Posts Tagged ‘Politics’
Download Audio MP3 | 00:22:32
Update 6/22: Upon request, I’ve written most of these points up as an article and published them at JoshBrahm.com.
Here’s an outline of my main points in response to this question from Bobby: “Some pro-life people oppose ‘incrementalist’ pro-life laws because they always end with ‘… and then you can kill the baby.’ What are your thoughts?”
Note: Many of my arguments and thinking on these issues comes from conversations I had with Scott Klusendorf and Dr. Francis Beckwith, who both graciously spent time with me while I was working through these issues in 2007. I’m not sure now who said what and how many of these arguments are really my own, nor would I want to source any of these arguments directly to Scott or Frank without their permission. (These were all private conversations.) It’s probably a fair assumption that the really smart talking points came from one of them though.
This was supposed to be a video but we had technical difficulties with the recorded video, so I’m posting the audio only.
- Common ground: I agree that we don’t want to communicate to people that we only care about babies that feel pain, are a certain age, not conceived in rape, etc.
- I disagree that most forms of incremental legislation send that message. I think most people know how politics works.
- My argument is not that we should do evil that good may come. My argument is that when we pass incremental bills that will have a positive impact for the unborn, we are not actually doing evil. We are doing a good thing.
- What’s implicit in these bills is that we want to save all, but we know we can’t, so we’re going to save the most we can, and go from there.
- William Wilberforce helped pass a bill, the Foreign Slave Trade Bill of 1806) that you could have ended with, “and then you can sell the slave.”
- Do you think it’s more important to make an impact or to make a statement? I don’t believe that passing a bill with a rape exception tacked onto it at the last minute sends a message to pro-choice people that we don’t care about the babies conceived in rape that are sometimes killed in abortions.
Download Audio MP3 | 00:28:00
After summarizing Abby Johnson’s story, Josh asks 40 Days for Life co-founder Shawn Carney about his ministry as well as the state of the pro-life movement.
- How do you think 40 Days for Life has changed the pro-life movement?
- Knowing what you know now, what would you have done differently when starting 40 Days for Life?
- Do people often go from participating in 40 Days for Life to doing other pro-life activities? What are you doing to encourage that?
- What do you think are the best methods for a local 40 Days for Life campaign?
- What could RLCC do better to persuade people to participate in sidewalk counseling?
- What has been the pro-life movements greatest victory so far?
- What has been the pro-life movements greatest weakness?
- What single thing should pro-lifers be doing that most are not doing right now?
- How should pro-life people interact with those that are pro-abortion-choice?
Download Audio MP3 | 00:28:00
Megan Almon from Life Training Institute joins Josh and Gabi to discuss how pro-lifers can have productive conversations about Gosnell, as well as the common mistakes pro-lifers should avoid.
One of the most common questions we get is “how do you start non-weird conversations about abortion when you’re not on campus next to a pro-life exhibit?” One of the easier methods is to use a story that’s currently in the news. Josh thinks pro-life people can have good conversations about abortion starting with the controversy of what Gosnell did, but he doesn’t think you should stop there. He uses several specific questions to lead the conversation into talking about the abortions that are less controversial to pro-choice people: abortions done on first-trimester babies that are in the womb, aren’t viable, aren’t conscious and don’t feel pain.
After giving these questions and dialogue tips, the discussion turns to what pro-life people should NOT do when talking about Gosnell. What are the most common mistakes pro-lifers make regarding this story? Listen to the episode to find out.
Josh also briefly responds to the pro-choice argument that it’s pro-lifers fault that women went to Gosnell’s clinic in the first place.
Download Audio MP3 | 00:24:42
Last February we published two episodes with our favorite (nearly graduated) student from Notre Dame Law John Gerardi with an update on the HHS mandate lawsuits as well as answering the controversial question, “why did so many church-going Catholics vote for President Obama, again?!” After we recorded those two episodes, we spent another 20 minutes answering questions we hadn’t talked about yet, and answered a good questions sent from a listener. This is the audio from that post-episode discussion.
- “Tell me about states like Massachusetts, that are heavily Catholic and Irish but are totally in the tank for Obama.”
- “What do you think is the future for the bishops’ involvement in politics?”
- Karen: “Is it even possible that we really change our society legislatively, or do we need to concentrate on the hearts of women and men?”
Download Audio MP3 | 00:28:00
We’re super excited about this episode, because we think it’s the best roundtable discussion we’ve recorded in a long time. Megan Almon from Life Training Institute joins us to discuss the recent Planned Parenthood ad that distances itself from the labels “pro-life” and “pro-choice.” While pro-life bloggers discussed the ad when it came out, I felt like we had some unique perspectives to contribute. Discussion topics include the main problems with the argument in the ad, the weaknesses of labels in general, the importance of not stereotyping people and the question of whether moral neutrality is possible on abortion. Josh closes the show with questions for both sides of the abortion debate to consider.