Posted on

COURSE PODCAST CLIP: Social Media Dialogue Part 1: The Obstacles

by

Every other Wednesday we publish a new episode of the Equipped for Life Podcast, available to everyone who purchases our course, “Equipped for Life: A Fresh Approach to Conversations about Abortion.” Generally, these podcast episodes won’t be available to the general public, but we plan on releasing short clips from the episodes every Thursday, to give you a sense of what these podcasts are like.

In this episode of the Equipped for Life Course Podcast, Tim, Rachel, and I begin a multi-part series on how to be an effective pro-life advocate on social media. We begin the series by talking about some of the obstacles that often prevent good dialogue from happening on social media, like image management.

Download Audio MP3 | 00:05:35

In this clip, Tim introduces the idea of image management in public conversation online.

Click here to subscribe to the ERI podcast in iTunes.

Posted on

PODCAST: On Virtue-Signaling

by

Download Audio MP3 | 00:11:02

Right before we released the Equipped for Life Course, we realized that one of the videos seemed to include Virtue-Signaling. Since Virtue-Signaling is a negative thing, it was rather confusing that this particular instance seemed okay. Finally, after about a year and a half, I gained some clarity and wrote this post.

In this piece, I offer some distinctions between types of Virtue-Signaling with the hope that people will be able to distinguish the objectionable types from the acceptable types. I close with suggestions about how and when to accuse someone of Virtue-Signaling, all with the desired end of helping dialogue to be more productive between parties that disagree.

Related Links:

Click here to share the original article.

Click here to subscribe to the podcast in iTunes!

Subscribe to the Equipped for Life Podcast on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Subscribe to ERI’s other podcast on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

Posted on

COURSE PODCAST CLIP: Listener Mail: Freakonomics

by

Every other Wednesday we publish a new episode of the Equipped for Life Podcast, available to everyone who purchases our course, “Equipped for Life: A Fresh Approach to Conversations about Abortion.” Generally, these podcast episodes won’t be available to the general public, but we plan on releasing short clips from the episodes every Thursday, to give you a sense of what these podcasts are like.

In this episode of the Equipped for Life Course Podcast, Tim, Rachel, and I respond to questions on double-effect reasoning and how we would respond to someone who is pro-life for the wrong reasons. Afterwards, we talk about how to respond to the Freakonomics argument that abortion has resulted in a drop in crime rates, as well as a new technique I have been using when talking to utilitarians.

Download Audio MP3 | 00:07:52

In this clip, Tim talks about how pro-life advocates should respond if someone brings up the abortion section from the popular book Freakonomics.

Click here to subscribe to the ERI podcast in iTunes.

Posted on

PODCAST: Two Bad Pro-Life Responses to Bodily Rights Arguments

by

Download Audio MP3 | 00:05:11

Even before ERI officially began, Tim and I cared a lot about helping pro-life people to think well and take pro-choice arguments seriously. We don’t think every single pro-choice argument is a good argument (there are a lot of really bad arguments on both sides), but we won’t be persuasive unless we can recognize and take the stronger pro-choice arguments seriously. In this piece, I address two bad pro-life responses to some of the stronger pro-choice arguments.

Related Links:

Click here to share the original article.

Click here to subscribe to the podcast in iTunes!

Subscribe to the Equipped for Life Podcast on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Subscribe to ERI’s other podcast on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

Posted on

Stop Using “Trust Women” as an Abortion Trump Card

by

trust women

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes.

Imagine you were talking to someone about child abuse, and they said, “You know, I understand that you’re personally against it, but I think we should trust parents to make the right decisions for their families.” Would you feel like their comment about trust was a meaningful contribution to the discussion or a bizarre red herring?

When abortion-choice advocates speak about abortion they often say we need to trust women to make their own decisions. They say that abortion is an especially personal choice that we should trust women to make for themselves because they are the experts of their own lives.

trust women

trust women

This rhetoric is an unfair representation of the pro-life position because it implies that pro-life people do not trust women. It insinuates that people oppose legal abortion because they think women are inadequate and unable to make choices about their lives. This is a common and false accusation of pro-life people.

Pro-life people are not opposed to abortion because they distrust women. Implying that misogyny is influencing their position on abortion is a misleading sidestep of the real issue. Pro-life people think that a woman should be able to make her own decisions about which doctor she wants, what clothing she wears, her career, her education and many other choices which men have as well. There are some choices, however, which are dangerous or violent in some way. These choices deserve careful examination by the public to determine if they should be against the law. Examples of these choices would be drinking and driving, vandalism, or assault. The choice to kill people should clearly be against the law. Pro-lifers argue that human embryos are people, so you can’t kill them.