Yesterday, Jonah Goldberg defended his anti-abortion stance by explaining that his “uncertainty” about when life really begins has led him to err on the side of empowering the state to force women to bear children. Treating this opinion, which was stated in a political column in a major newspaper, as if it were an actual argument, our editor Ann explained why it was dumb.
Today, Jonah replies to his “confused” critics:
“Here's what I was trying to do: I was trying to show, not tell. The conventional wisdom is that being pro-life requires dogmatism and certainty. I don't think that's the case. At least not any more than being pro-choice requires dogmatism and certainty. Rather than analyze and dissect this point -- i.e. tell -- I thought it would be more honest to simply explain where I'm coming from, i.e. show.”
Isn't that precious? I guess this was another one of those “impressionistic, travelogue-esque pieces” that tend to be categorized as such by Jonah after they’ve been completely eviscerated by more serious writers who have actually taken time to study the issues. Friendly word of advice, Goldberg: Next time you come “explaining” in favor of laws which divest a woman of control of her own body, you’d better do a helluva lot better. --Matthew Duss