My “Pro-Life” v. Pro-Life Op-Ed

Posted by: John Culhane on Monday, March 22nd, 2010

It was published today, a day later than expected. Here’s the link.

Topics: abortion

5 Responses to “My “Pro-Life” v. Pro-Life Op-Ed”

nccguy Says:
March 25th, 2010 at 3:15 pm

My, Professor, what a well rounded list of categories you’ve blogged upon. The reasons for your underlying assumptions about conservatives and their agendas are now clear, as is your blanket acceptance/assertion of them. I assume that they form the basis of the agenda you were trying to further with your letter.
I’m no longer a Republican, and I never was a “right-to-life”er. One thing I detest more than abortion is telling another how to live his/her life. The reason I came at your letter, and the others, is the impression I’ve gotten of a narrow, monolithic tone of extreme liberalism all the recent letters from WU faculty have had. Like I’ve said, I would expect less indoctrination and more disinterest from a professional educator. This includes the really denigrating and uninformed sweeping assumptions you make about an ideology you don’t don’t seem to even understand (marketing? really?). You are free to disagree with me all day – in fact, I welcome it because it keeps me sharp – but don’t assume I’m stupid or disparage my values and principles. The condescension is revolting. And I meant what I said about Goebbels and propaganda. Try developing your arguments in a way that doesn’t belittle the intellect of your audience. It makes you look weak, and it really distracts from any substance your arguments might have.

John Culhane Says:
March 25th, 2010 at 3:39 pm

It seems that my comment about “marketing” has really offended you, and may be responsible for the very condescension you accuse me of: (”My, Professor….”)
I knew when I wrote the piece that my comment about marketing would be offensive to some, and it’s certainly true that there are those who oppose abortion for principled moral reasons. But labels matter, and both “pro-life” and “pro-choice” (there! fair and balanced!) are, in addition to whatever else they are, ways to advocate (or sell) one’s position. I was talking about the “pro-life” phrase and not about the deeper philosophical objections.

As to the first three sentences, I can’t respond without specifics. I think you’d find that if you read a number of the posts, you’d find that I don’t always take the doctrinally liberal position. Mostly, though, I am quite liberal. But I try to support my arguments with sound logic and reasoning, just as conservatives do. I think you assume that anyone who is liberal is incapable of defending their position.

One more thing: Yes, the tone can at times be snarky. That’s the fun of a blog. It doesn’t mean that the underlying arguments aren’t sound. And I do welcome constructively critical comments, of which I have received many.

John Culhane Says:
March 25th, 2010 at 3:43 pm

One more thing: Your comments over at Delawareonline bespeak the worst kind of condescension to other commenters (and not just me). No one “assumes you’re stupid,” but there is actual evidence that you’re not very respectful of others’ intellects or arguments. If you find such Delawareonline to host such drivel, why do you continue to read it?

nccguy Says:
March 25th, 2010 at 4:18 pm

I am always respectful of a well-developed argument based on sound assumptions and using objective,verifiable evidence and logical reasoning to arrive at a supportable conclusion. There are two or three commenters there that have disgusted me with pseudo-intellectual condescending self-righteous crap and I refuse to give them a break. You’ve seen who they are. I give it right back, thoughtfully or not. (Blame my dad – “never hit first, always hit last.” It’s why I’m so confrontational, I guess.) I don’t mind a liberal, but a Pharisee makes me crazy.
As an educator, do you base your curriculum on such weak foundations as your letter? If so, you’re doing your students a disservice, because they will find a disconnect after graduation which may cause them to question much of what they’ve learned from you.
And when you use propaganda tactics to make an argument, it’s either assuming your audience is stupid or else it’s just lazy.

John Culhane Says:
March 25th, 2010 at 6:54 pm

I’ve seen little evidence of any respect in any of your postings, here or at Delawareonline.
Since you claim to be evidence-based, here’s some for you: Not only have my students evaluated me very well during my entire 20+ years of teaching (and rewarded me with two Outstanding Faculty awards), but I’ve also received an Outstanding Faculty award from alumni, whose charge in selecting the recipient is to pick that professor whose education they came in retrospect to see as valuable.
I’m not going to discuss my letter further except to say that there are some assumptions and givens one must take as starting points for any arguments. I thought that mine were fairly well accepted, but you’re of course free to disagree. And there are limits to how well one can develop an argument in a 600-word limited op-ed. For the record, I’ve had many positive comments to the piece. But I suppose you’d say they’re all drinking the Kool-Aid.

 

Leave a Comment

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree