Changing the subject doesn’t work
Hard-core pro-aborts, when they have no argument, try to change the subject. Stubborn people are not our target audience, so we aren’t dismayed when they deny the evidence in front of them. Our target audience is people in the middle who (a) are still open-minded and (b) have a functioning conscience.
At UNC Greensboro, some students complained that we cited sources older than 2010. Our information about embryology was too old, they said. Science changes, they said.
Hmmm. You mean they don’t make babies like they used to? Really?
Suppose you can’t find a recent publication proving (again) that gravity is real — and you can’t, because nobody would publish a paper proving something we’ve known for centuries — what does that mean? Maybe pigs can fly?
These same scholars took issue with the definition of genocide we cite, because they claimed the definition has been altered for political reasons. In this case, they undermined their own argument, because we cite UN Resolution 96, adopted in 1946. Having no enforcement provisions, Resolution 96 defined genocide as targeting any group of people for destruction.
The 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, however, includes enforcement provisions and thus was limited, for political reasons, to only those genocides committed against national, ethnical, racial, or religious groups. Genocides against social and political groups, for example, were excluded because the Soviet Union feared Stalin’s mass murders might be considered genocidal if broader language were adopted. (The Study of Mass Murder and Genocide, Robert Gellately and Ben Kiernan, in The Specter of Genocide: Mass Murder in Historical Perspective, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 18)
Some tried to claim that our sign referencing honor killing was invalid because it did not include a photo of each and every group of women subjected to that particular atrocity. Desperate people say absurd things.
This often happens with GAP. They have no argument to support decapitating and dismembering little human beings, so they try to change the subject. If one logical fallacy won’t work, they try another.
In the end, it doesn’t matter. They only help us, because they give us a chance to juxtapose our good arguments with their logical fallacies. Our target audience, the mushy middle, gets to hear and compare.
And with time, we’ll pick off even some of the hard-core pro-aborts. As long as they hang around, they absorb the hard evidence. Some of them contact us later and tell us how the seeds we planted eventually sprouted and grew. Julie was a committed pro-abort when we first met her at the University of North Florida, but she told us 3 years later that she had changed her mind. “The pictures followed me home,” she said.
This entry was posted on Monday, July 25th, 2016 at 2:30 pm and is filed under Campus Debate (GAP). You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.