The reasoned case against abortion: Dennis Prager on the value of the unborn


Do you need to be a creepy Evangelical Christian to be against abortion? Are you a woman-hater if you believe abortion should be illegal? If you disagree with unlimited legal abortions, are you simply a square?

Thankfully, the stereotypes of the pro-life movement are being wiped away. Hollywood has given us Knocked Up and Juno, showing us that cool people can come to understand that abortion is a disgusting option and that abortion clinics are houses of horror. Talk Radio has given us Dennis Prager, a Southern California secular-religious Jew who has entertained millions for over 20 years on the air, and who today provided pro-life arguments that are based not on religion or emotion, but on pure logic and reason.

If, like most Canadians, and most liberal Jews, you are knee-jerk pro-choice, but are open-minded to different points of view, take 34 minutes of your time to listen to this highly entertaining podcast from today’s show: “The Value of the Unborn.”

Listen to The Dennis Prager Show, February 12, 2008, Hour #3, “The Value of the Unborn”. (click on link for pop-up player from



Filed under Abortion Unlimited, Pop-Culture Conservatism

10 responses to “The reasoned case against abortion: Dennis Prager on the value of the unborn

  1. TnT

    “If, like most Canadians, and most liberal Jews, you are knee-jerk pro-choice, but are open-minded to different points of view”

    I’m sorry, but what the hell is that? The majority is ‘knee jerk” and not open to different points of view?

    I have said this before in another thread you closed. You are the one who should be open to different points of view. You feel others, should be bound to YOUR beliefs.

    I may be open to his ideas, (or not) and would likely personally not choose abortion. But that does not mean I will force other people (the majority!) to adhere to my beliefs. Which is something you fail to understand.

    So pardon me if I scoff at your ‘open to different points of view’ after listening to you suggest people should be forced to your, ‘point of view’.

  2. I would be interested in hearing your perspective on this 34 minutes of radio. No one is forcing you to listen, but if it’s an issue that you feel so passionately about, and if you insist on commenting negatively on almost every single post here, I don’t think it’s too much to ask that you listen.

    Yes, the majority is knee-jerk “pro-choice”. I was, too, up until about 5 years ago.

  3. Good post as always, glad to see you back and hope all is well for you and yours.

  4. TnT

    I did have a listen, and made some notes. When I have more time than to write a 2 minute comment, I’ll tell you what I thought.

  5. TnT

    well. That was a, boring 34 minutes. I had hoped that there would something I could hang my hat on here, whether I agreed or disagreed, but honestly Flaggman, there wasn’t much substance here, beyond someone pontificating about the fact that we call it a baby, not a fetus when we talk about it. Is this the smoking gun we should base our final decision upon? Because really, what else was there in this entire 34 minutes? It was a very disjointed display of someone’s version of morality, peppered with a couple hand chosen examples, of someone apparently forced to make wrong decisions.

    Well let’s take a look.

    He took great pains throughout the discussion, to make sure the discussion of the legality was off limits here. Wise choice on his part likely. Because all he wanted to do, really, was try to convince you that -his- version of morality was correct. Then he trotted out a few example, a couple women confused about guilt, one nearly sobbing to tug at our heart strings, “I’ll never have children because I can’t forgive myself for KILLING my babies” I think she said. Holy geez. All that was missing here was a guest priest to give absolution or something to complete the emotional display.

    Now far be it from me to minimize another’s heartache. But not to sound callous here, but it -was- their choice to choose abortion! This point seems to escape mr. Prager as somehow it is the pro choice supporters fault they chose abortion. Well life could be a lot easier if we blamed all of what we regret on someone else. So this whole emotional display of “I won’t have kids because I feel bad I killed my child” is really removing the credibility of a solid argument that Prager might have had.

    Prager mentions a number of times, that abortion should not be compared to removing a wisdom tooth. He takes great pleasure in reducing the discussion down to this level, referring to his earlier confusions of pro choice as being from his wild free college days, like you flaggman funny enough! The fact is, I, a pro choice supporter, don’t see abortion as ‘removing a wisdom tooth’, and I never have. I don’t think many pro choice supporters that I know, do either! Now, in the other thread that you killed, there was someone who showed up and compared removing a fetus to removing a cancer. I don’t know who that person was, maybe a pro lifer trying to make pro choice look bad, because when I saw that, it smelled to high heaven because NO ONE, I know would be so callous, as to compare abortion to removing a cancer. I disagree and would NEVER use that comparison. I may be a wild college days confused liberal heathen, but I at least have some respect. I have seen pro lifers TOO MANY times try to tell me pro choice supporters compare it to cancer. Stop this crap now. It simply, is not true.

    I don’t think abortion is ‘no big deal’, and it shouldn’t be taken as such. One of the things I started to get to in the last thread before my words started to get twisted and I was asked if it was ok if my mommy aborted me, was that I don’t think abortions should be totally unlimited. Now Prager has a guy on the line, and uses to great advantage the callers confusion by interrogating the guy as to medically what point should abortion not be allowed. Well how the hell would he know? Is he an educated doctor? At best he may give a vague layman’s opinion. And that’s all I can give you too. I do think, with the limited knowledge I have (feel free to rip that up and use to your advantage like Prager did…) is that I do believe there should be a point where abortion options, become limited. Somehow, to me, aborting at say 8 months, is very different from aborting at 3 months. Now go ahead and see that as conflicting, but that is how I see it. I cannot tell you, with an educated insight, what point the limitations should be, and what criteria abortions would be allowed under past that point. And this is my opinion.

    So no, as a pro choice supporter, I, and anyone I know who supports pro choice, do not take abortion lightly. And I think that if the current climate allows it to be taken lightly, then perhaps 2 sides can work together somewhat to change things so that all beliefs are respected. But when one minority believes one thing and will not stop until it gets it’s way, we will have problems. Big problems. And lastly, to dismiss one’s position of pro choice as ‘knee jerk’, is absurd, and shows me you are reaching for something, anything to add to an attempt to discredit. There isn’t anything ‘knee jerk’ about my position. I will say that despite my beliefs, I don’t for one minute think that your beliefs to not choose abortion is knee jerk, and of course I respect it.

  6. TnT’s immediate subjective undermining of the entire presentation (“boring”, “not much substance”) is pure childishness, reminding me once again to stop indulging the trolls.

    I’ve already been over this territory with TnT before, and I’m not interested in a point-by-point discussion of his demagoguery. But I’ll leave it at this: you don’t need to be a medical professional to determine when life begins, and what value a human fetus holds. No need to defer to “experts” when your own brain is capable of simple elementary logic!

    Also, TnT: you’d earn respect by offering actual solutions and insight to an issue, instead of just coming out against everything. Read yourself, there’s never a single positive statement out of you. (Except your kind wishes on the birth of my son, I did appreciate that common decency.)

  7. TnT

    well Neil there was far more to it than simply boring, and not much substance, my, there was several paragraphs I took the time to write after listening to it (twice!).

    Now I took the time to listen to your side of the issue, and wrote honestly what I thought. On the positive side, if you read what I wrote, I agreed there needed to be some limits, and I admitted that I didn’t know what would be effective limits. I figured you would jump on that, as did Prager in that phone interview, but I thought I would chance some honesty. I also said I respected the fact you don’t believe in abortion.

    I do believe my opinions can be an insight, but the fact that you are close minded and willing to consider anything against your opinion as ‘knee jerk’ and ‘negative’, well that I can’t so much about.

    Well so much for trying to discuss.

    Now before you get excited, I see you posted not long ago, it was coincidence I got back on the computer I couldn’t sleep this evening.

  8. MA


    Here are a couple of links I’d be interested to see how you respond to. The guy who wrote these is so feared by NARAL and PPF in the U.S. that those organizations have apparently banned their staff from debating him at universities and on TV. — here’s the pro-life case in 5 minutes or less 🙂 — and here’s something that should interest you (and others) because you’ve been using some of these “Five Bad Ways to Argue About Abortion” quite a bit on this blog.

  9. TnT

    thanks for the links. I respect the beliefs of those who are against abortion, I just don’t agree. Everyone has good reasons for believing what they believe it seems. As much as something seemingly is such good logic to you, isn’t to another. That’s the way it is, however some cannot accept this. I also think it’s useless to bring a conversation down to one of a war of ‘tactics’. I don’t use ‘tactics’, certainly not consciously. I am not a professional debater, I don’t study techniques for undermining the opponents, I say what I believe, it’s really no more insidious than that…

    I am not close minded enough to not read links to pro life points and consider them, I took the time to listen to the radio show twice. I guess I was a bit disappointed, you link to the pro life position in 5 minutes or less was far better than that! Until now I hadn’t given much thought to limits on abortion, but now I think there should be. Perhaps that can be counted as a victory, for whichever side I guess.

    I do think it’s unfortunate for some to try and enforce their beliefs on me, and expect me to accept the prattling of Prager as the thing that will completely change my beliefs. Well sorry about that. (the Canadian in me…) I’m sure what Prager says makes sense to some people, but the carefully selected phone calls etc., took away from some of his earlier comments.

    Finally, I suppose, another tactic could be to call me a ‘stalker’, and a ‘troll’. I guess that makes me the big bad heathen, so I guess I should just let it go at that.


  10. Appreciating the time and energy you put into your blog and detailed information you present.
    It’s good to come across a blog every once in a while that isn’t the same old rehashed material.

    Wonderful read! I’ve bookmarked your site and I’m adding your
    RSS feeds to my Google account.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s