Monday, September 22, 2008

Laura Ingraham Show Talking Points

I stand for three principles here:

  • I stand for the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion under the law because I stand for reason and the principle of individual rights.

  • I stand for the principle that if a woman is acting her rational self-interest, her choice to have an abortion is absolutely proper and moral.

  • I stand for the idea that while a woman has every right to give birth her child without any government interference whatsoever, I see nothing praiseworthy or moral about knowingly bringing a severely retarded fetus to term. I see the decision to give birth in this manner as enshrining needless sacrifice and suffering.

Gov. Sarah Palin
Given Gov. Sarah Palin's choice and her larger anti-abortion stand, I reject that she is some sort of moral exemplar for women and I personaly oppose her holding a position of national power because of the threat she poses to a woman's right to abortion. Palin would deny a woman her right to choose her own happiness as a value. In this light, her stand is loathsome.

Roughly 54% of Americans appose abortion in some manner. Most these are adherents of religions that explicitly forbid abortion under any circumstances. Yet when confronted with the tragedy of a pregnancy gone wrong via some sort of genetic disorder, over 90% of women choose to abort their fetuses.

Unenumerated rights:
If it required a Constitutional amendment to outlaw something as trivial as the sale of alcohol in America, it should require a Constitutional amendment to outlaw a woman's right to abortion—and any such proposal would be immoral and must be defeated.

The Pro-Life Lie:
If my inbox stuffed with wishes for my swift torture and death is any indication, the so-called "pro-life" movement is nothing more than utter hypocrisy.


Adam Gurri said...

I take it you are not interested in the discussion I proposed?

Kevin said...

First - Your contention on Pro-Lifer's "utter hypocrisy" is flawed. Pro-lifers are for the rights of INNOCENT life. Your innocence was lost ages ago. If you can blather about killing innocent life, then right wing nuts can blather about your death.

Second - I listened to you on the Laura Ingraham show and you had some good points UNTIL you said it was OK to kill "a fetus" in the womb up until the moment of birth. That is when you crossed the moral, ethical and logical line. If a "fetus" is capable of independent life outside the womb, then it is a life. If a baby is taken from the womb (by any means) in the 8th or 9th month and can live then it is a viable human being and deserves all the rights thereof. To kill a viable "fetus" in the 8th or 9th month is pure murder. I lost all respect for your intellect at that point.
Kevin Shaw
Houston, TX

Denton said...

The root of your argument with Laura seems to be that you cannot grasp the idea of a being, an entity, a God....something greater than yourself. This creates a gap that no debate will solve.

I would never wish harm to you. Those that do simply don't believe in how precious and special life is.

For me it is that preciousness that rises above all else...especially "self."

All I ask is that you be gracious enough to accept the idea that I am praying for you.

Rick "Doc" MacDonald said...

Hi Nicholas,

Thank you for having the courage to appear on the Laura Ingraham show. I'm not sure how familiar you were with her and her way of treating guests with whom she disagrees, but you surely are now.

It wasn't that long ago that she invited her former lover, Dinesh D'Souza to join her in "debating" Dan Barker, a former priest and the author of "Losing My Faith". She used exactly the same tactics with him as she did with you.

She spoke over him at every opportunity and then accused him of speaking over her. She ensured that her mike volume was much higher than his and cut him off at some point. When Dan was debating with Dinesh, she can be heard in the background shrieking like some sort of harpy banshee howling at the moon to the point where Dan could not be heard at all.

I think you held your own very well. I admired the way you stuck to a rational perspective as opposed to her emotional outburst. I don't think, for listeners with open minds, that there was any doubt about the winner of the debate. You logic and moral certainty outshone her vitriolic and emotional "gotcha" responses.

Unfortunately, I think this discussion demonstrates the huge hill Objectivism has to climb in order to be examined as it deserves. The religious fanatics on the right will cling to their mysticism until the end of time, and the loons on the left will not stop until they've converted the United States into yet another experiment in Totalitarian humanism.

Best wishes in your endeavors. Watch out, though, I think you about to be plagued with squirrels in search of acorns. It looks like 3 slready got here ahead of me. :-)