Shared Sacrifice podcast shout-out

I got a shout-out on the February 5 episode of the Shared Sacrifice podcast. Much of the content of the podcast is drawn from a blog post Matt made last summer after the murder of George Tiller. He also referred to my first Shared Sacrifice article from last year, “A Primer on Pro-Life Progressivism”. Matt’s a self-identified pro-choicer, but he sees a lot of common ground with progressive pro-lifers and considers us to be vital to the future of the abortion debate:

“The only reasonable ground to have a debate about abortion is a progressive ground, where both those who are ardently in favor of reproductive rights and those who are concerned about the status of the unborn can come together and help — together — build a world that is truly, and universally, pro-life.”

Thanks, Matt!

4 thoughts on “Shared Sacrifice podcast shout-out

  1. Oops – didn’t see the underlining under “February 5 episode”. (Sorry. The yellow dotted lines are often extremely hard to see on my computer.)

    I read the June 07, 2009 ‘The Underview’ and I just finished listened to the Blog Talk Radio recording. Were there no callers, or are they cut out to minimize file size or something?

    I have to say that the speaker seems like an earnest (and probably very nice fellow), but there are generous portions of nonsense in the monologue he served up. (Too much to address here.)

    I reread the A PRIMER ON PRO-LIFE PROGRESSIVISM and THE FALLACY OF JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE too. For what it’s worth (p’haps very little) the statement, “Views on the legality of abortion vary among progressive pro-lifers,” strikes me as very problematic unless one assumes that ‘prolife’ means something very different when it is preceded by ‘progressive’ than it does when it’s not. Also, regarding the latter, I’m concerned about the maintaining a distinction between two different questions:

    -Can justifiable homocide be accepted as a legal defense for murdering abortionists?

    -Would an ethical system which gave a moral justification to the murder of abortionists necessarily be contradictory or inconsistent?

  2. PS: Just to clarify- I could never endorse killing people for performing abortions. I don’t endorse killing people who are found guilty of committing murder even when the killing is conducted by the state (and called ‘execution’). Still, even though I don’t hold such views, I believe that there are ethical views which can permit capital punishment, or abortion, or infanticide, or killing abortionists without being contradictory or inconsistent.

    Request for clarification- Do you think that ‘prolife’ means something different than ‘right to life’? Is that why you said, “Views on the legality of abortion vary”? What is the difference between ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’?

Comments are closed.