Point — Abortion rights group antics ridiculous
Editor’s note: Tucker Cross and Jerod Coker co-authored this column.
We would like to begin this article by prefacing our own ideological backgrounds: Jerod could be safely described as a secular liberal, and Tucker as a Christian, anti-abortion Libertarian. Naturally, these differences cause us to disagree on many policies. One thing we do agree on, however, is that the antics of the abortion rights crowd while Justice for All was on campus Monday and Tuesday were ludicrous.
Admittedly, Justice for All’s displays were gruesome and showy. However, the people associated with the group were approachable and friendly. Jerod talked with a couple of them and had meaningful, rational conversations about the ethics of abortion.
There was no religious fundamentalism from them; no screaming or demonizing; no preaching; no threats of hell or even Bible quotes.
Instead, there were approachable people who asked onlookers’ opinions, explained their beliefs and rationale, and were overall quite genial.
Jerod tried to talk to these people, but there was a throng of abortion rights people waving signs, yelling and blasting annoying party horns. One girl screamed repeatedly, “God hates women!”
The juxtaposition of these two groups was shocking. The people with the giant pictures of aborted fetuses were actually rational and open-minded; the students (and Jerod’s fellow liberals) were obnoxious and overbearing.
It would have been much better, and more indicative of a college campus (which is supposed to encourage and support open discussion), if both groups could have been rational and approachable. Unfortunately, this was not the case.
Tucker had an interesting epiphany concerning the abortion rights people as well. His fiancé told him this morning that she had woken up to discover a new set of Facebook messages titled “WGSSA Meeting: The Abortion Crazies Are Coming, Y’all.” Apparently the members of the Women and Gender Studies Student Association had agreed to protest the “Abortion Crazies” for some time.
Tucker checked out their event online. On the event webpage there were comments like “Kazoos are a go!” and “CONCH SHELLS FOR CHOICE!” On the description of the event, it warns: “Don’t let extremists like Justice for All be the dominant voice.”
Extremists? Dominant voice? So the quiet and friendly Justice For All people who are trained to handle people gracefully and discuss the issue in a calm and civil manner are extremists?
How can a bunch of kazoo wielding, obnoxious college students who yield inflammatory signs, pass out condoms, and yell ridiculous statements really make such a claim with a straight face? The abortion rights protestors really shot themselves in the foot this time.
And what does this mean for students who wish to pursue a degree in Women’s and Gender Studies at OU?
The WGSSA is obviously affiliated with the Women and Genders Studies department.
It seems like the WGSSA is only enforcing the stereotype of Women and Gender Studies majors being conformed to a feminist abortion rights agenda.
Despite our fundamental ideological differences, we both agree that the WGSSA could have handled themselves better. If their goal was to show the campus how “extreme” the Justice For All people were, they failed miserably.
The WGSSA needs to grow up and actually face this issue like adults.
— Tucker Cross, letters senior
— Jerod Coker, journalism senior
Counterpoint — Justice For All display misleading
“Warning: Graphic Photos Ahead,” reads a sign on the South Oval’s edge.
It’d be funny if it weren’t true. Most students have to cross the South Oval in order to reach their classes, so this “warning” is little more than a snarky expression of phony concern.
Then I see the real affront. A large structure slathered in anti-abortion propaganda: photos of dismembered fetuses and phrases like “What is genocide?” blown up to huge proportions, perhaps to symbolize the immense guilt the erectors want observers to feel.
The photos were disgusting and offended my sensibilities. This will surely please the Justice For All volunteers, as I’m sure that was the intended effect.
However, I doubt they’ll be pleased to know their presentation didn’t sway my opinion on abortion at all, and I ate dinner that night uninhibited.
I’m not upset because the views presented on the South Oval conflict with my own. I’m upset because they were perfectly aligned with the negative distortions of the anti-abortion movement and used inappropriate methods to spread the message.
Most obvious was the reliance on violent imagery. To my knowledge, nobody disputes that aborted babies are revolting, and that isn’t what the debate concerns. Like other anti-abortion organizations, Justice For All likes to use shock tactics as if they are an acceptable response to opponents’ arguments. They aren’t.
Instead, the obsession with child gore is alienating and keeps people away from the issue.
Many anti-abortion advocates I know are calm, levelheaded people, as were most of the volunteers. Unfortunately, the exhibit endorses another perspective; that they rely purely on dumb emotion. Why is a considerate, non-confrontational display so undesirable to a movement that wants to be taken seriously? Their attempt to alter moral values with gruesome images is too similar to “A Clockwork Orange” for my comfort.
The exhibit was also fond of demonizing those who have abortions, regardless of motive.
Justice For All implies that rape victims seek abortion because they “hate” the baby, and glosses over reasons why unplanned pregnancy might be inconvenient. It even goes as far as to make a suspiciously religious insinuation in the leaflet: “A decision to be sexually active outside of marriage may result in the death of a child.”
Interview women who’ve undergone the procedure and you’ll see it’s unfair to judge such a diverse group. There’s an appropriate way to argue the immorality of abortion, but it doesn’t require bashing victims or suggesting Puritanical values. The literature should’ve put more focus on birth control, at least.
The final observation is the worst for being a blatant lie. There’s no getting around it: there is a strong scientific consensus that induced abortion does not increase the chances of getting breast cancer.
The abortion-breast cancer hypothesis is a resilient myth, presumably kept alive by the anti-abortion movement. Whoever included that falsehood in the exhibit should be ashamed of themselves. While we won’t agree on the morality of abortion, surely we can agree that women should walk into it — or in this case, walk away — with minds unclouded by misinformation.
While no other health effects given by the presentation were so completely false, the exhibit did seem to have an odd fixation with the 1990s. In the exhibit, I could only find one citation on health risks made in the last decade, in which abortion has seen improvements in technique and health protection.
I’m not unsympathetic to the anti-abortion cause — I was anti-abortion myself for some time before discovering there were more than two sides I could take. But it’s painfully apparent that while the volunteers Monday and Tuesday might have been nice, the content wasn’t.
The exhibit on the South Oval embodied many characteristics the anti-abortion movement must shed: its fascination with violent photos, judgment of abortion-seekers, distaste for safe sex and the spread of misinformation. It has a long way to go before it truly lives up to its own ethical standards.
— Steven Zoeller, University College freshman
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
toastergirl 1 year, 6 months ago
The Womens studies group looked, as mentioned above, ridiculous. They stereotyped themselves and brought more attention to the display they were hopeing people would ignore. They failed miserably in being rational and instead looked crazy.
eightbitgirl 1 year, 6 months ago
You know what's offensive? Having people from JFA come up to you and ask you, while pretending to be an OU student, what your views on abortion are, if you've ever been pregnant, and why you think it's okay to "kill a child." Then, when you patiently explain your position, they still rocket launch such gems as, "would you kill a toddler? do you believe in God? why don't men have a choice in keeping their child?" even AFTER you've explained your personal views.
You think the pro-choice activists looked ridiculous. Let me ask, then, what's the difference between an eighty-foot fake "aborted fetus" picture and people blowing kazoos to get attention? They both have the same effect (attention-wise,) and I'm willing to bet from personal experience that if you actually went up and talked to the people who were tabling with the WGSSA students, they'd have given you rational, level-headed responses.
I'm all for free speech and I get that they're like Westboro in that if you try to prevent JFA from showing up on campus, they sue the life out of you. What I don't get is how anyone finds it okay to have triggering images like that in public, where they can honestly drive someone to tears. I watched it myself. The images they portray are graphic, borderline obscene, and dangerously untrue.
Yeah, some of it got a little silly, but it looked like they were having fun and nobody's going to change anyone's mind. WGSSA was there to provide information, and if you're seriously dogging them for passing out condoms of all things, you've entirely missed the point.
jezbollah 1 year, 6 months ago
Tucker is a Christian, anti-abortion Libertarian? Do those words even go together? Tucker please review the Libertarian Party 2010 Platform Adopted in Convention, May 2010, St. Louis, Missouri at http://www.lp.org/platform and triple check yourself. You may not be a Libertarian after all.
mustafa 1 year, 6 months ago
There is a simple point being missed . If we can be philosophical about destroying unborn humans why should we care about any living animal? There is a cable station devoted to showing horrible images of mangled dogs and dismembered whales gushing blood.
“Their attempt to alter moral values with gruesome images is too similar to “A Clockwork Orange” for my comfort.”
I would say it is more similar to the anti-fur people using gory images of baby seals being club to death. Such images were got extensive play on programs like 60 minutes and Nova, and made the covers of national magazines.
Perhaps the reason they were asking students to ponder the meaning of genocide is because groups like PETA want students to consider the harvesting of chickens and cattle as genocide.
Let us not forget that the pro-abortion crowd tells women that the un-born child is just an un-viable tissue mass, and definitely not a baby. They scruple-lessly prohibit even mentioning the word “baby.” They demand that abortion protesters be kept out of ear-shot from the entrances of abortion clinics, not because they threaten physical damage but because they say words like “Please don’t kill your baby.” The pro abortion types, like those in Women’s Studies put a lot effort into deluding women into temporally believing there is no harm in abortion. It is a fragile state which in most cases can’t be maintained in the presence of contradictory rhetoric, let alone images.
The pro-abortion Nazis disrupt such events for one reason only, because the imagery and rhetoric is very effective.
Students who wish to express their opposition to abortion should do so being unabashedly insensitive to the “plight” of animals, wearing fur, eating meat, and rooting for the Japanese on Whale wars.
kdbp1213 1 year, 6 months ago
"Instead, the obsession with child gore is alienating and keeps people away from the issue." This quote is from Zoeller's essay. His comment made me think: maybe child gore would make a woman have second thoughts about having an abortion? Maybe the unwanted child would be put up for adoption rather than aborted.
I agree: sexual education needs to be the focus at a young age; maybe as young as 12 or 13 y.o. Inform kids/adults of the outcome of intercourse. I've always believed that we must live the outcome of our life's decisions. Educate yourself.
If you are emotionally, intellectually, & physically able to have sex, are you emotionally, intellectually, and physically able to have & rear the child that might be an outcome of your sexual act. If you're unable to handle raising a child, then don't take the chance of making a child...........
Parenthood is a life-long job. You up for a life-long job no matter when you become a parent? Are brief moments of physical passion worth a life-long job?
thedelphicbee 1 year, 6 months ago
Just wanted to say that they were "approachable and friendly" because they were pretending to NOT be affiliated with Justice for All, one of the things they are trained to do. Also they weren't trying to hear peoples opinions, they were using the Socratic method, another thing they are trained to do. Also, a lot of them were bringing religion into it.
The counter-protesters were making loud noises to try and get attention away from the exhibit and get people to come to their tables instead. Where, they would be given accurate information about abortion and safe sex (which JFA does not advocate).
JFA tells people that abortion causes breast cancer. They also use pictures of older fetuses and act like partial birth abortions are still done. They distribute information for Crisis Pregnancy Centers which lie to women. They tell women they are earlier in the pregnancy than they are so they think they have more time to decide; then when they finally do, it's too late. CPCs also promise to give food and clothes and money to mothers who are wanting abortions for financial reasons and then dont deliver on their promises.
So, again, just trying to get people to not pay the exhibit any attention, and to try and distribute condoms and information.
TheJeff 1 year, 6 months ago
Delphicbee,
You act as if preparation is a bad thing. And because they were so well prepared, you had to try to outshout them in an attempt to drown out their opinion. And obviously no credit can be given for being friendly if they were trying to be friendly.
Wouldn't being prepared yourself and coming off as prepared and sophisticated been more productive than being obnoxious and trying to not allow others to express themselves?
Eightbit, "The images they portray are graphic, borderline obscene, and dangerously untrue."
Are the pictures photoshopped? What is "dangerously untrue?"
pluralist 1 year, 6 months ago
What I think all three men who wrote for these columns missed is pretty fundamental: WGSSA's loud, obnoxious counterdemonstration is one of the few comparable responses to JFA's gore carnival. Those non-profit status, $1,000, 20-foot signs are hard to come by for an underfunded student association but kuzoos and spray paint are pretty cheap. JFA is not interested in a fair dialogue - they are about shock and awe, emotionalism, and religion.
Why do Coker and Cross expect WGSSA - and the women who took part in that organisation's demonstration - to remain stoically academic in the face of such a truly ridiculous display? It was unclear from Coker/Cross's column, but did either of them actually try and talk to members and allies of WGSSA? As I was hovering around the display much of Tuesday (and a bit on Monday), I noticed that near the WGSSA literature table and behind it there was much less noise and a lot more conversation.
WGSSA provided a pamphlet that debunks the claims made by JFA, information on deceitful crisis pregnancy centres, and adverts for a movie showing and picnic. JFA is interested in creating a moral panic, WGSSA is interested in talking about women's reality, which - for about 1/3 of us - will include abortion at some point.
mythman 1 year, 6 months ago
"The Womens studies group looked, as mentioned above, ridiculous. They stereotyped themselves and brought more attention to the display they were hopeing people would ignore. They failed miserably in being rational and instead looked crazy."
The Justice for All group looked, as mentioned above, ridiculous. They stereotyped themselves and alienated people from a position they were hoping people would accept. They failed miserably in being rational and instead looked crazy.
Chirpit 1 year, 6 months ago
Mythman, you're right on the money.
The difference between WGSSA and JFA is that WGSSA will actually have the opportunity to listen to us and alter their approach. JFA is deaf to the wants of anyone who doesn't support their massive billboards and chooses to talk only with those who have been emotionally affected by their billboards, those who aren't in full possession of their reasoning abilities due to being assaulted by massive, gory images that include abortions that have been made illegal. Being a student organization, I would be more likely to assume that WGSSA's information is CURRENT and ACCURATE. After all, they're regulated. JFA is not.
THIS is why, upon closer inspection, JFA was and still is more ridiculous than OU's WGSSA.
Grant_123 1 year, 6 months ago
I don't think that the Justice for All Exhibit was trying to shock anyone into aligning themselves with their views. They were just trying to make injustice known. I heard one of the pro-choice advocates say, "This is a horrible way to voice your opinion! It's awful! You should be ashamed of yourself." When one of the JFA people asked, "How do you think we should voice our opinion?", the pro choice person said, "Well I don't know, but not like this!" Clearly, this person had no problem complaining about the situation, but had no solution to the problem.
Also, the pictures came from The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform. The Justice for All people didn't photo shop them or anything of that nature.
I for one am glad to see that people are standing up for the rights of those who can't.
tru2One 1 year, 6 months ago
What most people fail to realize is that unless you face the truth, the truth will never be known. I guess we shouldn't show pictures of the Holocaust because it might offend someone. Steven's article could have been written about the pictures in his history book showing how the Nazis brutalized the Jews and other less desirables. How rude of them to put that in there! I don't want to know about how 6 million Jews were murdered. It is gross. According to this view it was OK to kill those people because they were inconvenient or undesirable. What is the difference? It is one person deciding the fate of another based on their beliefs. It was by choice Hitler murdered these people for the better of the world. Does this make it right? There is only One who can truly decide the fate of life or death. And it is neither you nor I who should be making this choice. NO MATTER WHAT EVERYONE'S OPINION IS THE FACT IS THAT MILLIONS OF BABIES ARE DESTROYED EACH YEAR BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO FACE THE TRUTH! WE DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE THERE IS A GOD! WE DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE THAT HE CREATES LIFE!
"ALTHOUGH THEY CLAIMED TO BE WISE, THEY BECAME FOOLS" ROMANS 1:22