To: (address deleted)
Subject: A Debate Proposal from Mike S. Adams
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 21:31:49 -0400
Hi Neal: I hope this note finds you well. In light of your comments on the radio today I think the time is probably ripe for us to debate the issue of abortion in a public arena. I have no doubt that the event could draw considerable national press coverage. I think such an event would help us to clarify our own positions on our own terms. I am willing to debate you at the time of your choosing and in the venue of your choosing. Will you please consider debating me?
Mike S. Adams
Associate Professor, UNC-Wilmington
Neal, I have just been contacted by a student wishing to organize a debate on abortion at Colorado University in Boulder. Would you be interested in taking the pro-abortion choice position against my defense of the pro-life position? We are planning to ask the SGA president to moderate the debate. I think you would have a serious home field advantage in Boulder. I hope you will please give serious consideration to the proposed debate. I think it would make for good theater and good intellectual food for thought. I am counting on you to provide the theater - not to mention significant advertisement on your nationally syndicated radio program. I know you do not debate abortion on your show. But I am hoping to draw you out of the realm of soliloquy and into the realm of debate. What do you say? I am eager and willing to debate you anywhere.
Mike S. Adams
I am not pro-abortion.
I am pro-choice.
I do not "hate" anti-choice women as you have charged.
I am not interested in debating the subject with you or anyone else.
Neal: Thanks for your reply. We could change the title of the event to match your objections to my wording. In your portion of the debate you could try to explain precisely how someone could remain neutral on such a polarizing topic. I could try to explain how that is not possible. I could also explain why I believe your characterization of me - and Mrs. Bachmann and Mrs. Palin - as "anti-choice" is simply unfair. Will you please reconsider?
It is my understanding that (just the other day) you referred to me as someone wanting to "control women's bodies." This was on your show in front of millions of people. I simply want to give you an opportunity to elaborate by explaining this in my presence in a debate format. That way, I could respond with a two-fold argument, which is both medically and legally-based. You might not agree but you would be challenged to think differently.
Neal, you have the courage to make very bold claims on your show. I know you are a decent man who has the courage to defend your claims in a setting you do not control - one controlled by a neutral moderator.
Please debate me, Neal. At least please reconsider. You will gain an immeasurable degree of respect from many if you should take the challenge.
Neal, I am quite disappointed in your non-response. In your previous email you stated "I am not pro-abortion. I am pro-choice." That response indicates that you are defending a choice that is immoral. Were abortion not somehow immoral there would be no reason for you to assert that you are "not pro-abortion." I think this reveals a fundamental flaw in your thinking. All legislation involves the imposition of morality. So the fundamental legislative question is not "Is it free?" The question is always: "Is it good?" Abortion is not good. You seem to understand that it is not good without really understanding why it is not good. This is just another reason why we need to debate.
don't know how I can make this any more clear.
There will be no debate. I do not debate the issue of abortion ... WITH ANYONE ... let alone with someone who says that I "hate pro-life women."
I do not think our conversation on this issue needs to go any further.
I wish you the best.
Neal, I disagree. I think our conversation on this issue must go further - for two reasons. First, you referred to me as a "theocrat" in one of your recent Twitter posts. I believe our conversation needs to continue with your response to the following questions:
1. What is your definition of a theocracy?, and
2. How would my position on abortion or any other specific issue produce a theocracy in America?
I will address the second issue after you have had a chance to answer my questions.
Neal, in light of your non-response I believe it has now become necessary for me to retract a statement I made about you via Twitter. My characterization of you as one who despises pro-life women must be revised. I do so not because it was a lie. I do so because it was a half-truth. The whole truth is that you also despise pro-life men. What other explanation can there be for your repeated and angry ad hominem attacks upon those of us who oppose abortion?
You were given an opportunity to explain your characterization of me as a “theocrat” but you declined. You were given a chance to debate me at a major university but you declined.
In the future, every time you use your show and your Twitter account to call me names you do not seem to understand, I think it would be reasonable for you to expect two things:
1. I will contact you directly to request a definition of the epithet, and
2. I will challenge you to a debate on the merits of the issue that inspired the epithet.
I hope that sounds reasonable. And I hope that you will begin to fulfill your God-given potential as a public commentator. You have the ability to be a Mark Levin. But, at some point, you are going to have to stop behaving like Don Imus.
I am not expecting a response to this email. Therefore, the organizers of the debate in Boulder will be contacting you shortly. I hope you will reconsider.
…To be continued.