Thanks for the plug Steve! The link seemed to be broken though. Try this one? https://soundcloud.com/trenthornpodcast/181-dialogue-do-pro-lifers-oppress-women
(I think the hyper link cut off on the last two letters of the URL)
2. Trent was verbally clear and coherent, whereas Steve Farrell aka Shem the Penman seemed unconfident and shaky in his words. It seemed to me Trent tried to give Farrell some rope here and there so he could calm down or be less anxious and have a normal dialogue or debate, but Farrell never seemed to recover from himself.
3. As for the substantive issues, Trent clearly came across as far more rational and reasonable-minded, whereas Farrell came across as emotional and irrational. Farrell kept committing logical fallacies (e.g. guilt by association, appeal to emotion). In the end Farrell effectively admitted nothing could ever change his mind on this issue. Presumably no amount of logic, reasoning, scientific evidence, etc. Farrell even said he was "open-minded" then followed up with he was being "facetious" about being open-minded. Just goes to show you can't reason with the unreasonable. You can't inform those who reject information.
4. Ironically, Farrell accuses pro-lifers of being dangerous to society and worse, but it's Farrell's closed mind, emotionally-based and emotionally-driven arguments, and hateful rhetoric that are truly dangerous to civil discourse and free speech, which in turn is dangerous to democracy. Farrell is only truly "tolerant" of those who are on his side. He's intolerant of pro-lifers. Of course, what good is it if you love only those who love you (cf. Lk 6:32)?
5. Farrell has a double standard. On the one hand, Farrell accuses pro-lifers of inciting violence by their "rhetoric" against killing unborn babies. On the other hand, Farrell himself spews hateful rhetoric against pro-lifers (e.g. Farrell accuses pro-lifers of oppressing women even though many pro-lifers are women). However, according to Farrell's logic, this could likewise incite violence against pro-lifers. In other words, why is it okay for Farrell to use rhetoric that could incite violence against pro-lifers, but it's not okay for pro-lifers to use rhetoric that could incite violence against pro-choicers?
Of course, this is just answering Farrell on his own grounds, but as Trent points out pro-lifers aren't inciting violence by simply stating a medical definition that abortion is "killing" a fetus. By contrast, Farrell's rhetoric is truly hateful rhetoric against pro-lifers.
6. Farrell's primary argument seemed to be that women should be allowed to perform abortions because it's compassionate for single women who are poor and can't afford to raise a baby on their own. However, how representative is that of women who perform abortions? Statistically speaking, if I recall, the majority of abortions are performed on babies with Down syndrome and other genetic defects. Most of these women aren't poor single mothers. Most of the women are in a relationship and most of the women are middle-class. For one thing, most women who can afford to have medical tests that screen for and diagnosis Down syndrome and other genetic defects, let alone who can afford to pay for an elective abortion, aren't likely going to be below the poverty line. Of course, that's not to say there aren't douchebag doctors like Kermit Gosnell who prey on the poor.
--6. Farrell's primary argument seemed to be that women should be allowed to perform abortions because it's compassionate for single women who are poor and can't afford to raise a baby on their own. However, how representative is that of women who perform abortions? Statistically speaking, if I recall, the majority of abortions are performed on babies with Down syndrome and other genetic defects.--
I did a quick bit of Search Engine Research once (the link and the 4 replies following it):
Thanks for the plug Steve! The link seemed to be broken though. Try this one? https://soundcloud.com/trenthornpodcast/181-dialogue-do-pro-lifers-oppress-women
ReplyDelete(I think the hyper link cut off on the last two letters of the URL)
Thanks. I think I fixed it.
DeleteI listened to the entire dialogue-cum-debate:
ReplyDelete1. Trent Horn won hands-down.
2. Trent was verbally clear and coherent, whereas Steve Farrell aka Shem the Penman seemed unconfident and shaky in his words. It seemed to me Trent tried to give Farrell some rope here and there so he could calm down or be less anxious and have a normal dialogue or debate, but Farrell never seemed to recover from himself.
3. As for the substantive issues, Trent clearly came across as far more rational and reasonable-minded, whereas Farrell came across as emotional and irrational. Farrell kept committing logical fallacies (e.g. guilt by association, appeal to emotion). In the end Farrell effectively admitted nothing could ever change his mind on this issue. Presumably no amount of logic, reasoning, scientific evidence, etc. Farrell even said he was "open-minded" then followed up with he was being "facetious" about being open-minded. Just goes to show you can't reason with the unreasonable. You can't inform those who reject information.
4. Ironically, Farrell accuses pro-lifers of being dangerous to society and worse, but it's Farrell's closed mind, emotionally-based and emotionally-driven arguments, and hateful rhetoric that are truly dangerous to civil discourse and free speech, which in turn is dangerous to democracy. Farrell is only truly "tolerant" of those who are on his side. He's intolerant of pro-lifers. Of course, what good is it if you love only those who love you (cf. Lk 6:32)?
5. Farrell has a double standard. On the one hand, Farrell accuses pro-lifers of inciting violence by their "rhetoric" against killing unborn babies. On the other hand, Farrell himself spews hateful rhetoric against pro-lifers (e.g. Farrell accuses pro-lifers of oppressing women even though many pro-lifers are women). However, according to Farrell's logic, this could likewise incite violence against pro-lifers. In other words, why is it okay for Farrell to use rhetoric that could incite violence against pro-lifers, but it's not okay for pro-lifers to use rhetoric that could incite violence against pro-choicers?
Of course, this is just answering Farrell on his own grounds, but as Trent points out pro-lifers aren't inciting violence by simply stating a medical definition that abortion is "killing" a fetus. By contrast, Farrell's rhetoric is truly hateful rhetoric against pro-lifers.
6. Farrell's primary argument seemed to be that women should be allowed to perform abortions because it's compassionate for single women who are poor and can't afford to raise a baby on their own. However, how representative is that of women who perform abortions? Statistically speaking, if I recall, the majority of abortions are performed on babies with Down syndrome and other genetic defects. Most of these women aren't poor single mothers. Most of the women are in a relationship and most of the women are middle-class. For one thing, most women who can afford to have medical tests that screen for and diagnosis Down syndrome and other genetic defects, let alone who can afford to pay for an elective abortion, aren't likely going to be below the poverty line. Of course, that's not to say there aren't douchebag doctors like Kermit Gosnell who prey on the poor.
--6. Farrell's primary argument seemed to be that women should be allowed to perform abortions because it's compassionate for single women who are poor and can't afford to raise a baby on their own. However, how representative is that of women who perform abortions? Statistically speaking, if I recall, the majority of abortions are performed on babies with Down syndrome and other genetic defects.--
DeleteI did a quick bit of Search Engine Research once (the link and the 4 replies following it):
https://twitter.com/scottthong/status/1091149581381820416
TLDR, by a vast margin most abortions of ones of convenience. And anyone can find this from publicly available research.
Thanks, Scott! :) That's informative.
Delete