Re: McCain Radio Spot on Stems [SK]
Serge,
Yes, the ad is unclear on the face of it. But McCain's position is no mystery: He supports using tax dollars to destroy "leftover" embryos (those embryos released by their parents for destructive research), but opposes cloning them for medical research. I haven't detected from him any substantial change in his views, though maybe I've missed something.
His position is indefensible. Like I've said before, McCain will disappoint us on some levels, this being one of them. Yet given the alternative,I'm not about to jump ship. Even greater evils await us should he lose.
They just called for my gate. I'll try to check more on this when I get home.
Yes, the ad is unclear on the face of it. But McCain's position is no mystery: He supports using tax dollars to destroy "leftover" embryos (those embryos released by their parents for destructive research), but opposes cloning them for medical research. I haven't detected from him any substantial change in his views, though maybe I've missed something.
His position is indefensible. Like I've said before, McCain will disappoint us on some levels, this being one of them. Yet given the alternative,I'm not about to jump ship. Even greater evils await us should he lose.
They just called for my gate. I'll try to check more on this when I get home.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
McCain-Palin on "Stem Cell Research" [Serge]
OK, I'll admit that I am quite confused about this radio ad:
Hmmm. Palin has stated numerous times that she is against embryonic stem cell research, and McCain seemed to soften his stance during the Rick Warren symposium. I hope that the campaign is intentionally using the term "stem cell research" to advocate all types of SCR that does not involve the killing of human embryos. It seems that the examples that are given are consistent with the recent advances in adult stem cells. Any thoughts?
Hmmm. Palin has stated numerous times that she is against embryonic stem cell research, and McCain seemed to soften his stance during the Rick Warren symposium. I hope that the campaign is intentionally using the term "stem cell research" to advocate all types of SCR that does not involve the killing of human embryos. It seems that the examples that are given are consistent with the recent advances in adult stem cells. Any thoughts?
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)