Editor’s note: This column is in response to Tucker Cross’ and Jerod Coker’s Tuesday column, “Abortion rights group antics ridiculous”
I am pushed to write this article in response to those who have complained about the response to the fetus carnival that graced our campus this last week.
Those complaining seem to completely miss the point of the response to the display put on by Women’s and Gender Studies Student Association (WGSSA). Complainers seem to think that the over-the-top display can be responded to with rational argument that will somehow change minds.
This idea is simply wrong. To see that persuasion and rational argument are not effective against the fetus carnival carnies, one needs to look no further than the breast cancer myth.
One of the panels on the Justice For All display claims that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer. In addition, Justice For All brought out Eden Clinic, a local sham clinic who repeats this claim.
The problem is that the Susan G. Komen foundation debunked this myth long ago. In fact, every time Justice For All or Eden Clinic comes, others and I bring this to their attention, providing them studies and evidence to show them that there is simply no link between abortions and breast cancer, it is scientifically disproven.
So, surely these rational, truth-seeking, anti-abortion activists will revise their view upon seeing counter-evidence, right? I mean, the joint article in The Daily on Wednesday suggested that the whole group is a fount of reason and rational engagement.
Surprisingly enough, they do not. They continue persistently, despite demonstrable scientific fact to the contrary, to lie about the impacts of abortion. It is not that they are ignorant of this; as I said before, they are given the evidence everywhere they go, including by those responding to the display this year once again.
Why would they persist in a lie, these rational calm-headed people? The answer is that they are not about having serious arguments and reaching fact-based conclusions; they are about frightening people — with lies if necessary — into not having abortions.
But surely it is just this one glaring empirically false claim on which they are intellectually dishonest, right? Wrong. The way Justice For All works is it provides scripts for its volunteers, telling them to rehearse the same arguments again and again. I actually had the privilege of looking at this script where they encourage people to “Trot Out the Toddler” and remind volunteers that they should avoid a common mistake in the anti-abortion community of disregarding women.
Whenever the arguments in the script are challenged, and volunteers are unable to respond to the challenges, do you think they revise their arguments? Surprise again, the answer is no. I personally had a lengthy conversation with a man out there who admitted at the end of the conversation that he could not think of a reason why my argument for choice was wrong, but that he just “felt it was wrong.” Of course, he continued to make the argument that he knew to be flawed to every other person he could dupe into talking to him.
This then raises a question: how do you respond to people like this? Does it make sense to engage in arguments with someone who not only will remain dissuaded no matter what, but also will continue to repeat even the factually false elements of their arguments years after they have been refuted?
To engage in an argument with people like that would be as futile as engaging in arguments with the Westboro Baptist Church.
Instead of wasting its time doing that, WGSSA dedicated its efforts to providing a separate, comfortable and fun space for those who do not agree with the anti-choice display.
The group had literature refuting the display panel- by-panel available at its tables of course, but the group wisely dedicated more time to having a pro-choice party, dancing and playing kazoo music.
Given the reluctance of those who put up the display to genuinely engage in an intellectually honest way, this response was right on.
— Matt Bruenig, philosophy senior
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
eightbitgirl 1 year, 6 months ago
Gee, Mesocyclone, with a link like "abortionbreastcancer.com" I'm truly convinced!
MRambrose 1 year, 6 months ago
Once you find out how JFA works... with the scripted "dialogue" (which still ends up sounding like a broken record), bussing in high school students who are required to participate and pose as OU students, have other volunteers to appear as if they are not associated with JFA (encouraged to wear backpacks and pounce when an opportunity arises), and don't forget all them lies... it's IMPOSSIBLE to recognize JFA as the "rational ones". They are extremists who drive people to see abortion as genocide and drive people to assassinate abortion providers, their staff, and clinic escorts, and to bomb clinics. Thanks, Matt!!!
thedelphicbee 1 year, 6 months ago
Thank you for your support :D I wish I had a like button for this lol. <3
MRambrose 1 year, 6 months ago
Mesocyclone, Are we seriously still talking about breast cancer? It's the one thing the pro-life movement has to show they "care about women" and IT AIN'T EVEN TRUE!! Check out this link from cancer.gov (vs. your pro-life mom page): http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/risk/abortion-miscarriage
mythman 1 year, 6 months ago
The 30-foot wall was clearly meant to rouse the emotions of those walking by, not to generate dialogue. How can you have a responsible and intellectual discussion in front of that thing?
MRambrose 1 year, 6 months ago
Pro-choice activists at OU don't need to be TRAINED because what we believe and why we are in the South Oval is about who we are and is embedded in our intelligence. And sometimes the proper response to a ridiculous fetus carnival is to honk on a kazoo and have picnics and parades in the name of reproductive justice.
toastergirl 1 year, 6 months ago
Wow, Way to stereotype MRambrose! Based on your logic, we should do away with the Quaran bc it drives people to blow up buildings, huh? Most Muslims are nice, kind people. Most pro life people are peaceful people. But it wont matter, because you are too ignorant to look past a stereotype.
Mesocyclone 1 year, 6 months ago
This article is chalk full of inaccuracies and hypocrisy on the part of the author. I love how liberals will cite liberal advocacy groups to support their claims and tout them as the voice of "truth" and "reason", but then rail against conservatives who use research done by conservative or independent groups and attack them as "clueless". Susan G. Komen, for the record has given millions in donations over the years to Planned Parenthood, and the often-cited Guttmacher Institute is directly funded by PP. Not that their research is at all biased; after all, PP is only the largest abortion provider in the nation, and abortion is only the most lucrative part of PP's business. I also take offense of your comparison of the Justice for All people to the Westboro Baptists. Yes, the images are very graphic and disturbing (then again, so were the images of the Jewish Holocaust; the truth is often gruesome). However much you may disagree with JFA, they don't stand there yelling obscene statements like "God hates America" at people pass by and telling them that they're going to hell. One group uses research and intelligent discourse to promote their cause; the other protests at funerals and makes their living telling the whole world how much God hates them; the two groups bear no comparison, and it's clear you only did so to try and marginalize those with whom you disagree. While on the subject though, I did incidentally happen to notice a bunch of clowns across from the JFA hooting and hollering and making all kinds of obnoxious noise during the JFA presentation. For the record, other independent groups (ones that aren't funded by pro-abortion organizations like Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood) have documented increased breast cancer risks associated with abortion; you may find some of this research here: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/The_Link.htm
MRambrose 1 year, 6 months ago
I'm not talking about individual peaceful pro-lifers. I'm connecting pro-life extremists movements (like JFA) to assassinations, yes. They should be hold accountable when they repeatedly call Dr. George Tiller, Dr. Tiller the Killer and baby murderer and call abortion the real genocide. Dr. George Tiller was harassed, shot in the arm, threatened, had death threats sent to him, his family and his staff, had his clinic bombed, and then was assassinated last year. There are no longer any abortion clinics in that town. And the extreme pro-life movement is to blame.
DancingTableLeg 1 year, 6 months ago
MesoCyclone is spreading lies... Every study that shows a correlation between breast cancer is either biased or statistically flawed. There's a strong scientific consensus that the two are unrelated.
NotYou 1 year, 6 months ago
I would caution everyone to actually DO the research over every groups findings and results as well as their affiliations and possible reasons (ie, bias) for justifications. In regards to the link provided by MRambrose this is especially true. The referenced research in the link (which is commonly used as "evidence" for many Abortion advocates) is commonly known to be highly suspicious and questionable. In 2003 the National Cancer Institute (NCI) sponsored a three-day workshop and "selected" scientists to "debate" the research for the Abortion-Cancer correlation and was meant to be an "open and vigorous" debate. In fact the NCI reported that all 100 participants concluded there to be no correlation. As a reporter or even overly-curious individual you should start with who the NCI is and what their workshop was about. The NCI which is part of the NIH which is an agency off of HHS brought together 100 grant-dependent scientists who had a stake in the outcomes. In fact one of the attendees denied the outcomes and provided a scientific minority report in which he states there was not any debate. In addition there were three new in-depth studies announced before the workshop which were not allowed to be shown that showed a significant correlation. There is alot more information including the need for the "perfect" study by Mads Melbye which had to be "reanalyzed" after it had shown an 89% risk elevation and was later released with the finding removed. But because the NCI is transparent I'm sure you can request a detailed account of the workshop and how it ended prematurely and suddenly but you can't as we simply have to take their word for it. Regardless of the NCI's biased workshop findings up until that point it was commonly understood among the scientific community of the correlation. In fact this was widely proven during the previous 46 years of epidemiological and biological evidence. This included 29 out of 38 international studies and 13 out of 15 American studies which significant studies found risk elevations. In addition scientists already know that estrogen overexposure is shown to be the most reasonable answer for breast cancer. And this will almost always occur during the start of a pregnancy. However what most people don't know is that it is believed the third trimester is needed to mature the breast cells into cancer-resistant cells. THIS is the information that is often left out of Abortion advocate findings. On a final note it's interesting that the NCI chose to use a panel of 100 experts to reach a consensus. This reminds me of an incident in the 1930's when 100 scientists wrote a collection of essays which were meant to show a consensus refuting Einstein's theory of relativity. When asked about it, Einstein replied "Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough." I'm hoping everyone critical of the correlation evidence isn't guilty of not having an open mind and allowing bias to cloud their judgement.
MRambrose 1 year, 6 months ago
Ugh. Seriously. Shut up about breast cancer. The studies JFA uses to back this up are from the 1970s and 1990s. The studies that cancer.gov, susan g komen, and any other breast cancer association uses is at least sites from this century. So move on... this shouldn't be an issue when discussing abortion.
SgtB 1 year, 6 months ago
Hey everybody, Now that the topic is flawed research, how about DDT? It turns out that the birds tested for soft/weak shells were fed a diet low on calcium which doomed the study from the beginning. Also, the myth that DDT promotes cancer in animals and humans stems from a fiction novel. In reality, both human test subjects and various small critters that were injected with unusually high doses of DDT daily showed marked decrease in the instances of cancerous growths.
Whether or not the breast cancer thing is true, I don't know, and I don't think there is any sufficient evidence to prove it either way. What there is evidence of however is people who consent to sex knowing the risks involved, but who fail to take the responsibility of the life created. Alot of you say that a woman will do the abortion herself if need be, but i say, "Why the need?" Women can leave the child at the hospital, a police station, or fire station. Hell, just come find me and say that you can't (don't want) handle the responsibility of raising a child and I'll find a home for him or her. The women who use abortion as birth control are irresponsible and I hope they feel the weight of their actions.
Ron Paul for President, 2012
MateoMartinez 1 year, 6 months ago
Not taking sides here, but Janet Daling, a self proclaimed "pro-choice" researcher at the prestigious Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, has come out with a new study that cites induced abortion as a statistically significant increase in triple negative breast cancer. The percentage is far from breath taking, but it is statistically significant.
She doesn't say abortion causes breast cancer, and I'm not claiming it either. I agree with Janet Daling though that the issue needs more research to get to the truth of the matter. I think it's foolish to claim that abortion DOES cause breast cancer or to claim that it DOES NOT, since there is so much conflicting research.
Here is the study:
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/18/4/1157.full