@KevinNR hold my beer while I get a lawn chair to watch this @espinsegall
— (((I Can't Even))) (@szysgt) October 5, 2016
This afternoon, Kevin D. Williamson posted a fantastic piece at National Review calling out Tim Kaine for his craven, shameful statements on abortion at last night’s vice presidential debate:
Some thoughts on the cowardice and stupidity of @timkaine. https://t.co/BrRveX648h
— Kevin D. Williamson (@KevinNR) October 5, 2016
Williamson writes:
Intellectually, Tim Kaine’s argument about abortion is incoherent and indefensible; it is, in fact, illiterate. He argues that while his own Catholic devotion points him in a pro-life direction, the fact that we are a pluralistic society with a constitutional guarantee of religious freedom precludes him from supporting initiatives that would enshrine certain Catholic preferences in law.
…
On the subject of abortion, Tim Kaine is a mess intellectually and a coward morally. That some people find his argument persuasive is only another sign of how attenuated we have become, nationally, in our facility for reasoned argument. The facts of abortion are the facts of abortion, irrespective of what any pope, president, governor, senator, or mere justice of the Supreme Court says.
Being a Catholic is one reason to oppose abortion. Being a human being is another. Tim Kaine, a cheap and shallow sophist, isn’t a particularly inspiring example of either.
Williamson’s take has garnered accolades from members of the pro-life community:
@KevinNR This is so good. @timkaine
— Kimberly Ross (@SouthernKeeks) October 5, 2016
This, from @KevinNR, is superb. https://t.co/8tJz6nz0zT
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) October 5, 2016
This must-read piece on "Catholic" @timkaine perfectly articulates what it means to be pro-life @KevinNR @NRO https://t.co/bTir6ow98b
— Alexandra DeSanctis (@xan_desanctis) October 5, 2016
Excellent piece by @kevinNR – "On the subject of abortion, Tim Kaine is a mess intellectually and a coward morally"https://t.co/jG0PhmmR7V
— Greg Tomlin (@TomlinMedia) October 5, 2016
But it seems to have irked Georgia State law prof Eric Segall. So Segall decided he’d take Williamson to school.
Let’s just say it didn’t work out as well as Segall had probably hoped.
Your view on non-viable fetuses and babies is so thin. You equate the two but science, law and morality do not. https://t.co/p4IRCWSk7c
— Eric Segall (@espinsegall) October 5, 2016
Enthrall me with your acumen, professor. https://t.co/tzp9bXkHhx
— Kevin D. Williamson (@KevinNR) October 5, 2016
Have you got your popcorn handy?
dis gon be a good fight https://t.co/M50DxZ5EUQ
— Shoshana Weissmann (@senatorshoshana) October 5, 2016
GP Aw, hellz yeah. It's on! https://t.co/0aRElNRRqf
— The Gormogons (@Gormogons) October 5, 2016
Oh yes:
I just did. https://t.co/0n3Ms6zI5p
— Eric Segall (@espinsegall) October 5, 2016
I must have missed it. https://t.co/YT3zaF7AGX
— Kevin D. Williamson (@KevinNR) October 5, 2016
You write as if whole world accepts fetuses are babies. It doesn't, and for good reasons, moral and scientific. https://t.co/0n3Ms6zI5p
— Eric Segall (@espinsegall) October 5, 2016
I've never suggested that superstition cannot be popular; a significant majority of Americans believe in horoscopes, after all. https://t.co/fbouzvMOGG
— Kevin D. Williamson (@KevinNR) October 5, 2016
A fetus has only some of the characteristics of a viable baby. To prove they are the same and should be treated the same requires argument. https://t.co/l1mg0bTXFY
— Eric Segall (@espinsegall) October 5, 2016
A fetus is a living human organism. You assert the moral weight of "viability" without establishing it, for reasons that are obvious. https://t.co/HzfnHbv45r
— Kevin D. Williamson (@KevinNR) October 5, 2016
@Char1ie65 @espinsegall Well Eric, as the 2 of debate definition of human, I AM a human entitled to my Freedom & Rights as an American.
— AJS (@andreajsmith1) October 5, 2016
Yes I totally agree. And you'd think someone as freedom loving as @KevinNR would be more sympathetic to that fact. https://t.co/doVl5RDxMy
— Eric Segall (@espinsegall) October 5, 2016
I am sympathetic to arguments for liberty. I am not sympathetic to this embarrassingly sophomore nonsense. https://t.co/Na3kcNodfv
— Kevin D. Williamson (@KevinNR) October 5, 2016
Nice. No matter, I'm off to teach students how the regulation of home grown wheat is commerce among the states. https://t.co/tpaAjXxsux
— Eric Segall (@espinsegall) October 5, 2016
Speaking of superstitions . . . https://t.co/BM8VQR9Fha
— Kevin D. Williamson (@KevinNR) October 5, 2016
We might find common ground there were it not for your name calling and insults. https://t.co/Hth3AvSx0q
— Eric Segall (@espinsegall) October 5, 2016
You're making shallow points that have been asked and answered for 40 years. If you don't want to be called sophomoric, don't be that. https://t.co/tW7w2HhKie
— Kevin D. Williamson (@KevinNR) October 5, 2016
You've come a long way since your last name calling tweet. https://t.co/LmuWwkrDvL
— Eric Segall (@espinsegall) October 5, 2016
Why don't you provide link to persuasive account of why rights of non-viable fetuses trump women's rights. I'll check back in 3 hours. https://t.co/LmuWwkrDvL
— Eric Segall (@espinsegall) October 5, 2016
Question-begging, second offense. https://t.co/vxCDdYYQLV
— Kevin D. Williamson (@KevinNR) October 5, 2016
So, what will Segall’s third offense be? Stay tuned. It’s sure to be a doozy.
In the meantime, while you wait, do yourself a favor and read Williamson’s entire piece. And be sure check out his Twitter feed, as well, for his further powerful defense of the unborn.
