Daniel Maguire Backs Out of Campus Abortion Debate
When the College Republicans contemplated having a debate on abortion, they asked us for the name of “any faculty that is very strongly pro-choice who would be willing to participant in our event” we obviously thought of Dan Maguire, who is not merely pro-abortion, but incessantly and outspokenly so.
It speaks extremely well of the College Republicans that their first impulse was to have a debate, such that students could listen to both sides.
Margaret Gervase, of the College Republicans, lined up Maguire, and then sent him an e-mail to confirm the arrangements.
His demand that he will only debate a theologian is a bit odd, since the audience would consist mostly of Marquette students, few of whom would be theology majors. Rather, the debaters would have to make cogent arguments (theological or otherwise) that undergraduates would find compelling.
Is Maguire admitting that he’s not up to that?
His insistence that he will debate only theologians is odd, given that we, over the last couple of decades, have been on two panels with Maguire. One, in the 1990s, was on the death penalty. Two people (us included) debated on the pro-death penalty side, and Maguire (along with another faculty member) were on the anti-death penalty side.
Just a few years ago, we and Maguire were (with several other people) on a panel on health care. It was not explicitly a debate, but panelists were chosen based on opposing perspectives on government run-health care.
Maguire has no special expertise in criminal justice nor in health care, but he was willing to appear.
Adams is a gifted polemicist, and extremely popular with the students he teaches.
Are none of the pro-abortion liberals at Marquette willing to take him on? It seems we will find out.
Could it be that people who have lived too long in a left / liberal / politically correct cocoon (as most college faculty have) simply lack the self-confidence to mix it up with somebody who doesn’t buy the assumptions of their culture?
It speaks extremely well of the College Republicans that their first impulse was to have a debate, such that students could listen to both sides.
Margaret Gervase, of the College Republicans, lined up Maguire, and then sent him an e-mail to confirm the arrangements.
From: Gervase, MargaretBut Gervase got back the following response from Maguire:
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 1:20 PM
To: Maguire, Daniel
Subject: Debate
Hi Dr Maguire,
I just want to touch bases and make sure we’re on the same page for the debate on March 1st. It’s coming up fast and we are very excited to be hosting the event! Your opponent will be Dr. Mike Adams from the University of North Carolina-Wilmington. The debate will be a 20-20-10-10 format; each opponent will get twenty minutes to present their argument and ten minutes for a rebuttal followed by a question/answer wrap-up. Please let me know if you will need a room for preparation beforehand and I will see what I can do to get one adjacent to the ballrooms. Also let me know if you will be needing anything else! Thank you again for offering to do this, we really appreciate it and look forward to it!
Maggie Gervase
From: Maguire, DanielMaguire, in other words, has finked out.
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 1:43 PM
To: Gervase, Margaret
Subject: RE: Debate
Maggie,
I just looked up Dr. Mike Adams and found he is a psychology-criminology professor. I am a theologian presenting theological arguments. I would not try to debate Dr. Adams in psychology/criminology since it is not my field. Similarly he would not want to debate me in theology since he is not a theologians and could not argue a theological position with professional competence. We would be skew lines.
So when you find a theologian who wants to debate me, as was done at Notre Dame, get back in touch.
Dan Maguire
His demand that he will only debate a theologian is a bit odd, since the audience would consist mostly of Marquette students, few of whom would be theology majors. Rather, the debaters would have to make cogent arguments (theological or otherwise) that undergraduates would find compelling.
Is Maguire admitting that he’s not up to that?
His insistence that he will debate only theologians is odd, given that we, over the last couple of decades, have been on two panels with Maguire. One, in the 1990s, was on the death penalty. Two people (us included) debated on the pro-death penalty side, and Maguire (along with another faculty member) were on the anti-death penalty side.
Just a few years ago, we and Maguire were (with several other people) on a panel on health care. It was not explicitly a debate, but panelists were chosen based on opposing perspectives on government run-health care.
Maguire has no special expertise in criminal justice nor in health care, but he was willing to appear.
Adams is a gifted polemicist, and extremely popular with the students he teaches.
Are none of the pro-abortion liberals at Marquette willing to take him on? It seems we will find out.
Could it be that people who have lived too long in a left / liberal / politically correct cocoon (as most college faculty have) simply lack the self-confidence to mix it up with somebody who doesn’t buy the assumptions of their culture?
Labels: Abortion, College Republicans, Dan Maguire, Daniel Maguire, Debate, Marquette University
posted by John McAdams at 2:41 PM
1 Comments:
Here's my two cents. Catholics debating abortion from opposite scientific positions on when ensoulment "can" begin is predictable non progress...and a hockey game may break out in the audience if we could see an xray of everyone's emotions. Catholics love to argue and then call it a spiritual work of mercy. Debate is often simply the Catholic version of mixed martial arts. Why is it predictable and pointless? Because by now there should be a think tank at The Vatican working full time on this issue with both theologians and scientists present. Because there is no such think tank, we schlubs duke it out because of
frustration. Maybe Daniel realizes this.
John Paul II (I'm for the death penalty also) didn't even do research on deterrence when he and the catechism overrode Romans 13:4. He found an odd way around research. He implied that all governments could financially afford the isolated life sentences of a supermax prison.
And the entire magisterium and all theology profs bought that age all liberal trick because the last paragraph of the profession of faith makes them swear to affirm the non
infallible. We are the non researching Church....even when research is apposite to the issue which it is on the death penalty and on abortion. For three people debating when personhood could possibly begin, I give you links below to "Theological Studies". But even they are accomplishing bubkus because their debate should be happening in the Vatican as an ongoing think tank with advisory cache vis a vis the Pope. They debate the twinning dilemna: if all cell masses for the first two weeks of life can be teased into dividing into twins or quadruplets, how can a soul have been present since a soul fills all parts of a body as its substantial not accidental form and cannot divide (Aquinas):
Mark Johnson…against delayed personhood…
http://www.ts.mu.edu/content/56/56.4/56.4.7.pdf
Thomas Shannon…for delayed personhood
http://www.ts.mu.edu/content/57/57.4/57.4.8.pdf
jean porter….for delayed personhood…
http://www.ts.mu.edu/content/56/56.4/56.4.8.pdf
Post a Comment
<< Home