Tag Archives: Jennifer Roback Morse

Podcasts

Three lectures in three days from Jennifer Roback Morse

Leave a comment
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse

First, before the three lectures, there is a quick segment on Issues, Etc.

The MP3 file is here. (12 minutes, 5.4 Mb)

This one is about Rahna Reiko Rizzuto, a university professor who has decided to abandon her children out of selfishness, and become a deadbeat mom. Here summary of her view is “I didn’t want to do give up my life for someone else.”.

Franciscan University of Steubenville

The MP3 file is here. (26 minutes, 11.8 Mb)

This one is about artificial reproductive technologies, and was delivered to a class of nursing students in their medical ethics class. Timely – because the Democrats just rescinded conscience protections for medical workers.

Nashville Republican Women

The MP3 file is here. (56 minutes, 25.9 Mb)

In this shorter talk she discusses the Ruth Institute, the views of the next generation on marriage, and the consequences of abandoning or redefining the institution of marriage. She delivered a longer version of this talk the next day at Aquinas College.

Duqesne University

The MP3 file is here. (53 minutes, 24.4 Mb)

This talk is based on her book “Smart Sex”. The topic of that book is on how irresponsible sex can actually drive people away from each other, and how we are rejecting the obligations we have to other people out of selfishness and preventing ourselves from enjoying life-long married love.

About Jennifer Roback Morse

Here’s her bio:

Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. is the founder and President of the Ruth Institute, president of the Ruth Institute a project of the National Organization for Marriage to promote life-long married love to college students by creating an intellectual and social climate favorable to marriage.

She is also the Senior Research Fellow in Economics at the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.

She is the author of Smart Sex: Finding Life-long Love in a Hook-up World, (2005) and Love and Economics: Why the Laissez-Faire Family Doesn’t Work (2001), recently reissued in paperback, as Love and Economics: It Takes a Family to Raise a Village.

Dr. Morse served as a Research Fellow for Stanford University’s Hoover Institution from 1997-2005. She received her Ph.D. in economics from the University of Rochester in 1980 and spent a postdoctoral year at the University of Chicago during 1979-80. She taught economics at Yale University and George Mason University for 15 years. She was John M. Olin visiting scholar at the Cornell Law School in fall 1993. She is a regular contributor to the National Review Online, National Catholic Register, Town Hall, MercatorNet and To the Source.

These lectures are particularly timely for me, as I am working my way through Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s “Stupid Things Parents Do To Mess Up Their Kids”, and getting some ideas for public policies and laws that would really be pro-child and pro-marriage. That book is my light reading book, and I recommend it. Dr. Laura Schlessinger is hit or miss, but this one is definitely a direct hit. My heavy reading books are “Signature in the Cell” by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer and “Economic Facts and Fallacies” by Dr. Thomas Sowell.

Podcasts

Is marriage just an arrangement for people who love each other?

1 Comment

Mary sent me this article from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, which is liberal like the CBC and BBC, but Australian.

However, read this excerpt:

As proponents for gay marriage turn up the political temperature on this issue, the catchcry has become ‘equal love’ – if two persons of the same sex love each other, who are we to tell them they cannot marry? Greens MP Adam Bandt has this week reintroduced the argument in the Federal Parliament, stating, “It is the power of love that has brought us to this moment in the debate over marriage equality.” This is a persuasive argument for it evokes in us our own needs to receive and to give love, but is ‘equal love’ a valid proposition for legalising same sex marriage?

Let’s think about it. If ‘equal love’ is the only prerequisite for marriage, then why not legalise marriage between uncles and nieces, or between mums and sons, if they are so inclined? I doubt if many people would accept such sexual unions, and yet if love (and take note that love in much of this debate is left undefined) is the only requisite for marriage how can we exclude a union between any two consenting persons, regardless of their status? Let’s not stop there, what if three people love each other, should they not be permitted to marry? And if marriage is so malleable why not introduce, as one newspaper article recently suggested, fixed terms for marriage rather than being for life?

The point is simple, ‘equal love’ is an inadequate ethic for deconstructing marriage. There are some human relationships which are appropriately deemed unsuitable for marriage. Particulars such as ‘kinds’ and teleology must play a role in defining marriage: what is a man and what is a woman, and what is the purpose or goal of marriage?

This guy is a pastor, yet he makes a good rational argument that is accessible to anyone. Is marriage really about adult feelings and the needs of adults to be happy? Or is it about something else?

Jennifer Roback Morse explains the purpose of marriage

If you want to learn more about how to define and defend traditional marriage, then take a look at these videos by Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, which I found at Lex Communis.

Details:

Dr J addresses the Sacramento Department of Evangelization and Catholic Schools on the question of altering the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions.  She also examines the break-down of traditional marriage and the consequences of no-fault divorce.

Clip 1 of 4:

Clip 2 of 4:

Clip 3 of 4:

Clip 4 of 4:

Or you can download the MP3 here. If anyone is wondering who I consider to be an ideal woman, Michele Bachmann and Jennifer Roback Morse are two of my favorite women. I really like women who I can sit and listen to and learn from, especially when they are passionate about what they believe and have lots of evidence to use in debates.

Podcasts

Jennifer Roback Morse debates feminism with abortion radical

2 Comments

She’s the William Lane Craig of domestic policy!

Here’s the main debate page.

Details:

Topic: Are We Getting It Right? The State of Women and Gender Studies

Jennifer Roback Morse
Senior Research Fellow, Acton Institute

Amy Richards
Author

University of Virginia, Newcomb Ballroom
3/14/2007

The video and audio are available on the debate page.

The MP3 file is here.

I have to admit, I skipped the silly feminist’s speeches – which is something I almost NEVER do, except for Dan Barker debates. But I listened to Dr. J’s speeches and they were awesome! I am telling all my male readers – listen: DOWNLOAD AND LISTEN TO THIS DEBATE. Jennifer Roback Morse is just awesome for men to listen to. Honestly, I think she’s even more fun to listen to than Michele Bachmann.

I did listen to both speakers during the Q&A.

About her opponent Amy Richards

Hey, look at this radically-leftist pro-abortion New York Times article about Dr. J’s opponent.

Excerpt:

My boyfriend, Peter, and I have been together three years.

[…]I found out I was having triplets when I went to my obstetrician.

[…]My immediate response was, I cannot have triplets. I was not married; I lived in a five-story walk-up in the East Village; I worked freelance; and I would have to go on bed rest in March. I lecture at colleges, and my biggest months are March and April. I would have to give up my main income for the rest of the year. There was a part of me that was sure I could work around that. But it was a matter of, Do I want to?

I looked at Peter and asked the doctor: ”Is it possible to get rid of one of them? Or two of them?” The obstetrician wasn’t an expert in selective reduction, but she knew that with a shot of potassium chloride you could eliminate one or more.

And I had this adverse reaction: ”This is why they say it’s the woman’s choice, because you think I could just carry triplets. That’s easy for you to say, but I’d have to give up my life.” Not only would I have to be on bed rest at 20 weeks, I wouldn’t be able to fly after 15. I was already at eight weeks. When I found out about the triplets, I felt like: It’s not the back of a pickup at 16, but now I’m going to have to move to Staten Island. I’ll never leave my house because I’ll have to care for these children. I’ll have to start shopping only at Costco and buying big jars of mayonnaise. Even in my moments of thinking about having three, I don’t think that deep down I was ever considering it.

Wow – hard-core feminist! But no match for Dr. J.