Tag Archives: Pro-Abortion

Podcasts

Should pro-lifers argue against sexual libertinism?

Leave a comment

Consider this article from Christianity Today about the tactics of the pro-life movement by Dinesh D’Souza.

Excerpt:

Why then, in the face of its bad arguments, does the pro-choice movement continue to prevail legally and politically?

I think it’s because abortion is the debris of the sexual revolution. We have seen a great shift in the sexual mores of Americans in the past half-century. Today a widespread social understanding persists that if there is going to be sex outside marriage, there will be a considerable number of unwanted pregnancies. Abortion is viewed as a necessary clean-up solution to this social reality.

In order to have a sexual revolution, women must have the same sexual autonomy as men. But the laws of biology contradict this ideology, so feminists who have championed the sexual revolution—Simone de Beauvoir, Gloria Steinem, Shulamith Firestone, among others—have found it necessary to denounce pregnancy as an invasion of the female body. The fetus becomes, in Firestone’s phrase, an “uninvited guest.” As long as the fetus occupies the mother’s womb, these activists argue, the mother should be able to keep it or get rid of it at her discretion.

If you’re going to make an omelet, the Marxist revolutionaries used to say, you have to be ready to break some eggs. And if you’re going to have a sexual revolution, you have to be ready to clean up the debris. After 35 years, the debris has become a mountain, and as a society, we are still adding bodies to the heap. No one in the pro-choice camp, of course, wants to admit any of this. It’s not only politically embarrassing, it’s also painful to one’s self-image to acknowledge a willingness to sustain permissive sexual values by killing the unborn.

This analysis might help to explain why otherwise compassionate people fight so tenaciously against the most helpless and vulnerable of all living creatures, unborn persons.

Here is a podcast from the Life Training Institute discussing that article.

The MP3 file is here. (Just the first 34 minutes)

Topics:

  • Dinesh says to argue against sexual promiscuity as part of pro-life apologetics
  • LTI’s general position is to focus on the humanity of the unborn
  • should pro-lifers change strategies to argue against sexual libertinism
  • is Dinesh right to say that arguing for the humanity of the unborn is not enough?
  • how strong are the philosophical arguments for the pro-life position
  • why has the effort to de-fund Planned Parenthood failed?
  • have the best arguments for the pro-life position become common knowledge?
  • do women who have abortions believe that the unborn are human or not?
  • do the arguments against abortion address the real circumstances of the woman?
  • why do people accept the humanity of the unborn, but still are pro-choice?
  • do people accept abortion because they refuse to give up sexual libertinism?
  • what is really behind the disrespect that people for the right to life?
  • is it possible for pro-lifers to convince people to give up irresponsible sex?
  • how did people begin to believe that a sexual revolution was a good idea?
  • has the sexual revolution increased or decreased social ills like divorce?
  • can a scientific case be made that sexual libertinism is destructive and costly?
  • should pro-lifers argue abortion on moral ground alone, or on utilitarian grounds?

This first file switches topics about 34 minutes into the podcast. There is actually a second file, too.

The MP3 file for part two is here.

The second topic is a paper written by an abortionist who is performing abortions while she is pregnant. She talks about performing a second-trimester abortion in the paper. Just as she describes tearing out the leg of the baby inside the other woman, her own baby kicks inside her abdomen. It’s interesting to hear this woman explain her feelings about this occurrence, and how she wants to suppress them. You can listen to the rest of the first MP3 file and then the second file as well to hear about that topic.

My thoughts

I have a lot of friends in the pro-life movement, and I also donate to pro-life debaters and sponsor pro-life events, (and I do the same for the marriage issue). But there is something else I do, too. I feel very, very badly about how women have adopted the habit of having sex before marriage, simply because they have bought into feminist ideology hook, line and sinker. Premarital sex causes women a lot of pain and emotional damage, as I described before. By abolishing sex roles, women are left with no idea about how to make a man love them and commit to them.

So it’s not just that I oppose abortion and support traditional marriage. It’s not just that I oppose women who murder their unborn children and who raise children without fathers. It’s that I oppose premarital sex, period. And I oppose the root of all these problems – feminism. It’s feminism that abolishes sex roles, chivalry, courting, romance, traditional marriage, two-parent families, at-fault divorce laws, small government, and eventually, liberty itself. And the way that I argue against feminism is by sharing the way that I treat women with you, my readers.

You can read more about my anti-feminist, pro-woman, pro-life, pro-marriage views in the related posts below.

Related posts on chastity, chivalry, courtship and marriage

Related posts on feminism and sexual libertinism

    Related posts on abortion

    Related posts on adult stem cell research

    Commentary

    How hard did the Republicans fight to stop taxpayer-funding of abortions?

    Leave a comment

    Story from K-Lo at National Review.

    Excerpt:

    If one of those groups has a spare defender-of-life award lying around, they ought to give it to the man who could be the next speaker of the House of Representatives, House minority leader Rep. John Boehner (R., Ohio).

    […]In a speech to a conservative audience this winter, Boehner insisted that Republicans in the House wouldn’t “bend on . . . the issue of the sanctity of life.” He explained: “In November, Republican lawmakers joined with some Democrat lawmakers to stop them from using any federal taxpayer funds from being used to provide for abortions in America. . . . We got some flak for working with the other side.”

    That’s what you call principled leadership. Even though he hated the bill, if it was going to pass, he wanted taxpayer funding of abortion out of it. After the Stupak language was included in the House bill that passed last year, Boehner went to the House floor three times and asked Democratic chairmen Charlie Rangel, Henry Waxman, and George Miller to pledge to support the Stupak language come time for conference negotiations with the Senate. Because abortion was a priority of theirs, they declined. (Too bad that Stupak, wanting the bill to pass, didn’t feel as strongly about the sanctity of the unborn when his moment for leadership arrived.) Recalling what went down late last year, Boehner said: “When it comes to protecting the unborn, we’ll take the votes wherever we can get them. . . . We did the right thing for the right reasons. And we’re showing . . . the American people that there’s a clear difference between the two parties.”

    […]Instead of complaining that Republicans don’t talk more about the issue, those who believe that the sanctity of unborn life is a central human-rights issue of our day should thank John Boehner. He has a zero rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America, an arm of the abortion industry, and a 100 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee. In the face of so many powerful figures and influences arrayed against Boehner and a culture of life, it’s the right thing to do.

    For the House Republicans, abortion was not a side-issue. Abortion was the main issue. They did everything they could to stop the funding of abortions by pro-life taxpayers. The Republicans just didn’t have enough people in the House and the Senate to stand against the pro-abortion Democrats. All the major pro-life leaders in the House, Trent Franks, Michele Bachmann, Paul Ryan, etc. are all Republicans.

    You can listen to this podcast in which Scott Klusendorf explains why he will take time out from pro-life work from now on to get more and more Republicans elected. The way to slow down and reverse the abortion tide is by packing the House and Senate with Republicans.

    Podcasts

    MUST-HEAR: Scott Klusendorf discusses Obamacare and the pro-life cause

    Leave a comment

    This is a must-hear podcast.

    Details:

    LTI is not a political organization and does not endorse any candidate. The regular participates of the LTI podcast – namely Rich, Scott, and Jay wanted to change gears and explicitly discuss politics – specifically the recently enacted health care reform bill and its impact on the pro-life cause. The views expressed are individual opinions and are not endorsed by Life Training Institute.

    Scott described this one as a barnburner yesterday and I could not agree more. Enjoy.

    The MP3 file is here.

    The RSS feed for the LTI podcast is here.

    I’m also on Facebook, by the way, and you can befriend me. You can also click here to follow the blog on Facebook.

    I’ve listened to this podcast 3 times but I’ll listen to it again and try to take notes, instead of jumping up and down clapping my hands. This podcast is a must-listen for social conservatives who are left-wing on economics issues. Big government is never in favor of protecting the unborn or defending traditional marriage. Big government always means increased social liberalism.