PJTV discusses the A-Word
by Carder
If money were no object, I would arrange for a varied group of bloggers to meet and host a face-to-face discussion over the reason that brings us to Pro-Life Pulse in the first place.
Since reality gets in the way, let’s instead watch a panel discussion hosted by Pajamas TV, a conservative online network of bloggers, at the Conservative Political Action Committee’s Conservatism 2.0 Convention recently held in DC.
On the panel: DC Examiner columnist Scott Ott of ScrappleFace (news satire); John P. Avlon, Senior Fellow of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research; libertarian law professor and blogger Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit.com; and his royal rapidness, comedian AlfonZo Rachel, of MachoSauceProductions.
Facilitator Bill Whittle asked the panelists (fast forward to 1:37:40) if abortion is a social choice, murder, or something in between. The video takes a moment to load.
To summarize:
Ott: If we can express moral outrage over wasteful spending, then we should be able to express the same outrage over the taking of human life.
Avlon: How do we reconcile the rhetoric of individual freedom vs. the rhetoric of conservatism? Bring on the big tent.
Reynolds: Let it go, it’s a drag. It will culturally take care of itself.
Rachel: Here’s the problem…where do you go from there? Making something better out of it is hard to do. Equal rights from the get go.
The lively 8-minute discussion elicited enthusiastic responses from both sides of the aisle. I would have liked to have seen a woman’s opinion, though. Preferably Jill’s.
After the convention, PJTV hosted a wrap-up interview with Scott Ott and Stephen Green of VodkaPundit.com. At 4:11, host Allen Barton noted President Obama has now waded into the culture war of abortion and asked what the focus of the conservative media should be: the economy, abortion, or both?
Ott insisted on both. Green stated that Obama’s problem will be overreach.
Neither was on the exact same page, but they managed to have a little fun with each other at the end.
What do you think should be the focus?
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I know this is off-topic, but I decided to show my son a few images of fetuses, and even at 4 he quickly said “those are babies.” He meant on to call them “friends” as well. He even thought one 16 week-old fetus was “not a baby, its a big boy.”
I showed him an ultrasound and he said “thats a nest.” :)
Its just goes to show the whole “They dont even look human!” argument is so contrived.
Weird typo. “meant” should be “went.”
Obama, his administration and much of the legislative and judicial branches of government (with special emphasis upon the Democrat party) need to be exposed for their political/economic/cultural radicalism. Right-to-Life and pro-family persons should concentrate upon the moral and cultural issues first, otherwise we will get shoved out of the debate by both major political parties.
Both – one is a side-effect of the other.
Logically, a huge debt burden has been placed on future generations by this generation. Even more so, by this government. Now Obama comes along and says not only should future generations carry debt, but that it’s also okay to reduce or eliminate those generations.
Umm….who is going to pay off the debt? The chosen ones?
What makes anyone think they’re special enough to be “chosen” to be slammed with unbearable debt?
How am I responsible for my great-grandfather’s debt? Who wants to pay for their great-grandfather’s overdue debt (with interest?)
Weighing down future generations is a shell game, while encouraging their reckless destruction should indicate this President and his associates don’t care one bit for anyone but themselves.
It worries me for the future of my kids with this economy. I guess it is time to move to the middle of nowhere….oh wait i’m already there!
Glenn Reynolds hosts the best blog ever (Instapundit), but he’s no friend to pro-life.
I have something to say to those who ask — apparently seriously — how conservatives reconcile individual freedom with pro-life: you’re welcome to start asking questions when you don’t implicitly advocate killing the unborn. The question of individual liberty is not even on the table as long as the question of human life is considered moot by folks stupid enough to ask the question.
The problem is one of whose incredulity should be greatest. Pro-life folk seem to think that the skeptic’s incredulity should be privileged with patient explanations. To the contrary, the slain unborn deserve an explanation from anyone who imagines that personal choice legitimately extends to a question of their destruction.
I’m not implying that reasonable discussion should not proceed from such questions, but an intelligent trajectory for such dialog begins when it’s pointed out that such a question is heading in the opposite direction from reason.
There IS a such thing as a stupid question.
Bingo, Rasqual.
It’s what I refer to as “selective liberty”: rights for me but not for thee.
The shortsightedness of Reynolds abortion-will-culturally-work-itself-out statement I found particularly galling (if that’s a word).
Politics absolutely belongs in this arena for the simple reason that Big Abortion sees the threat of abortion becoming the stigmatized choice as Glenn more or less puts it. Therefore, they will stop at NOTHING to make sure abortion that never goes out of style. Hence, their satanic involvement with politics.
Beginning with the mythical FOCA.
I think mainstream conservative media needs to endow him with the title “The Abortion President”. That will so annoy him.
Greatings,
http://www.jillstanek.com to GoogleReader!
Thank you
AnnaHopn
Hello,
Not sure that this is true:), but thanks for a post.
Thanks
Eremeeff
Nice…
Nice…