Last week, I debated a women’s studies professor at California State University San Marcos on the topic, “Should Abortion Be Illegal?” I’ve posted all seven parts of the debate below.
STR Place Podcasts
Truth and the Real World
Apologetics for a New Generation
Amb. Guide to Islam
STR Place Blog 
I fully noted that last little dig that Prof. Chadwick got in about the death of abortion providers and clinic bombings, which she erroneously described as “frequent”.
Dance around the issue and make sure you paint Pro-Lifers with a very broadstroke, seems the Prof’s strategy. Sad.
Classic debate technique and so fun to watch. While Alan systematically rolls Cecili with his well constructed arguments, her responses were scattered and akin to rolling around on the floor kicking and screaming “but it’s not fair.” Alan never says that making it illegal is a way to completely make women not have them. Cecili, you use the “education is power” argument and then quote the abortion rates in third world countries as the norm or what would be expected if we made abortion illegal in America again. Do you see the problem there? Also, libertarian views about business and taxes have nothing to do with imposing limits on women’s access to abortion as it is a moral issue. Sorry.
The Professor’s arguments are so easily rebuttable. Most of them are simply distractions.
i liked the way she contradicted herself by agreeing that the unborn are human beings, yet also part of their mothers’ bodies. She doesn’t mind spouting such nonsense even though Alan has already fully refuted it.
In Cecili’s first argument, she lays it all out plainly by saying “To say you are prolife is easy.”
SHe then goes on to imply that prolifers are just religious zealots who do not think critically. The only people to think critically are those who hold her views.
It is basically the “we are smart, you are dumb” ad-hominem that substitues for debate in much of those who fancy themselves critically-thinking, educated indviduals.