New ebook: “Abolition of Reason: Pro-life apologists deconstruct ‘Immediatist’ ideology”
On April 25, the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform’s Gregg Cunningham debated Abolish Human Abortion’s T. Russell Hunter on the topic, “Pro-life Incrementalism vs. Abolitionist Immediatism.”
As faithful readers to my blog know, I followed up on Cunningham’s excellent dissection of Hunter’s flawed “immediatist” arguments with what ended up to be a nine-part series of posts.
But I wasn’t the only one who had points to make about the debate. Pro-life apologists Steve Hays of Triablogue, Scott Klusendorf of Life Training Institute, Dr. Michael New of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, Jonathon Van Maren of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, and Clinton Wilcox also of LTI had excellent thoughts of their own.
SO, we have compiled our writings into an ebook entitled, “Abolition of Reason: Pro-Life Apologists Deconstruct ‘Immediatist’ Ideology as Presented in Cunningham-Hunter Debate,” and are making it available free (by clicking on the title) to whoever would like to delve more into the cracked and dangerous theory of immediatism.
Chapters (click to enlarge)…
Please spread the word!
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.
Sweet!
This seems like something I would like to read about but I don’t know the history that sparked this book. Could you dumb it down for a lay person like me? What was the Cunningham-Hunter debate about? What were the sides and why should a pro lifer like myself want to read it? Thanks!
[…] Pro-life apologists deconstruct ‘Immediatist’ ideology” was written by pro-life blogger Jill Stanek, Steve Hays of Triablogue, Scott Klusendorf of Life Training Institute, Dr. Michael New of the […]
Marissa, if you read Chapter 1 of the ebook, you’ll get a good handle on the backdrop.
It might be better to watch the actual debate and then read Klussendorf’s analysis.
Actually, the best thing to do is have Klussenorf’s play by play of the debate printed out and in your hand as you watch the debate. You can go through it like a check list and make note of the points, arguments, and rebuttals that he leaves out of his written analysis. Mark these and then ask yourself why it is that Klussendorf and Stanek are concealing immediatism even now.
Seeing this E-Book produced and put out so boldly is awesome (Stanek is even paying to promote it on Facebook!). Abolitionists could not have done a better job exposing these ProLife Establishment staffers to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
This book is the greatest fruit yet borne from the debate!
The anti-AHA people have now fully exposed themselves as anti-abolitionISM. That is, any claim that they were just opposed to “AHA” and the people who unify together and use the A//? symbol to represent their adherents to the tenets of abolitionism (Immediatism not incrementalism as one of them), and not our principles or views can now no longer be supported.
If you want to learn more about anti-immediatism and anti-abolitionism, go to your local library and look up any book on the history of abolitionism in the 19th century. Also check out PBS’s documentary series on “The Abolitionists.” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/abolitionists/player/
[…] Jill Stanek: Abolition of Reason: Pro-Life Apologists Deconstruct “Immediatist” Ideology as Presented in Cunn… […]
Steve Wetzel, May 22, 2015, 6:21 p.m. in the “Immediatist vs Incrementalist” debate analysis: Epilogue thread, where comments are now closed:
That aside, incrementalism is easily refuted by time itself. 42 years and 60 million dead babies later – and we are no closer to seeing an end to abortion.
To me this is illogical and false. Immediatism has done nothing over that time. Had incrementalism not further restricted abortion – there is no rational argument that it has not – during that time, there would have been more abortions and more “dead babies.”
How how in the world are we to say that “incrementalism is refuted,” from that?