• December 19, 2014
  • Welcome!
    Welcome | (Logout)
  • RSS
  • Contact
  • Archives
  • About

Alligator

Fear Factor: Anti-choice project ineffective, distasteful

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Sunday, February 14, 2010 10:31 pm

Today and Tuesday, The Editorial Board suggests you avoid the Reitz Union North Lawn and the Plaza of the Americas — unless your idea of a good start to the week is being harangued by a pack of hungry anti-abortion activists.

Yep, it’s that time again. The so-called Genocide Awareness Project, sponsored by the radically conservative, fear-mongering Center for Bioethical Reform and hosted by UF’s own Pro-Life Alliance, is a traveling circus of towering bloody posters designed to disgust people into turning against the abortion rights cause.

Now, there are too many things wrong with this project to include here, but the tenet The Editorial Board takes the most issue with is the project’s comparison of abortion to genocide. Their posters liken legal abortion to tragic periods of genocide like the Holocaust and the conflict in Darfur. This cheapens the memory of those affected by actual genocide — a horrifying concept that differs profoundly from abortion.

If the people behind the Genocide Awareness Project put as much effort into raising awareness about actual genocide, the world might be a better place. Instead, they set up their bloody photographs of abortions gone wrong and rely on disgust to change people’s minds.

Let us be clear: We are not suggesting that there is something inherently wrong with opposing abortion. However, the Genocide Awareness Project takes it way too far.

The truth is, those who believe in a woman’s right to choose won’t be persuaded to give up that right because of images that are no more impactful than that of any medical procedure. It may make us spew Krishna lunch all over the plaza, but it’s not going to make us change our minds.

Welcome to the discussion.

5 comments:

  • Houdini3 posted at 11:19 pm on Thu, Feb 18, 2010.

    Houdini3 Posts: 3

    @ Ad Astra: I see that you want some terminologies straightened out. I hope to be of service to you. To be Pro-Life is to uphold the dignity of a human life from conception to natural death. Therefore, one who is Pro-Life will not deliberately nor intentionally kill a human being for any reason what so ever.

    Any person who will disagree with abortion in one case and agree with it in another violates this truth and is therefore not Pro-Life. To be Pro-Life is to care for and preserve life by any means.

    Here is an extreme situation: An expectant mother has infected tissue in her uterine wall. Her baby is getting sick and there is a risk of death for both.

    If whom ever you speak to says that in this case it is ok to abort the child, then that person is not Pro-Life because he intentional means to kill a human being.

    If whom ever you speak to says that in this case it is ok only if a surgery is undergone to save both lives but the child accidentally dies, that person is Pro-Life because he does not intentional mean to kill a human being.

    It is understood that in some situations there will be high risks of death but in all cases, if you want to consider yourself Pro-Life, you must care for life and wish to preserve it by any means.

    I hope this helped. Have a good day.

     
  • RainDogGator posted at 2:55 pm on Tue, Feb 16, 2010.

    RainDogGator Posts: 555

    Abortions gone wrong? And just what is the outcome of an abortion that turns out just as planned?

     
  • Ad Astra posted at 10:37 am on Mon, Feb 15, 2010.

    Ad Astra Posts: 117

    @Illuminati,
    The editorial staff is "irresponsible" for using the same tactics you guys do? I suppose you think the phrase "pro-life" is entirely neutral and simply the best description of your position? "Pro-life" is and always has been a thoroughly framed term, not to mention an inapt one for the many who oppose abortion but support the death penalty. I mean, think about it - who wants to be on the "anti-life" team? If you stop for a minute and actually write down what it is you're advocating, I don't see how you can deny that "anti-choice" is at least as accurate. From the beginning, pro-life/anti-choice activists have called for the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, which made abortion a right. Now, I can't imagine you'd deny that you'd like to see abortion made illegal, thus removing a choice for many women. Anti-choice seems reasonable, though a bit broad, since you (I imagine) support choice in other arenas. I'd say it's still more precise than "pro-life". The most precise name would be "pro-enforced-carrying-to-term-of-pregnancies", but since that's a bit hard to fit on a protest sign, I can see where it wouldn't be as attractive.

    As to the 51% who now prefer "building families and ceasing the insane and irresponsible murder of our most helpless inhabitants", if you're referring to last year's Gallup poll, I think the far less piquant terminology they used was "pro-life". Somehow I can't see a poll using your language getting very far with the statisticians. And as we've discussed, "pro-life" is both easy to identify with and not very specific. I believe other parts of the poll still noted a strong plurality as supporting abortion rights under some circumstances - just not literal abortion on demand.

    One last thing: I think you might want to look into the history of the phrase "cultural revolution" - it has some bad connotations. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_revolution)

     
  • Le Rouge posted at 4:09 am on Mon, Feb 15, 2010.

    Le Rouge Posts: 97

    I was sitting with a friend in the Reitz Food Court once discussing abortion. She said to me that it was believed, if there were no abortion in the world, that there would be a 1/3rd more people. Imagine UF and the Reitz Food Court with 1/3rd more people.

    I rest my case.

     
  • Illuminati posted at 3:51 am on Mon, Feb 15, 2010.

    Illuminati Posts: 2

    The Editorial Staff is irresponsible in their presentation of the pro-life movement as being "anti-choice". It is one of the cheapest attempts at swaying the public oppinion to "frame" the message by manufacturing a non-existent "anti-choice" position.

    What if the message of those of us who would like to see an end to abortion is one of: "Yes it is a mother's choice to kill her unborn baby - however we endorse a different CHOICE"?

    Why is it that any time leftists frame the message, they choose to define OUR message under THEIR heading of ANTI-CHOICE.

    It is childish and worn out and people see straight through it anymore.

    Over 51% of the USA now prefers building families and ceasing the insane and irresponsible murder of our most helpless inhabitants (the unborn) - so no amount of leftist jargon and word-smithing is going to change that - or it would have by now.

    The fact of the matter is - the world must prepare for the cultural revolution which is underway as the Cultore of Life reclaims power from the Culture of Death.