Rachel Maddow’s Pathetic Argument

If someone told you that they were against the act of stealing, what question would you ask them? If you were a Liberal, you’d ask: “Why do you think some people steal?” Then, when the person being asked the question stumbles—because maybe they’re not prepared, or are just a bit dim–you’d gloat in their inability to quickly articulate an answer. But does their inability to articulate an answer make their position against stealing any less relevant? Does it suddenly make the act of stealing morally acceptable? The obvious answer is “no,” but you’d be hard pressed to find a Liberal with that slant when it comes to abortion.

The ever affable and never obnoxiously condescending Rachel Maddow played a clip on her show in which a conservative politician was asked about his position on abortion. The clip was from a documentary played on Al Jazeera. State Rep. Jim Buchy of Ohio has made his position clear that he would like a United States in which all abortion is illegal, except in cases in which the mother’s life is at risk. Because the Network is Al Jazeera–equalled only by MSNBC in their Leftist ideals–the interviewer asks this poignant question: “What do you think makes a woman want to have an abortion?” Buchy bumbles around, muttering about possible economic reasons, etc. However, let’s just say his answer was far from articulate.

And? Well, the implication by Maddow is that since the legislator can’t articulate why a woman would want an abortion, his stance on the issue is irrelevant. However, just as I mentioned above with my theft analogy, the implication doesn’t hold water. Hypotheticals regarding the motives behind an act don’t make the nature of that act irrelevant. No matter the motive behind the act, the question remains: is the act itself moral, or is it not?

Liberal wannabe-intellectuals would have you believe that questions like the one asked by Al Jazeera make one nuanced and understanding. This is a form of selective attention. By slicing an argument into pieces, and cherry picking an easily destructible portion, Liberals try to shut you up. It’s intimidation. But the reality is that with their selective questions, they have not advanced their argument at all. It’s as if they’ve pretended to move their chess piece, but nothing has actually changed the board.

If ever you come across a Liberal who attempts to argue by peppering you with irrelevant questions—they all do this, by the way—don’t be intimidated. Take a stand, and call them out. Identify the fallacy, and you’ve won half the battle.