In the scheme of things, the “Immediatist vs Incrementalist” debate between AHA’s T. Russell Hunter and Center for Bio-Ethical Reform’s Gregg Cunningham on April 25, 2015, was iconic. AHA’s immediatist philosophy was laid bare as contradictory, confused, and even nefarious.

Most extraordinary was that Hunter came so ill prepared, after beating his chest for months for prudentialists to “choose a man, and let him come down to fight me,” in the words of Goliath.

Witnessing social movement historian and master debater Cunningham methodically take down each of AHA’s talking points, only to receive such  flummoxed responses by Hunter, was a sight to behold. Cunningham was quick to challenge Hunter’s “conflated” and “binary” arguments, and with no keyboard to hide behind, Hunter’s half-baked theories, groundless accusations, and inaccurate portrayal of history were laid bare.

Abolish Human Abortion followers love to use the term “straw man” to dismiss pro-life arguments that point out their inconsistencies.

(For example, during their recent “Immediatist vs Incrementalist” debate, AHA’s T. Russell Hunter called it a “very, very silly straw man” when Center for Bio-Ethical Reform’s Gregg Cunningham challenged Hunter for saying he would let a secularist save the life of his 2-year-old but not let a secularist help him save the lives of children marked for abortion [beginning at 1:20:20 on the video].)

So today let’s talk about straw men.

As I start, I’d like to reiterate why I’m pursuing this multi-part analysis of the “Immediatist vs Incrementalist” debate between Abolish Human Abortion’s T. Russell Hunter and Center for Bio-Ethical Reform’s Gregg Cunningham.

In a comment to my Part II post, an antagonized Hunter called my efforts a “freaked out obsession,” to which I responded:

by Andy Moore of AbortionWiki.org

On January 14 NARAL Pro-Choice America announced it had chosen a new president. The newly-selected leader, Ilyse Hogue, pictured right, is set to take over the reigns of the organization at the end of January.

“So, who is this woman?” is the question most pro-lifers and even many on the other side are asking.

When current president Nancy Keenan (pictured below with Hogue) announced in May 2012 her intention to retire, she said she thought a younger leader would better connect with the Millennial generation.

The cover story in the January 14 issue of Time magazine has stirred a lot of conversation on both sides of the abortion aisle.

In particular it has brought to the fore a generational rift within the pro-abortion movement.

The article noted the rift as one of several problems the movement is facing. But in the article’s wake young feminists have apparently felt freed to launch an open revolt.

Click to enlarge…

I spotted the above graphic on the Holy Angels Youth Group website (out of Chagrin Falls, Ohio).

Although the graphic was certainly well-intended, it bothered me.

The annual March for Life is scheduled on or near January 22, the anniversary of the infamous U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion throughout all of America in 1973.

Although the M4L website states it is “the collective effort of grassroots prolife Americans to assure that our state and federal laws shall protect the right to life of each human in existence at fertilization,” I think clearly the March is by-and-large a huge demonstration taking a stand against abortion.

Particularly for the above graphic to state the March is to make a statement “against the death penalty,” and to even list it first – before abortion – offends me.

by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN and Kelli

We welcome your suggestions for additions to our Top Blogs (see tab on right side of home page)! Email Susie@jillstanek.com.

• Big Blue Wave shares a video from Alliance for Life Ontario, which the Advertising Standards Council of Canada claims is “demean[ing] and denigrat[ing to] women.” The ASC plans to penalize the pro-life group for refusing to amend or withdraw the ad:

Again and again I see young social justice-focused evangelicals abandoning any effective voice for the unborn for the sake of an ephemeral, culturally-fashionable concept that as a practical matter means little more than advocating a utopian ideal through a grab-bag of banal, functionally socialist policies. Moreover, the embrace of social justice often drives them functionally […]