Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Next revision | Previous revision | ||
utsfl:classroom:seminars:pbs302h [2013/11/20 11:10] – created with links to Klusendorf, Koukl, Beckwith balleyne | utsfl:classroom:seminars:pbs302h [2024/03/06 11:43] (current) – put Beckwith above Klusendorf balleyne | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
====== PBS302H: The Vanishing Pro-Life Apologist ====== | ====== PBS302H: The Vanishing Pro-Life Apologist ====== | ||
+ | ===== Other ideas / To Sort ===== | ||
+ | Key question: What is this about? It's not about laws or education, it's not about AVP or no AVP, **this debate is about focusing on the child or focusing on the mother.** Some of this ideas don't fit and should be filed elsewhere. | ||
+ | |||
+ | This was a great conversation: | ||
+ | {{youtube> | ||
+ | |||
+ | FIXME Alexis insight: Heart Apologetics is the bridge between apologetics and Paul Swope' | ||
+ | |||
+ | FIXME http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Francis Beckwith ===== | ||
+ | http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | - Mr. Swope is mistaken in thinking that Americans in general have accepted the pro-life view that the unborn are fully human even though they still support legalized abortion | ||
+ | * It is true that polling data have consistently shown that a vast majority of people see abortion as wrong, even morally wrong. But in public discourse they relegate abortion to a question of personal preference, something they do not do when it comes to behaviors they consider seriously wrong, such as spousal and child abuse, torture, and human slavery | ||
+ | - One can question whether the research cited by Mr. Swope is an example of good social science, and whether the inferences he draws from this data are justified | ||
+ | - Mr. Swope does not have counterfactual knowledge of how the world would have been if the pro-life movement had not emphasized fetal humanity from its genesis. Perhaps his approach seems to work because the pro-life movement' | ||
+ | - Even if Mr. Swope' | ||
+ | - Because Mr. Swope admits that women who have abortions oftentimes rationalize what they are doing, how can he trust these women to give an adequate assessment of their own reasons for the abortions he admits are the result of the perverse deliberations of self-interested moral agents? | ||
+ | |||
+ | "Mr. Swope is right that we should do more than stress the humanity of the unborn, but we should not do less. In my judgment, there are three things that must be done in order to facilitate cultural change." | ||
+ | - we must persuade our fellow citizens that the unborn are full members of the human community | ||
+ | - we must show that if the unborn are human persons, one cannot be “pro-choice” on abortion and at the same time maintain that the unborn are fully human, just as one cannot be pro-choice on slavery and at the same time say that slaves are human persons | ||
+ | - we must show, both in word and in deed, that living virtuously and not autonomously is the essence of the moral life. Mr. Swope seems to stress autonomy, the first principle of the abortion culture, rather than virtue, the moral goal of the Gospel of Life. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Paul Swope' | ||
+ | > I am reminded of the famous line in My Fair Lady, “Why can't a woman be more like a man?” Indeed, why can't women be more like Professor Beckwith? I very much agree with Prof. Beckwith' | ||
+ | > | ||
+ | > If a woman stands on the ledge of a twenty-story apartment building about to jump, believing that this act will end her pain and despair and thus be somehow in her “best interest, | ||
+ | > | ||
+ | > My article stated clearly that other pro-life approaches, such as teaching fetal development, | ||
+ | > | ||
+ | > To Ralph Gillman: It is fair to say that the ads of the Caring Foundation are more emotive than analytic. At the same time, the goal is to help women reconsider, or “rethink, | ||
===== Scott Klusendorf ===== | ===== Scott Klusendorf ===== | ||
[[http:// | [[http:// | ||
- | > Swope and Matthews-Green are confusing what the public says with what it truly believes. People hold contradictory and incoherent views on abortion precisely because they don’t really believe that the unborn are fully human, despite their rhetoric to the contrary. As philosopher Francis Beckwith points out, why do women only kill their fetuses when confronted with practical difficulties, | + | > There is merit to what both say. Pro-lifers must do more than stress the humanity of the unborn, especially with those facing the terror of unplanned pregnancy. This is why crisis pregnancy centers are so important. It is also true that for some abortion-minded women, appeals to self-interest may dissuade them from killing their babies. |
+ | > But Swope and Matthews-Green are not saying we should reframe the debate in the //narrow// context of crisis counseling. Rather, they are telling the pro-life movement //in general// to speak less of the fetus and more to the self- interested needs of women. Although both have made important contributions to our cause, I think they are mistaken for the following reasons. | ||
+ | |||
+ | - It is simply not true that the pro-life movement has won the debate over the status of the fetus | ||
+ | * "Swope and Matthews-Green are confusing what the public | ||
+ | * "[...] When people tell me they personally oppose abortion but think it should be legal anyway, I ask a simple question to audit their core beliefs about the unborn. I ask why they personally oppose abortion. Nearly always, the response is, 'I oppose it because it kills a baby,' at which point I merely repeat their own words. 'Let me see if I’ve got this straight: You say you oppose abortion because it kills a baby, but you think it should be legal to kill babies?' | ||
+ | - A strategy centered primarily on the self-interest of the woman sets a dangerous precedent for the pro-life movement | ||
+ | * True conversion on any ethical issue requires moral and intellectual assent. How can there be moral and intellectual assent if nothing in the ads speaks to moral or intellectual issues? What you get in this case are not true converts to the pro-life position, but self-interested converts who may readily abandon their newly found pro-life views. As one abortion rights leader put it, “The overwhelming majority of Americans are against abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and their own personal circumstances.” That is the heart of the issue. | ||
+ | * "In fact Care Net, the nation' | ||
+ | * Gregg Cunningham of the CBR: " | ||
+ | - Downplaying the truth about abortion patronizes the very women we are trying to help | ||
+ | * Swope is right that pro-lifers must address the woman’s emotional concerns but wrong to say that we must downplay the truth about abortion in order to do this. Are we to conclude that women can’t look at abortion objectively? | ||
+ | * Naomi Wolf (feminist author and abortion advocate): "The pro-choice movement often treats with contempt the pro-lifers' | ||
+ | * As unpleasant as it seems, breaking people' | ||
+ | - Downplaying the truth about abortion is totally unnecessary and strips the pro-life movement of its most powerful tools of persuasion | ||
+ | * We can win if we force abortion advocates to defend killing babies. The national debate over partial-birth abortion (PBA) is a case in point. | ||
+ | - First, public opinion has shifted modestly in our favor. [Compare this to contemporary debates in the US: PPSellsBabyParts, | ||
+ | * At a National Abortion Federation meeting in 1996, Kathryn Kohlbert cautioned delegates that if the debate over partial-birth abortion focuses on what happens to the unborn, their side will get “creamed.” She urged focusing exclusively on the woman: | ||
+ | * If the debate is whether or not the fetus feels pain, we lose. If the debate in the public arena is what’s the effect of anesthesia. [on the fetus], we’ll lose. If the debate is on whether or not women ought to be entitled to late abortion, we will probably lose. But if the debate is on the circumstances of individual women, and [how] the government shouldn’t be making those decisions, then I think we can win these fights. | ||
+ | * graphic depictions of abortion have put our opponents on the defensive. | ||
+ | - shift in public opinion has led to legislative progress | ||
+ | * See dismemberment ban, pain-capable bans, or Gosnell and the medical standards legislation, | ||
+ | * Swope replies that his strategy does not necessarily apply to legislative or political change, but only to reaching the general public. [...] Most legislators, | ||
+ | - both the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology have issued reports condemning partial-birth abortion | ||
+ | - PBA legislation has raised the issue of fetal pain, further calling into question the morality of abortion | ||
+ | - the PBA debate has undermined the credibility of abortion advocates in general. Simply put they were caught lying, and even their staunchest supporters in the media felt cheated | ||
+ | |||
+ | > The partial birth debate damaged the pro-abortion side because it focused on what abortion does to the unborn. Pro-lifers did two things right. First, we forced abortion advocates to defend the indefensible. Second, we marshaled factual evidence to show that our opponents were lying. That’s the essence of effective pro-life apologetics as we approach the twenty-first century. | ||
+ | |||
+ | FIXME dialogue example, put in modern context of CBR/ | ||
===== Greg Koukl ===== | ===== Greg Koukl ===== | ||
http:// | http:// | ||
- | ===== Francis Beckwith ===== | + | > Clearly, the word " |
- | http://www.firstthings.com/ | + | > |
+ | > Our challenge is that we live in a culture that thinks and learns visually. This profoundly effects how people resolve moral issues. [...] | ||
+ | > | ||
+ | > How do we restore meaning to the word " | ||
+ | > | ||
+ | > Instead, we must visually awaken moral sensibilities. Pro-lifers must move the debate from the abstract question of choice of the mother to the concrete issue of the death of the child by using visual aids that allow people to see what abortion is. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Advocates Victim Imagery | ||
+ | > Some discourage using graphic visual aids on grounds it substitutes emotion for reason. This objection misses the point. The question is not, "Are the pictures emotional?" | ||
+ | |||
+ | > Regarding graphic visual aids, pro-lifers make one of two mistakes. They either spring them on audiences | ||
+ | > | ||
+ | > When using dramatic visual aids like Harder Truth, explain to your listeners in advance that the video contains graphic pictures. Advise them to look away if they prefer not to watch. When talking to a Christian audience, mention that our Lord is eager to forgive the sin of abortion, and that our purpose is not to condemn anyone, but rather to clarify what is actually at stake. |