Posts Tagged ‘pro-life debate’
Abortion debate, Part 2: My opening remarks
More on my debate at EKU. See Part 1 here.
These are my opening remarks, sort of. In the interest of continuous improvement, I’m revising them as I go. But this is mostly what I said.
Opening Statement
Thank you for coming to participate in this debate.
I’m going to take it for granted that all of us here tonight want to live justly with respect to our fellow man. We disagree about who constitutes our fellow man and who does not.
I want to caution you not to believe anything I tell you. I’m an advocate, and so is my opponent in this debate. You can’t know if either of us is telling the truth or not, unless you check it out for yourself. You can’t know if I’ve left out important facts. My conclusions might be flawed. Even if I have plausible arguments, perhaps my opponent has decisive ones. You must do your own research and ask hard questions of both sides.
In America today, preborn humans have the right to life if and only if their mothers want them. This is true through all 9 months of pregnancy. That’s the status quo. And I’m willing to support it. I’m willing to concede that Dr. McLean is entirely correct in almost everything she will say. I’m willing to say there should be no restrictions on abortion. It should be treated just like any other medical procedure. I’m willing to say that abortion is certainly nothing like genocide. I’m willing to concede all of this, quit my job at CBR, and go into another line of work. I’ll do all of that … if. I’ll do all of that if and only if Dr. McLean can present good scientific and philosophic evidence to show that the preborn child is not human. I look forward to hearing that evidence.
The difference between us is not that she is pro-choice and I am anti-choice. I am vigorously pro-choice, as much as any person here, and probably more than most. I believe that every woman (and every man) should be free to choice her own health care provider, her own school, her own religion, her own career, etc.
Unlike many on the political left, I believe people should have the right to choose whether or not they join a union. They should not be forced to pay dues that will be diverted to political campaigns. Washington leftists disagree. I believe doctors and nurses should be free to choose whether they will perform abortions, according to the dictates of their own consciences. Washington leftists say no. I believe people should choose the charitable causes they wish to support, rather than the government choosing for them. Leftists even demand to decide what light bulb you buy, whether you can use a voucher to send your child to the school of your choice, and whether you buy health insurance under ObamaCare.
Yes, we are all pro-choice about some things, but nobody here is pro-choice about everything. Most choices are really matters of personal morality. Even though I may disagree with your choices, I have to respect your right to make them and vice versa. It’s your life. But some choices can be harmful, even deadly, to others. We don’t allow anyone the right to kill another human being simply because she is in the way and cannot defend herself. We don’t allow people to commit rape or child abuse. In a civilized society, no person has the right to unjustly take the life of another.
To put it simple, if the preborn child is not a human being, then no justification for abortion is needed. But if the preborn child is a human being, then no justification for abortion is adequate (except when the mother’s life is in danger).
To open our discussion about abortion, we need to define what it is. And to know what abortion is and does, we need to see it. I’m alerting you up front that some of you will not want to watch the video I’m about to show. Feel free to close your eyes or look away from the screen.
Some may object to images of abortion because they somehow substitute emotion for reason, but that really misses the point. The question is not whether the pictures are emotional—they are—but whether the pictures are true. If the pictures are true, then they must be admitted as evidence.
Naomi Wolf is a pro-choice author who agrees with us on that point. She wrote,
How can we charge that it is vile and repulsive for pro-lifers to brandish vile and repulsive images if the images are real? To insist that the truth is in poor taste is the very height of hypocrisy. Besides, if these images are often the facts of the matter, and if we then claim that it is offensive for pro-choice women to be confronted by them, then we are making the judgment that women are too inherently weak to face a truth about which they have to make a grave decision. This view of women is unworthy of feminism. (Naomi Wolf, “Our Bodies, Our Souls,” The New Republic, October 16, 1995, p 32)
But Ms. Wolf is a bit off target. With the pictures, our intended audience is not just women, but both women and men, because everybody needs to know. The Elliot Institute says that as many as 64% of abortions are coerced, and it doesn’t take a genius to know who is doing the coercing. Men need to know that irresponsibility comes with a heavy price that others will often have to pay.
I’ll show the video now.
[I then showed the Choice Blues video.]
I yeild back the rest of my time.
End of Opening Statement
In Part 3, I’ll describe the unanswered challenge.
Abortion debate at Eastern Kentucky University
On our recent GAP trip, I debated a pro-choice professor at Eastern Kentucky University (EKU). In all of the GAPs we have done, this was only my third such debate. I’ll debate anybody, anyplace, anytime, but few will accept my offer. The Student Government Association at EKU recruited Dr. Meg McLean to answer the challenge.
Dr. McLean got on my good side right away. Early on, she made reference to the Appalachian region, and she said it correctly! Few people from outside Appalachia know how to say it, and Dr. McLean is from Wisconsin. The folks at Appalachian State finally taught ESPN how, but only after their second national championship. For getting it right, we make Dr. McLean an honorary member of the “I know the correct pronunciation of ‘Appalachian’” Facebook group!
Three groups of people show up for debates like this. Pro-lifers come to cheer for our side. Another group comes to cheer for the pro-abortion side. The third group shows up because a teacher is giving them extra credit to be there. The debate was organized too late to attract many of that third group. Of the first two groups, Dr. McLean’s cheering section was noticably bigger than mine. That’s cool, because each one of them got to see the Choice Blues video and hear me make the pro-life case!
My opening remarks (sort of) are in Part 2.
Abortion and fairness to the father
I was on George Korda’s State Your Case radio show earlier today. During a break, Mr. Korda forced himself to watch the video at the CBR website. In the hour we had, we hit many of the standard questions.
One issue that Mr. Korda brought up was the “unfairness” to the father of the child. If the mother decides to abort the child, the father has no say. If the mother decides to keep the child, the father is legally required to provide financial support. In the fog of give-and-take that is live radio, I didn’t get to respond to that comment. I had fielded a similar question in my debate at Eastern Kentucky University—more on that later—a couple of weeks ago.
Fairness to the father is not the issue. If the preborn child is less than human, then the father has no rights to the “blob of tissue” that the mother carries within her own body. Since she is the one carrying the “blob,” it would be her right to decide whether to keep it or not. She has more skin in the game, if I can say it that way. But if she decides to carry, then the father is absolutely liable to support the child financially, not because of her decision to carry, but because of his decision to have sex in the first place.
But if the preborn child is a human being—science tells us he/she is a living human being from the moment of fertilization—then it is the baby’s rights which are at stake, not the father’s. If we treat every human being with equal value and dignity, fairness demands that the baby’s life be protected, regardless of whether or not the child is wanted by the father. If both father and mother freely chose to engage in the reproductive act, then they both share the responsibility to support the child.
Either way, fairness to the father is not an issue. Fairness to the unborn child (and her mother) are of paramount concern. Having your life stolen from you because you are “unwanted” is the ultimate unfairness.
Pro Life on Campus at the University of Kentucky
GAP turns heads at the University of Kentucky.
We always love our time at the University of Kentucky. It is a very diverse student body, with many students representing every position on abortion. Students are generally respectful and willing to listen.
Our free speech board was a huge draw, as was our poll table. I don’t have exact numbers, but the list of students who identified themselves as pro-life was several pages long.
Media coverage already!
Pro Life on Campus at Eastern Kentucky University
Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) at Eastern Kentucky University
We put up our Genocide Awareness Project at Eastern Kentucky University today. With rain and 30-mph winds in the forecast, we constructed the display in a perfect location, sheltered from the rain and the worst of the wind. We managed to get the display taken down and loaded up on the truck before the heavy rains came.
The pro-aborts had promised to demonstrate, but only one showed up. Bummer.
Supervolunteers Gary Johnson and Larry Goad drove the RCC truck around campus.
RCC truck driving through the EKU campus.
The Case Against Abortion: Prenatal Development
New video from Abort73.com. See astounding images of 1st trimester baby.
Student reactions to Pro Life on Campus at University of West Florida
Pro Life on Campus at University of West Florida
On February 14-15, CBR took the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) to the University of West Florida. The video below features students talking about the project.
Media coverage was extensive:
Pro Life on Campus at Florida International University
Free speech board at Florida International University
CBR’s Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) tour of Florida universities continued at Florida International University (FIU) on February 21-22. Media coverage was sparse and slow in coming, but here it is:
Here’s a surprising comment by Oren Reich, an FIU law student:
I’m pro-choice, but think the exhibit was honest, compelling and non-offensive. Comparisons to genocide are appropriate considering their beliefs, and gory imagery is appropriate as well, just as I would use it for an anti-war demonstration.
Pro Life on Campus at Florida State University
Winning hearts, changing minds, and saving lives at Florida State University
CBR’s Florida GAP tour continues. Wednesday and Thursday, GAP made it’s 3rd appearance at Florida State University.
Media: FSU Student Newspaper
Pro Life on Campus at University of West Florida
Pro Life on Campus at University of West Florida
Monday and Tuesday of this week, we had our Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) at the University of West Florida. This is part of a tour of 4 Florida universities being sponsored by CBR Southeast, CBR Midwest, and CBR Florida.
Media:
Pro Life Training Academy in Pensacola
On my way to Pensacola. Sunday, we are doing our Pro Life Training Academy in preparation for GAP at the University of West Florida Monday and Tuesday. I’ll won’t be able to stay for the GAP, however, because of our big Celebrating Life event in Knoxville Monday night.
Speaking of Celebrating Life, we’re sold out! How about that! Hope to see you there!
Pro-aborts: “CBR so effective, only censorship and bully tactics can defeat them.”
Pro-aborts: CBR tactics are "really effective."
We have many endorsements from college students, pro-life activists, political leaders, and others who have seen our work in action. But this piece amounts to the strongest endorsement we have ever gotten.
Freedom of (hate) speech: Confronting the rise of anti-choice activities on Canadian campuses was written by a pro-abortion activist in Canada who laments the effectiveness of our Canadian CBR affiliate. She is so frustrated by the effectiveness of our work, she believes only censorship and bully tactics can ensure our defeat.
The more sophisticated of our opponents know that any open admission of our effectiveness will only make our fundraising and recruiting efforts more effective. That is what makes the candor in this article so remarkable. Military intelligence officials who interrogate prisoners of war usually focus their questions on determining what their captors believe to be the most effective tactics being employed against them and why. Our abortion adversaries just volunteered that information and we didn’t even need to water-board them!
Some excerpts:
These on-campus battles are the new front line of pro-choice activism in Canada. But with anti-choicers setting the terms of debate, how can pro-choice activists respond? [Note their admission that CBR is setting the terms of the debate, which is exactly what we want to do.]
But one thing that they have been really effective at doing is coming up with messaging that affects the popular discourse, which I think is a really dangerous thing because it will eventually seep into the legislature and the courts. [Another admission that CBR is “really effective.” Note the recognition that our work on campus will transform culture.]
Anti-choice groups are using the free speech argument to win the public relations battle … [The author believes we are winning. That’s important, because winning is how the killing stops.]
These presentations and displays have provoked a pro-choice response in a way the activities of other anti-choice groups have not. [That’s because the activities of other pro-life groups, in the view of the author, are not effective and need not be countered.]
With anti-choicers setting the terms of debate, pro-choice advocates have had to grapple with the utility of confronting these groups head-on … [To this author, “confronting these groups head-on” means shouting us down and running us off the stage.]
A new generation of anti-choice groups is establishing a reputation for itself on Canadian campuses, with increasingly visible tactics that many pro-choice activists call discriminatory, harassing and hateful. [Note the significance of “harassing” and “hateful” labels, which could allow pro-life speech to be censored under Canadian law.]
The university administration is barraged with phone calls and emails calling for the event to be shut down on the grounds that it amounts to harassment and is offensive to women … Shortly after the event begins, a group of about 10 women and their allies enter the room, chanting and blocking the projector with the intent of disrupting the presentation. [The context of this passage is an explicit endorsement of censorship and bully tactics.]
… the CCBR legally constitute hate speech by inciting hatred towards those women who have or support the right to have abortions, and should thus be restricted in order to prevent the harassment of women. [Note the call for censorship.]
Unfortunately, it seems that the freedom of expression of protesters is not taken as seriously at McGill as hateful speech … [Note the dismay over lack of censorship.]
Pro Life Training Academy at the University of Georgia
PLTA Faculty Member Toby Tatum at UGa.
It’s Sunday afternoon and we are conducting our Pro Life Training Academy (PLTA) at the University of Georgia (UGa). We are encouraged by the students and community members who are attending this training.
PLTA students learn how to articulate and respectfully defend the pro-life position. On Wednesday and Thursday, PLTA students will have a unique opportunity for on-the-job training by helping staff our GAP display at Tate Plaza in the heart of the UGa campus.
In addition to training pro-life advocates, the PLTA seeks to unite pro-lifers behind common goals of education, training, and outreach. We appreciate so much the efforts of the Georgia Right to Life, Athens Area Right to Life, UGa Students for Life, the Athens Pregnancy Center, and the University Church (in Athens) to make this event a huge success!
For more information, go to www.facebook.com/ProLifeTraining.
Met Samuel Armas last night
Samuel Armas shaking the doctor's hand
Great time at the Georgia Right to Life (GRTL) REACH fundraising dinner last night in Atlanta. I’m in Georgia this week laying the groundwork for our Pro Life Training Academy (PLTA) and Pro Life on Campus (GAP) events at the University of Georgia and Kennesaw State University in November. GRTL is partnering with CBR on all of this work. GRTL President Dan Becker featured our cooperative efforts in his remarks last night.
Samuel Armas shaking my hand
Also in attendance was Samuel Armas and his family. You may remember when Samuel exploded on the national scene back in 1999, when he reached out of his mother’s womb and grabbed the finger of his surgeon. The photo became an instant sensation.
Now Samuel is 10 years old. He and his parents were in attendance last night, and I was thrilled to shake Samuel’s hand. (Wouldn’t you know it, I shook the wrong hand—the un-famous one—but what the heck.) Fox News recently ran a story on Samuel, who is now 10 years old!
Pro Life on Campus at Obama’s Rally at Ohio State
"Choice" signs greet Obama ralliers.
Pro lifers use CBR’s “Choice” signs to greet Pres. Obama’s ralliers at Ohio State University. You can do this at a campus near you! Click here to buy 4 “Choice” signs and display them all you want!
If you can’t do this yourself, then please help us do it with your gift of $10 a month (click here). Your $10 will help take our bigger Pro Life on Campus display to 20 major universities next year. One-time gifts (click here) buy new signs and even a large-screen TV for outdoor use.
Many students who see these signs are hard-core pro-choicers, but not all. Many young people hear only one view on campus, but these pictures tell the whole story. Many will change their minds.
