Sunday, September 21, 2008

Provenzo to appear on the Laura Ingraham Show

I am slated to be a guest on the nationally syndicated Laura Ingraham Show at 10:30 AM Monday morning to defend a woman's moral right to have an abortion. Ingraham's show is tied as the fifth highest-rated radio talk show in America. I have been told that my segment will be run approximately 10 to 12 minutes. Ingraham is a staunch opponent of abortion and I expect my appearance to be a hard-fought battle of ideas.

To find a station carrying the broadcast in your area, visit here.

To call the show, dial 1-800-876-4123.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Nick,

In this post from Diana's Politics without God blog Paula comments (comment #4):

"I think that every time any "pro-life" advocate opens his or her mouth, s/he should be asked if they support the death penalty for women who procure abortions. If they say no, then ask if they support life imprisonment. If they say no, ask why it should be possible for a crook to get life imprisonment for killing another crook, but a woman should not go to jail for killing an innocent "preborn" baby. Not that it would change the advocate's mind. But it would expose their lunacy for listeners to see -- to the extent the listeners can be reached at all."

http://www.seculargovernment.us/blog/2008/08/no-punishment-for-abortion.shtml#comments

I think you should ask Laura that and be prepared to push her on it. That could push her into sounding either crazy or like a hypocrite.

Bruce Tatum

Anonymous said...

Nick,

In terms of your upcoming appearance on the Laura Ingraham Show, here's some more intellectual ammunition to deploy in defense of a woman's inalienable right to abortion.

Notice how conservatives of all ilks -- most especially religious ones -- have tirelessly worked to make Sarah Palin a vanguard of the "pro-life" cause. What is interesting about this is the way these conservatives cast Palin's non-abortion as a reflection of her supposed moral virtue: they tell us that she "chose" not to terminate her pregnancy upon learning of the fetus's risk for Down's Syndrome, and out of that choice comes the moral approval she deserves.

This is where Ayn Rand's philosophy proves to be especially instructive. She observes, rightly, that only that which is open to CHOICE can be moral or immoral in the first place. Actions which are involuntary or compelled have no moral quality whatsoever.

Accordingly, VIRTUE cannot be attached to unchosen or "forced" actions. Notice that it makes no sense to heap praise on someone for "not having killed anyone" today. Or think of the old "saved your life"-joke, where someone pretends to push you off a bridge (or put you in an otherwise life-endangering situation) and then asks you thank them for their decision not to do so after all (i.e., "I could have pushed you off that bridge, but I didn't.") But such individuals didn't have a right to choose kill anyone in the first place, so their actions cannot be worthy of any moral credit whatsoever (hence the joke).

So, even if we were to accept the conservative trope that abortion is murder, and then we view Sarah Palin as having "chosen" not to murder her fetus, then how exactly can we "praise" her for not doing something which she had no right to do in the first place?

In short, conservatives want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to laud Sarah Palin for making a choice that they believe she shouldn't have been able to make in the first place -- and that no other woman in America should be able to make either.

That is moral hypocrisy of the highest order -- and it deserves to exposed for the fraud that it is.

J.G.

Jim said...

Great news Nick.

May your virtue be rewarded with well deserved success.

Brian said...

"Battle of ideas"?? I've heard Ingraham talk, and I can't say as I've ever heard anything coherent come out of her.

Brian said...

Listen online at: http://www.supertalk1560.com/

Apollo said...

Why not go right for the jugular and attack Christian morality itself? And their worship of sufering as a virtue,id even go as far as mentioning Terry Schiavo as a case of this, for example, as a prominent conservative put it,

"Terry Schiavo . . . is uffering in obedience to God's will."

"Isn't suffering in pursuit of God's will the exact center of religious life?"

Ask Laua Ingraham if she agrees with those statements.

ColoradoRed said...

Hey Nick,

If sounding like an artless 19 year old Randian espousing that which he learned by rote meant that you would be considered the 'winner' of the debate...you won!

Otherwise...well, you're rational enough to figure that out by yourself.

Brian said...

I don't think there was a winner. Ingraham was incoherent as always, and the most Provenzo could hope for was to get in a couple points, which he did.

Another user pointed out that while she reviled capitalism in this bit, a couple hours earlier on another station, she was complaining about how Republicans have abandoned capitalism, that they should do more than just pay lip-service to it.

Clearly the only goal of people like this is to tap the emotionalism on which many people eagerly feed. There's no interest in true argument, discussion, conclusions, principles, or anything else considered "inconvenient".