tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31639577082452334672024-03-12T16:05:25.887-07:00Pro-Life PhilosophyA blog dedicated to defending human life, from fertilization to natural death, at an intellectual level.Clinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.comBlogger214125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-52547699954958315982022-05-10T07:00:00.053-07:002022-05-11T20:45:39.877-07:00SCOTUS is Poised to Overturn Roe v. Wade<p>It has been a few years since I last updated this blog. I've decided to put full-time pro-life work on hold because to be frank, it just doesn't pay the bills. I was trying to go the pro-life missionary route and raise my own salary, but I have extreme social anxiety which makes asking people for money, however worthy the cause, that much more difficult. So now I'm concentrating on what I do best: playing music. So I've joined two bands, a hard rock band playing original songs and an 80s cover band, as well as doing other work to supplement the income.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1RdS7YpzGiBKHtX2cz03Y4bIuY_POU9-G3Kgmab7lDzroqgcu1I82z929r75HMezohDekRGTY1MItXUX_z50HI-bZFf0OtyDLjb-l6mVwSYq2Am_cSa-tzDH3zwdi1nDBJ1DZzCq4HoXdDoDpk5z9d08gYQAznIwqaRzu73EF6vR7ThhL1kCCfm_RpA/s754/Control%20Women.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="754" data-original-width="666" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1RdS7YpzGiBKHtX2cz03Y4bIuY_POU9-G3Kgmab7lDzroqgcu1I82z929r75HMezohDekRGTY1MItXUX_z50HI-bZFf0OtyDLjb-l6mVwSYq2Am_cSa-tzDH3zwdi1nDBJ1DZzCq4HoXdDoDpk5z9d08gYQAznIwqaRzu73EF6vR7ThhL1kCCfm_RpA/s320/Control%20Women.jpg" width="283" /></a></div>But I want to continue contributing to this blog. As you are likely aware, on Tuesday Politico <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;">reported</span></a> a leak that the Supreme Court justices are planning to vote five to four to overturn the landmark cases <i>Roe v. Wade</i> and <i>Planned Parenthood v. Casey</i>, effectively returning the decision of whether to legalize abortion to the prerogative of the states (Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh will vote for overturning, and Justices Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer will vote against overturning). Chief Justice Roberts <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/pr_05-03-22" target="_blank"><span style="color: #ffa400;">confirmed</span></a> the draft is accurate but added it does not represent a decision by the court or the final position of any member of the court, as justices may end up changing their minds. This final decision is slated to happen in June. However, just today we discovered <i>Washington Post </i><a href="https://www.mediaite.com/news/washington-post-obtains-new-leaks-from-supreme-court-revealing-conservative-justices-are-holding-the-line/" target="_blank"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">obtained another leak</span></a> that affirmed the five justices are standing firm on their position to overturn <i>Roe</i> and <i>Casey</i>. Chief Justice Roberts is launching an investigation into who leaked this information. There are some who believe it was leaked by a leftist source to attempt to pressure the conservative justices into changing their vote. Others believe it was leaked by a conservative source in case any justice changing his mind might seem politically motivated. In light of this new leak coming to light, the former seems more likely. But only time will tell, if they ever discover who it was at all.<p></p><p>The bombshell news that the Supreme Court is going to overturn the <i>Roe v. Wade </i>decision has led to the predictable frothing at the mouth of leftists, especially on social media. People have been fantasizing about <a href="https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/05/british-gaming-journalist-wants-to-know-if-youd-murder-justices-alito-thomas-if-you-could/" target="_blank"><span style="color: #e69138;">murdering the conservative justices</span></a> before this happens, leading the Supreme Court to erect fences around the building and beef up security. Unfortunately the conservative justices have also been doxed, leading to people discovering and posting the private addresses of these justices. And now people are protesting at the justices' homes in violation of federal law, not that any legal action will be brought against these protestors. Jen Psaki, the current White House press secretary, <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-house-responds-abortion-related-protests-homes-supreme/story?id=84593964" target="_blank"><span style="color: #660000;">refused to condemn</span></a> the doxing of the justices or the illegal protesting at these Justices' homes. It's also been rumored that Justice Alito and his family have been moved to an "undisclosed location" for their own safety. Leftists on Twitter have even been falsely accusing the conservative justices of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2bPheLIcUA&ab_channel=Don%27tWalk%2CRun%21Productions" target="_blank"><span style="color: #93c47d;">lying under oath</span></a> during their confirmation hearings (they didn't) and are calling for their impeachment. You'd think after two failed impeachment attempts against President Trump, the left would be more careful about calling for impeachment of conservatives.</p><p>As Timcast <a href="https://timcast.com/news/scotus-overturn-of-roe-v-wade-is-inevitable-in-the-meantime-move-to-a-red-state/" target="_blank"><span style="color: #ff00fe;">reports</span></a>, the unreasonableness doesn't stop there. Elizabeth Warren and others have been calling for an "expansion" of the Supreme Court (to pack the Supreme Court with leftist activist judges who will always give the left what they want). Eric Swalwell claims this will lead to striking down interracial marriage (it won't). The Republican party is the party of Lincoln and slavery abolition. The Democrat party is the party of Jim Crow and the KKK. The idea that Republican Supreme Court judges, especially when a black conservative is on the court, want to enact racist policies is absurd. President Joe Biden has even said this will lead to segregating gay children in classrooms. (Again, it won't.) This is just the tip of the iceberg from what I've seen but this extreme fear mongering, even from our president and members of Congress, is deeply concerning.</p><p>This leak has even infected public life. I had a gig on Friday night with my band and one of the girls in attendance yelled at our singer to talk about women's rights from the stage. Thankfully our singer didn't take the bait because when we do music, we want to escape politics for a little while and enjoy music together as human beings. Even New York Times, which incidentally had "fetus" as their Wordle word for yesterday, <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/new-york-drops-word-fetus-wordle-answers-rcna27953" target="_blank"><span style="color: #9fc5e8;">dropped the word "fetus"</span></a> from their list and changed the word of the day because they want to escape from the news with their game. Women on TikTok are lamenting overturning <i>Roe</i> will <a href="https://news.yahoo.com/women-tiktok-hookup-culture-absolutely-062100891.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall" target="_blank"><span style="color: #04ff00;">spell the end</span></a> of "hookup culture" (as if conservatives are going to devastated by that news). Meanwhile conservatives are happy to see leftists are finally learning how human reproduction works.</p><p>I intend to read the decision in full. Guaranteed, 99% of the people complaining on social media have not actually done that. I know they haven't because I've engaged many of them in conversation and have read tweets and status messages from others and they're always clueless. They fail to understand and interact with the legal and philosophical arguments made in the decision, instead resorting to the same tired arguments and ridiculous comparisons they've always been making. I got so fed up with it that I decided to revive this blog so I could display many of these bad arguments and show why these diatribes are just nonsensical.</p>Clinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-23123855590066293132017-07-18T15:06:00.004-07:002017-07-18T15:06:41.938-07:00On Recent Viral VideosI'm going to try to write this and my next article without being too polemical. It will be difficult, but these two article are coming from a place of utter frustration. Frustration at the fact that so many people in our society can't think. This is evidenced by the number of videos by vloggers on YouTube that contain poor arguments (actually, that's too charitable; their arguments are downright pathetic), and further evidence by the number of people sharing these videos so that they go viral because the people sharing these videos can't think and don't realize how poor (read: pathetic) the arguments actually are. So I'm going to write two articles responding to two such videos. This first one will be responding to a video by vlogger <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqdXBcJvVVw" target="_blank">jaimekid2</a> Ben Shapiro's arguments against abortion. Why am I responding to these videos if the thinkers are so unsophisticated? Because people are taking them seriously.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So what is jaimekid2's argument against abortion? He says, <i>"Ben Shapiro is wrong on abortion. The reason why he is wrong is because he doesn't hold his values consistently."</i></div>
<br />
<i>Read the rest at the Life Training Institute <a href="http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/2017/07/on-recent-viral-videos-clinton-wilcox.html" target="_blank">blog</a>.</i>Clinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-74065989909851292222017-06-30T11:47:00.002-07:002017-06-30T11:47:38.045-07:00Book Review: A Practical Guide to Culture by John Stonestreet and Brett KunkleSpecial thanks to Brett Kunkle for providing me with a free copy to review the book.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkRX1mg85lZcrpoAWujWYtTwZ-flM4zp6cmuEk49JVXJODBb1s0Dwzn8GbQu1Ux_t4Bs_0ZG44TA2HgWXI2DtQvkNCf0-Wq8A4FZGruTOxFCzBqF7TFu1_NB-B5bpR__ZVMdx8TZVv0top/s1600/Stonestreet.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="499" data-original-width="332" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkRX1mg85lZcrpoAWujWYtTwZ-flM4zp6cmuEk49JVXJODBb1s0Dwzn8GbQu1Ux_t4Bs_0ZG44TA2HgWXI2DtQvkNCf0-Wq8A4FZGruTOxFCzBqF7TFu1_NB-B5bpR__ZVMdx8TZVv0top/s200/Stonestreet.jpg" width="132" /></a>There aren't many books that I'm aware of that try to talk about the culture as a whole. There are certainly some good ones out there (such as Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death), but Stonestreet and Kunkle's book, A Practical Guide to Culture, takes it a step further in that they don't just talk about our culture and how we got here, but they actually provide practical steps on how Christians ought to live in this culture and how to raise Godly children in a culture that can't wait to corrupt them. Even if there were other books about culture, as culture has a tendency to shift rapidly, books like this one are constantly needed. After all, the concept that a person can marry someone of the same sex, as one of our Supreme Court justices rightly pointed out, is younger than the smartphone. "Trans rights" wasn't even a thing more than a few years ago.<br />
<br />
<i>Read the rest at the Life Training Institute <a href="http://bit.ly/2tudM4e" target="_blank">blog</a>.</i>Clinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-61208182396659912132017-05-17T16:43:00.003-07:002017-05-17T16:43:28.140-07:00So Joss Whedon Made a Planned Parenthood Propaganda Film...There's no doubt Joss Whedon is a great director. I have the entire Firefly series on DVD and I'm a huge fan of the Avengers movies (and I have friends who sing the praises of his other shows, like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Dollhouse). However, in a bizarre turnaround, Whedon has set his sights on promoting Planned Parenthood by filming a three-minute short film called <a href="https://secure.ppaction.org/site/SPageServer/;jsessionid=00000000.app20109b?pagename=pp_ppol_WhedonVideo_0517_Landing_c3.html&s_subsrc=3NALz1711W1N1V&s_src=WhedonVideo_0517_Landing_c3_c3web&NONCE_TOKEN=2DDD426A46869223A5E10D4B3929E224" target="_blank">Unlocked</a>. The film, of course, is well-made, but it doesn't make any sense.<br />
<br />
<i>Read the rest at the Life Training Institute <a href="http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/2017/05/so-joss-whedon-made-planned-parenthood.html" target="_blank">blog</a>.</i>Clinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-14906526519873700152017-05-08T11:27:00.001-07:002017-05-08T11:27:23.382-07:00Book Review: Life's Work: A Moral Argument for Choice by Dr. Willie Parker<i>Life's Work: A Moral Argument for Choice</i> by Dr. Willie Parker is a new book defending abortion rights by an African-American doctor who is a self-proclaimed "Christian" (the reason for the quotes around Christian will become evident below). For all the lip service Parker says about rationality and wanting to approach the issue rationally, I've rarely read a more irrational defense of abortion rights.<br />
<br />
<i>Read the rest at the Life Training Institute <a href="http://bit.ly/2pZ8MRm" target="_blank">blog</a>.</i>Clinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-82308648849420650202017-04-18T10:09:00.003-07:002017-04-18T10:09:29.325-07:00Zero Reasons a Fetus is Absolutely Not a PersonA friend posted an article on Addicting Info to my Facebook wall titled <a href="http://addictinginfo.org/2015/08/12/14-reasons-a-fetus-is-absolutely-not-a-person/" target="_blank">14 Reasons a Fetus is Absolutely Not a Person</a>, written by one Wendy Gittleson (who has obviously never seen the inside of a logic textbook and has no sense of shame). This article will be a bit polemical, mostly because of her undeserved arrogance and the fact that her article doesn't even come close to doing what her headline alleges she is going to do. Seriously. Just take one look through her 14 questions (they are not arguments), and you'll notice one glaring omission: none of these 14 questions offer any sort of argument for why the fetus is not a person. They are merely hypothetical questions one might pose to a proponent of fetal personhood (such as myself), and some of the questions are incredibly dumb. Only one question is actually legitimate. But none of these are arguments that support the proposition "a human fetus is not a person." Ordinarily I'd pay no mind to this article and I would consider it not worth my time to respond to. But it was posted to my Facebook wall and another friend encouraged me to respond because there might be people who are actually taken in by this garbage. And I'll be doing this completely sober. Pray for me.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>Read the rest at the Life Training Institute <a href="http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/2017/04/zero-reasons-fetus-is-absolutely-not.html" target="_blank">blog</a>.</i></div>
Clinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-86449426658764823842017-04-01T16:13:00.003-07:002017-04-01T16:13:57.760-07:00Thinking Clearly About Fetal Organ Donation and Human DignityA while ago I came across <a href="http://www.popsugar.com/moms/Dad-Post-About-Wife-Carrying-Baby-Term-Donate-Organs-43195476" target="_blank">this letter</a> from a dad whose unborn daughter, Eva, had a debilitating disability and would die a few days after birth. Of course, it's a very difficult situation to go through. No parent ever wants to outlive their son or daughter. However, the circumstances regarding their decision to bring the child to full term, while it appears noble on the surface, actually doesn't respect the inherent dignity of their child.<br />
<br />
<i>Read the rest at the Life Training Institute <a href="http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/2017/04/thinking-clearly-regarding-fetal-organ.html" target="_blank">blog</a>.</i>Clinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-78185552468081842922017-02-10T10:24:00.001-08:002017-02-10T10:24:30.480-08:00On Teen Vogue's Recent Abortion ArticlesTeen Vogue, apparently a publication geared toward teenagers, has recently published two articles about abortion. Now, seeing as though I'm not a teenager, I don't have any kids, and I'm a man of reasonably good taste, I don't read Teen Vogue (or, really, anything with "vogue" in the name of it). But it's distressing the kinds of things publications geared toward teenagers will try to push on your kids. This just goes to show how important it is for parents to be aware of what their children read.<br />
<br />
One such article is called "<a href="http://www.teenvogue.com/gallery/post-abortion-gift-guide" target="_blank">11 Thoughtful Gifts Your Friend Who Just Had an Abortion Would Appreciate</a>." It's actually a "slideshow", so I would encourage you not to click through it as slideshows only artificially inflate the number of clicks a website garners, giving them more money from their sponsors. I only read through one or two of the supposed gifts you should give your post-abortive friend. It's written in a style that's super-casual and intended to be funny (rather than helpful). However, before you click through you are greeted with a pop-up box that talks about how abortion is "never a simple decision" and making it as a teenager is "more than a little terrifying." Never mind the fact that encouraging children to abstain from sex would be an excellent way of ensuring they don't have to make these decisions. Instead, we'll just offer gift ideas for a girl who does go through it. Of course, to Teen Vogue, the reason many women need post-abortion counseling is "not because the act itself is so terrible, but because sometimes the world can be." In other words, the "abortion stigma" is the reason so many women regret their abortions, not because they're killing their own child.<br />
<br />
<i>Read the rest at the Life Training Institute <a href="http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/2017/02/teen-vogues-recent-abortion-articles.html" target="_blank">blog</a>.</i>Clinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-80238410032549655472017-01-30T06:32:00.003-08:002017-01-30T06:32:45.865-08:00More of the Same Fallacies From an Abortion-Choice AdvocateI was pointed to an article by Alan Levinowitz called "<a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/01/27/the_flaw_in_the_pro_life_argument_that_i_can_t_ignore.html" target="_blank">Why Do Pro-Life Advocates Only Seem to Care About Unborn Lives?</a>" Of course, the real reason is because abortion-choice advocates are too lazy to do any real research into what people in the pro-life movement actually do. But that would make for a very short article.<br />
<br />
Levinowitz starts off by saying he uses abortion as a case study in his comparative ethics course. Considering how rife with fallacy his article is, it actually does give me concern for his students. He is apparently drawing his students away from the pro-life argument not based on logic or reason (which is essential for coming to conclusions on ethical questions) but based on emotion and logical fallacies. There is a silver lining here -- Levinowitz does recognize that abortion-choice advocates can't take the "moral superiority" of their position as granted and should seek out challenging dialogue partners to discuss it further. So if Levinowitz happens across this article, please get in touch with me. I'd love to discuss this further with you. We could even set up a debate on this issue, if you'd be game for it.<br />
<br />
<i>Read the rest at the Life Training Institute <a href="http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/2017/01/more-of-same-fallacies-from-abortion.html" target="_blank">blog</a>.</i>Clinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-34605801940912924532016-12-13T10:25:00.000-08:002016-12-13T10:25:21.943-08:00Response to Richard Rowe's "Why Pro-Choice is Right" Article, Part IIII've spent the last two articles responding to an article by blogger <a href="http://www.ranker.com/list/pro-choice-arguments/richard-rowe" target="_blank">Richard Rowe</a>, in which he asserts (without any good arguments but with a whole lot of unjustified arrogance) that pro-choice is the right position. I'm more than willing to consider somebody's arguments. I have read some of the best defenses of the abortion-choice position that is out there. Rowe's defense doesn't even come close to supporting his position. He would do well to study the issue before trying to write on it again. Here's <a href="http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/2016/12/response-to-richard-rowes-why-pro.html" target="_blank">part one</a> in this series, and here's <a href="http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/2016/12/response-to-richard-rowes-why-pro_12.html" target="_blank">part two</a>.<br />
<br />
<i>Read the rest at the Life Training Institute <a href="http://bit.ly/2gxha4b" target="_blank">blog</a>.</i>Clinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-66503006289127764462016-12-12T14:59:00.004-08:002016-12-12T14:59:29.154-08:00Response to Richard Rowe's "Why Pro-Choice is Right" Article, Part IIThis is my second part in a three-part series in responding to an abortion-choice advocate's article regarding why he believes "<a href="http://www.ranker.com/list/pro-choice-arguments/richard-rowe" target="_blank">pro-choice is right</a>." So far his defense of the abortion-choice position has been less than stellar. For part one in this series, click <a href="http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/2016/12/response-to-richard-rowes-why-pro.html" target="_blank">here</a>. In the first part, I examined his first four arguments. Now I'll examine arguments five through nine.<br />
<br />
<i>Read the rest at the Life Training Institute <a href="http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/2016/12/response-to-richard-rowes-why-pro_12.html" target="_blank">blog</a>.</i>Clinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-78689488641624820872016-12-11T11:45:00.004-08:002016-12-12T11:06:56.869-08:00Response to Richard Rowe's "Why Pro-Choice is Right" Article, Part IThis may come as a shock to some people, but no one is entitled to an opinion. The only opinion you have any right to is a well-informed opinion. If you can't reproduce your opposition's arguments in a way they would agree with and approve, you have no right to try to respond to their arguments. Now Ranker is not exactly a site one should go to if you want to find good arguments for controversial positions. This is another article that was shared with me, this time from Ranker, ironically entitled "<a href="http://www.ranker.com/list/pro-choice-arguments/richard-rowe" target="_blank">Every Compelling Argument for Why Pro-Choice is Right</a>" (ironic, because missing are the only good arguments for the abortion-choice position, bodily rights and personhood arguments). Unfortunately many people believe that because they can post up a blog article that gives them the right to write on any particular issue. However, the author of this article, Richard Rowe, has not earned the right to speak to the abortion issue. He doesn't even know the best arguments for his own position, and he clearly does not understand the pro-life argument.<br />
<br />
<i>Read the rest at the Life Training Institute <a href="http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/2016/12/response-to-richard-rowes-why-pro.html" target="_blank">blog</a>.</i>Clinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-5017668545716668092016-12-07T13:31:00.001-08:002016-12-07T13:31:31.153-08:00A Different Type of AbortionA friend shared an article with me from someone named Catherine Deveny about what she calls <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-04/financial-abortion-men-opt-out-parenthood/8049576?WT.tsrc=Facebook_Organic" target="_blank">"financial abortion"</a>, the idea that if a woman can decide she doesn't want to be a parent and opt out through abortion, men should be able to do the same. I didn't know who Deveny is but after doing a little research I discovered that she's an Australian comedian.<br />
<br />
The idea behind "financial abortion" is that if a man indicates to a woman before they have sex that he does not want to have a child, and the couple uses contraceptives to try and ensure that she doesn't get pregnant, then if the contraceptives fail and the woman winds up pregnant, he has the right to opt out during the early parts of pregnancy. This means he can essentially sign all his rights, responsibilities, and privileges of fatherhood away, cutting all financial and emotional ties with the child. She says a "financial abortion" is also known as a "paper abortion" or "statutory abortion", but this is literally the first I've ever heard of this idea. I'm left to wonder how there can be so many other people who call this idea by other names. It's certainly not an idea that's gained any traction in the abortion literature. Deveny indicates that the idea came from sociologist <a href="https://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/Op-Eds/Goldscheider.html" target="_blank">Francis K. Goldscheider</a> in 1998. David Boonin, however, has argued that even though (he believes) women have the right to an abortion, it does not follow that a father has the right to opt out of pregnancy since the question of whether or not to have an abortion or whether or not someone should pay child support are two different questions, and a legal obligation to pay child support does not necessarily translate into a moral obligation to pay it (see Boonin, <i>A Defense of Abortion</i>, Cambridge University Press, 2003, 4.11). I may respond to Goldschedier's article in the future, because it rests on very problematic assumptions.<br />
<br />
<i>Read the rest on the Life Training Institute <a href="http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/2016/12/financial-abortion-clinton-wilcox-in.html" target="_blank">blog</a>.</i>Clinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-60822672198027274152016-12-02T12:31:00.003-08:002016-12-02T12:31:31.164-08:00An Analysis of Arrival (from a pro-life perspective)I recently saw the movie Arrival in my local theater. Some have been touting this movie as a pro-life movie, and one of the protagonists, Louise Banks (played by Amy Adams), as a pro-life ion. I'll be examining this movie from a pro-life perspective, but for an excellent analysis of the themes in the movie, check out this review from <a href="https://jwwartick.com/2016/11/14/arrival-film/" target="_blank">J.W. Wartick</a>.<br />
<br />
Obviously there will be spoilers in this review, since I'm going to be analyzing it. So if you haven't seen the movie and don't want it spoiled, go and see it before you read this review. It's an excellent film, well worth your money.<br />
<br />
Arrival is a film about a group of alien spacecrafts that reach earth and hover over various locations around the globe, such as the United States, China, and Russia. Nothing is known about the aliens, so the United States brings in a linguist, Banks, and a physicist, Ian Donnelly (played by Jeremy Renner), to see if they can learn how to communicate with the aliens. Banks eventually starts to learn their language (as well as linguists from the other powers which have their own alien spacecraft), but human paranoia starts to take over and the temporary alliance between these powers as they study the aliens starts to fracture. It becomes a race against time to understand the aliens' language well enough to learn why they are here.<br />
<br />
<i>Read the rest at the Life Training Institute <a href="http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/2016/12/an-analysis-of-arrival-from-pro-life.html" target="_blank">blog</a>.</i>Clinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-17806489328636761002016-11-11T15:37:00.000-08:002016-11-11T17:23:37.021-08:00Response to Joshua Stein's Critique of Christopher KaczorIf you haven't yet read <i>The Ethics of Abortion </i>by Christopher Kaczor, you should definitely consider reading it. However, I was asked to give my thoughts on a critical review written by Joshua Stein about Kaczor's book. Ordinarily, reading over this review, I wouldn't have given it a second thought. It doesn't present any serious challenges to Kaczor's book, and he mainly complains about the methodology of the book rather than actually responding to any of Kaczor's arguments. But since I was asked, I'll respond to Stein's claims below.<br />
<br />
I've interacted with Stein some on Facebook. From what I've gathered, he's a philosophy professor but to my knowledge, hasn't done any work in the field of philosophy, itself. Other than that, I don't know much about him, but you can read his critique on Goodreads <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/809967826" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
<br />
The first thing I noticed is Stein's complete lack of engagement with Kaczor's book. He doesn't provide any page numbers so you can see if he's correctly understanding Kaczor's arguments, and he doesn't even seriously engage with any of them. Compare Stein's critique with one of my critical critiques on <a href="https://www.amazon.com/review/R2QBZ1Q8HW4O0Z/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0882143522&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=283155&store=books" target="_blank">Amazon</a>.<br />
<br />
<i>Read the rest at the Life Training Institute <a href="http://bit.ly/2fJdeBe" target="_blank">blog</a>.</i>Clinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-26551754998499140022016-10-15T06:14:00.002-07:002017-10-11T20:55:20.209-07:00Amanda Marcotte is At it AgainAnd by "it", I mean completely frothing off at the mouth about the "evil" "misogynistic" "anti-choice" movement. Ruth Graham over at Slate wrote a surprisingly well-balanced article about the more alternative pro-life advocates, such as Kelsey Hazzard (of <a href="http://www.secularprolife.org/" target="_blank">Secular Pro-Life</a>) and Aimee Murphy (of <a href="http://www.lifemattersjournal.org/" target="_blank">Life Matters Journal</a>). Her article is called <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/cover_story/2016/10/the_future_of_the_pro_life_movement.html" target="_blank">The New Culture of Life</a>. This article also led the United States Library of Congress to contact various organizations mentioned in the piece, like Life Matters Journal and <a href="http://www.newwavefeminists.com/" target="_blank">New Wave Feminists</a>, informing them they've selected these organizations' webpages for inclusion in the Library's web archive focusing on public policy topics. Seriously, give it a read (note that I don't necessarily agree with all the statements made by the pro-life activists in that article).<br />
<br />
True to form, Amanda Marcotte of Salon is not happy that someone would present pro-life people in a positive light, preferring to live in her fantasy world that pro-life people are all stodgy old men who want to control women's bodies. So she wrote a hit piece about the pro-life movement in response to Graham's article, called <a href="http://www.salon.com/2016/10/13/hip-to-be-square-is-there-really-a-feminist-secular-anti-choice-movement-spoiler-no/" target="_blank">Hip to be Square: Is there really a feminist, secular anti-choice movement? (Spoiler: no)</a>. Clever, right? Not only is it a completely dishonest article, devoid of any serious research, it is also borderline libelous. Seriously, don't give it a read.<br />
<br />
Marcotte's piece truly is painful to read. Not only is she completely dishonest about pro-life people, her lack of serious research is astounding. A number of pro-life people were mentioned in her article, including me. I'm going to set the record straight on Marcotte's claims about myself (and Rebecca Stapleford, who was mentioned along with me). I'll leave it to my friends to respond to Marcotte if they so choose.<br />
<br />
Below, I'll quote the two paragraphs in Marcotte's article that directly relate to me:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
As [Matt] Dillahunty pointed out to me, a "good chunk of [Secular Pro-Life's] blog posts are written by Christians/Catholics", showcasing exactly how difficult it is to drum up much interest among the non-religious for a cause devoted to meddling with other people's sex lives. A perusal of the Secular Pro-Life blog seemed to confirm this observation, with several blog posts being written by Catholics like Rebecca Stapleford and Clinton Wilcox.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Wilcox is one of the two Secular Pro-Life representatives that Dillahunty has debated. On his personal blog, Wilcox argues, "I, myself, have met people who said they did not come to Christ until after they became pro-life" and writes that anti-choice arguments are a good way to lure people into converting to Christianity.</blockquote>
There are at least a half dozen inaccuracies in just these two paragraphs, alone. Let's start with the fact that neither I nor Rebecca Stapleford are Catholics. I am Protestant. Rebecca is also a friend of mine. While she became pro-life as an agnostic, she is now an Evangelical Protestant.<br />
<br />
Now let's talk about how she "perused" (does she even know what this word means?) the blog at Secular Pro-Life, found "several" articles by Rebecca and me, and apparently that was enough to conclude that a "good chunk" of SPL's blog posts were written by "Catholics". First, how much is a "good chunk"? If Dillahunty means a lot, then sure. But what does this prove? It certainly doesn't prove that the majority have been written by religious people. In fact, most of the writers for SPL are non-religious. Instead of looking up how many articles Rebecca and I wrote, maybe she should have looked at who the writers are and compare their religious affiliation.<br />
<br />
Now let's talk about her calling me a "representative" of SPL. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a representative of Secular Pro-Life. I do write articles for their blog and I walk with them whenever I attend the Walk for Life, but I am not a representative of their organization. Marcotte is mistaking their willingness to work with religious people as their actually being religious.<br />
<br />
I also made it very clear to Dillahunty before we debated that I am not a representative of SPL; I write for their blog and was interested in debating him. At no point did I claim to represent SPL. Whether Dillahunty told Marcotte this or Marcotte is assuming it is unclear. Either way, someone is being dishonest here.<br />
<br />
Two more inaccuracies to note. She points to an article I wrote on my "personal blog", but the blog she pointed to was the Life Training Institute blog, not my personal blog. Additionally, she claims that I am deceiving people into becoming Christian by first making them pro-life. This, of course, is blatantly false. She is taking my words out of context and paraphrasing them to mean something I obviously didn't mean to any honest observer who reads my article. What I actually said is that my discussions on abortion naturally lead into questions of ultimate reality and human value, and that while sometimes you can convert an atheist to Christianity without talking about the pro-life issue, sometimes atheists need to know that we have reasonable answers to other issues before they take Christianity seriously.<br />
<br />
Salon has never been a paragon of critical thinking, but it's truly mind-boggling that they would allow such a deceitful piece to be posted to their website. In just two paragraphs, Marcotte bungled many facts that would have been easy to verify. She also seems intent on painting the pro-life movement as inherently religious, but I wasn't aware the proposition "murdering a human being is wrong" is an inherently religious one. At least we can take comfort in knowing that they can't refute our argument that abortion is wrong because it intentionally kills an innocent human being, so they have to resort to name-calling and alarmist caterwauling.<br />
<br />
<i>Author's Note: I'll add articles written by the others mentioned in Marcotte's article to respond to her as I become aware of them.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Here's an article written by <a href="http://newwavefeminists.blogspot.com/2016/10/amanda-marcotte-just-makes-shit-up.html?m=1" target="_blank">Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa</a> (language warning).<br /><br />Edit: Marcotte has apparently since corrected the error about Rebecca and me being Catholic and changed it to saying we are Christians.</i>Clinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-44274963133337559482016-10-05T11:07:00.004-07:002016-10-05T11:07:35.714-07:00Is Making Abortion Illegal Legislating a Religious Viewpoint?The pro-life position entails that since unborn human beings are full human persons at fertilization, if you kill an unborn human being at any point in his/her development, you are committing an act of unjustified homicide which should be forbidden by law. Of course, many pro-choice people believe, not having actually listened very closely to the pro-life argument, that the pro-life view is grounded only in a religious belief. So they respond that we cannot legislate a religious point of view into law.<br />
<br />
<i>Read the rest of this article at the Life Training Institute <a href="http://bit.ly/2dso6o5" target="_blank">blog</a>.</i>Clinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-39329464866131392792016-10-03T13:45:00.000-07:002016-10-03T13:45:03.911-07:00Must We Convert the Culture to Christianity to End Abortion?It seems every so often I run across someone on Facebook (rarely in personal activism) who asserts that we must convert people to Christianity in order to end abortion, or that we must share the Gospel at all times with people, whether or not we make pro-life converts. To do anything less goes against God's teachings.<br />
<br />
This may sound super spiritual on the face of it, until you stop and consider that, as Augustine said, "wherever truth may be found, it belongs to his master" (<i>On Christian Doctrine</i>, II.18.28). Or as it is commonly paraphrased, all truth is God's truth. Whenever we share the truth about abortion, that it is the unjustified killing of an innocent human person, we are sharing God's truth. Now, it's possible that someone would only be converted after you share the Gospel with them and they come to understand the universe as God does. But it's also very likely that someone will not take the Gospel seriously until they hear a Christian give a reasoned defense of one of their positions in another sphere of knowledge.<br />
<br />
<i>Read the rest at the Life Training Institute <a href="http://bit.ly/2dnLVK9" target="_blank">blog</a>.</i>Clinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-4641933091873998382016-10-02T15:06:00.000-07:002016-10-02T15:06:31.566-07:00Is Consent to Sex Consent to Pregnancy?In her book <i>Breaking the Abortion Deadlock: From Choice to Consent</i>, sociologist Eileen McDonagh argued that pro-choice people should move the debate from being about choice to consent. In other words, instead of arguing a woman has a "right to choose" abortion, they should be arguing that an embryo only has the right to a woman's uterus if she grants consent to the uterus, and only if consent is ongoing. She argued that sex doesn't make a woman pregnant, sex only creates the embryo, and it's the embryo that makes the woman pregnant. Since the embryo occupies the woman's uterus against her will, the embryo is essentially a rapist, or a parasite (or perhaps one of the aliens from <i>Alien</i>). Since the embryo is essentially a rapist, the state has an obligation to protect her from this invader in the same way the state would use the police to protect her from an actual rapist.<br />
<br />
That's the thesis of her book, essentially. McDonagh has succeeded to some degree in changing the abortion debate to be about consent. I don't encounter this argument when I'm talking to a pro-abortion-choice advocate in person. But I occasionally encounter this argument in on-line discussions. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and it's not an argument that is seriously defended by most pro-abortion-choice people. It's more of an argument pro-abortion-choice people keep in their quiver as a backup.<br />
<br />
<i>Read the rest at the Life Training Institute <a href="http://bit.ly/2dCgajt" target="_blank">blog</a>.</i>Clinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-30009874481394488652016-09-28T08:37:00.000-07:002016-09-28T08:37:00.452-07:00Book Review: Love Unleashes Life: Abortion and the Art of Communicating Truth by Stephanie Gray<i>(Full disclosure: Stephanie is a friend and I have had the pleasure of engaging in pro-life activism with her. As such, I'll be referring to her by her first name because it feels weird to me to call her Gray. Additionally, even though she's a friend, these are still my honest thoughts on her book.)</i><br />
<i><br /></i><i>Love Unleashes Life</i> is the newest book from pro-life advocate Stephanie Gray. It's a book that covers some of the intellectual and emotional arguments for abortion and how to respond to them, but the main focus of the book is in teaching people not just how to respond to these arguments, but also in how to engage in a more human way, by recognizing when emotional hang-ups and past trauma are undergirding someone's arguments.<br />
<br />
<i>Read more at the Life Training Institute <a href="http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/2016/09/book-review-love-unleashes-life.html" target="_blank">blog</a>.</i>Clinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-25171631073353109182016-09-26T13:16:00.000-07:002016-09-26T13:16:13.454-07:00Book Review: Defends of the Unborn: The Pro-Life Movement Before Roe v. Wade by Daniel K. WilliamsSpecial thanks to Oxford University Press for the free copy to review.<br />
<br />
Daniel Williams has done a great service to the pro-life field by researching and compiling this volume regarding the history of the pro-life movement. There are now two books on abortion history that I would suggest grace every pro-life advocate's bookshelves: Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History by Joseph Dellapenna, and now Defenders of the Unborn by Daniel K. Williams.<br />
<br />
<i>Read the rest at the <a href="http://bit.ly/2dmVur9" target="_blank">Life Training Institute</a> blog.</i>Clinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-75878402942975304052016-06-13T09:32:00.003-07:002016-06-13T09:32:29.325-07:00Using a Tragedy for Your Agenda<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-nightclub-shooting/index.html" target="_blank">Early this morning</a>, tragedy struck Orlando, Florida when a man, Omar Mateen, walked into a gay club in the city and opened fire. He killed 50 people and wounded at least 53, and after a three-hour standoff, police burst into the building and kill the gunman. Of course, there is much speculation about his motives. It's not my intention here to guess at what his motivations actually were. While many were quick to sympathize with those killed and urged us to mourn with them, many also took to social media to support their own pet agenda.<br />
<br />
<i>Read the rest at the Life Training Institute <a href="http://bit.ly/25XRBxY" target="_blank">blog</a>.</i>Clinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-2460300354693545042015-10-28T11:10:00.001-07:002015-10-28T11:10:30.747-07:00Is Philosophy Useless in the Pro-Life Argument?Last week, LiveActionNews published an article from Olivier Lindor called <a href="http://liveactionnews.org/four-non-religious-reasons-to-be-pro-life/" target="_blank">"Four Non-Religious Reasons to be Pro-Life"</a>. In that article, Lindor made the claim that science is all you need for the pro-life argument. Philosophy is (presumably) unreliable as a source of truth. Science is the only reliable source of truth, so science should be the standard we turn to when we make public policy. He gave three other arguments, but my purpose for this article is to specifically respond to Lindor's first argument from science. To be clear, I enjoy LiveActionNews. This is not a diatribe against them, but merely my intention to respond, as a pro-life educator, to an idea that I find detrimental to the pro-life argument and worldview, in general.<br />
<br />
Lindor is right that there is a significant non-religious portion of the pro-life movement. He is also right that we do not have to specifically present a religious argument to justify the pro-life stance. However, he does not have to throw philosophy under the bus to do so.<br />
<br />
<i>Read the rest at the Life Training Institute <a href="http://bit.ly/1N8w2DK" target="_blank">blog</a>.</i>Clinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-50592839892019027562015-09-25T15:23:00.002-07:002015-09-25T15:23:42.629-07:00Book Review: Aborting Aristotle: Examining the Fatal Fallacies in the Abortion Debate by Dave Sterrett<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDQaRVQwT-UuZ6MonkNOu5JmFiFoO_gzqBcIThs9v90MEuBxaKYeoB60iZqvYvzbMvXtT2lxGPMAaNed8CTySyQ12UXpDpbVjX9wkTi070QJvsZ2HyI79upzI5xvJCiMhOQdbo2ChmTfCw/s1600/Aristotle+Book.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDQaRVQwT-UuZ6MonkNOu5JmFiFoO_gzqBcIThs9v90MEuBxaKYeoB60iZqvYvzbMvXtT2lxGPMAaNed8CTySyQ12UXpDpbVjX9wkTi070QJvsZ2HyI79upzI5xvJCiMhOQdbo2ChmTfCw/s320/Aristotle+Book.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Special thanks to Dave Sterrett for the free copy of the book to review.<br />
<br />
There are a lot of great books out there defending the pro-life position. There are also some great books to help you get started in pro-life apologetics. Dave Sterrett's book really functions as a pre-starter book, whereas in introductory books the information you learn about are the basics that you need, Aborting Aristotle gives a grounding, the sort of metaphysical basement, for our pro-life views. You won't learn how to defend the pro-life view, that's not its purpose. You'll learn about why the pro-life position works and why pro-choice thinkers fail to justify abortion by jettisoning an Aristotelian framework.<br />
<br />
There is a lot of great information contained in this book. His discussions on how naturalistic metaphysics is self-refuting is especially important to understand. His chapter on personhood was also very good. Usually discussions of personhood certain around who counts as persons, but it seems that rarely do these discussions get to the heart of what the concept of "person" actually means. Sterrett shows admirably that our personhood, while different than our humanity, cannot be separated from it. He even talks about some common ground that we can find with pro-choice people in his concluding chapter, which is an excellent thing for pro-life people to keep in mind when talking to pro-choice people.<br />
<br />
The only main problems I had with the book are:<br />
<br />
1) There was no real discussion about substances and why humans count as substances. It really seems like you'd need at least a basic familiarity with Aristotle in order to know what he's talking about, even in his excellent rebuttals of naturalistic philosophy.<br />
<br />
2) There was no real discussion about potentiality and actuality. It was mentioned, but not really discussed. This does seem like a glaring omission, since not knowing what potentiality actually means leads even modern philosophers to make bad arguments against the personhood of the unborn. Two examples are when Michael Tooley, in his book Abortion and Infanticide, argues about injecting a rationality serum into cats, and when Singer, I believe in his book Practical Ethics, argues that potential presidents don't have the same privileges and duties as actual presidents. If Sterrett does a second edition, I think a chapter on potentiality vs. actuality would be in order.<br />
<br />
3) The 17.00 price tag is a bit steep for a 120-page book. Granted, this is not the fault of the author, the publisher sets the price tag.<br />
<br />
There are a couple of other minor issues that should probably be corrected for future editions. In at least a couple of the chapters, I felt the endings weren't tightened up. They seemed to just end abruptly. Additionally, for many of the quotes regarding Aristotle, he used secondary sources, not the primary sources, themselves. This may affect credibility.<br />
<br />
I am an Aristotelian/Thomist in my view of metaphysics. As such, I think this is an important book to add to the discussion. It's a helpful primer on the metaphysical grounding of the pro-life position.Clinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-35990198412255073422015-09-23T10:18:00.001-07:002015-09-23T10:18:09.704-07:00Responding to a Video From Bill Nye, the Anti-Science GuyI've seen a video being shared on Facebook from a website called <a href="http://www.bigthink.com/" target="_blank">Big Think</a>, in which <a href="http://bigthink.com/videos/bill-nye-on-abortion-and-womens-rights" target="_blank">Bill Nye</a> (heralded as "The Science Guy" because he plays one on TV) condescendingly tells pro-lifers that we should not tell women what to do, and that the pro-life position is based on "outdated" science. That is, the science that Alan Guttmacher, in 1933 said is "so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn't part of the common knowledge" (see <em>Life in the Making: The Story of Human Procreation</em>). The science that every embryology textbook of the 20th and 21st centuries supports. This science is "outdated" to Bill Nye. Perhaps most egregiously he tries to pit science against religion in this video, which belies a severe ignorance of how science actually developed.<br />
<br />
<em>Read the rest at the Life Training Institute <a href="http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/2015/09/responding-to-video-from-bill-nye-anti.html" target="_blank">blog</a>.</em>Clinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.com0