Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Next revision | Previous revision | ||
| utsfl:classroom:seminars:pbs303h [2024/03/06 11:40] – created from 301 and 304 balleyne | utsfl:classroom:seminars:pbs303h [2024/04/18 16:35] (current) – fixed lifesaver ad balleyne | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ====== PBS303H: Focus on the Child or the Mother? ====== | ====== PBS303H: Focus on the Child or the Mother? ====== | ||
| + | How can we be effective communicators to a pro-choice public? ((While this debate is mother vs child, we can see a similar debate and parallel with the abolitionists... do we communicate in a way that makes us feel better? Or that's most effective? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Key topics: | ||
| + | * Marketing versus social reform | ||
| + | * Focus on mother versus child | ||
| + | * Answer: | ||
| + | * The pastoral (and political) arm need different messaging than the educational arm | ||
| + | * We need an educational arm effort that has the direct moral conversation | ||
| + | * Heart apologetics are a bridge to integrate these insights into the essential conversation | ||
| + | |||
| + | FIXME | ||
| + | - Condense the summary and debate summary (Swope, Beckwith, Swope, Klusendorf - and get just essential/ | ||
| + | - The problem, Caring Foundation research and solution, play some ads as examples | ||
| + | - Criticisms: playing to self-interest, | ||
| + | - Answer: pastoral vs educational, | ||
| + | - Include some pastoral arm examples | ||
| + | - ATW and Sister of Life screenshots | ||
| + | - But counterpoint... Choice42... integrating some Paul Swope insights, but also " | ||
| + | |||
| + | FIXME embed some of the "Think About It" ads, e.g. | ||
| + | {{youtube> | ||
| + | {{youtube> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Maybe a good summary of the " | ||
| + | {{youtube> | ||
| ===== Paul Swope - Abortion: A failure to communicate ===== | ===== Paul Swope - Abortion: A failure to communicate ===== | ||
| [[https:// | [[https:// | ||
| + | ==== Summary ==== | ||
| + | > For twenty-five years the pro-life movement has stood up to defend perhaps the most crucial principle in any civilized society, namely, the sanctity and value of every human life. However, neither the profundity and scale of the cause, nor the integrity of those who work to support it, necessarily translates into effective action. Recent research on the psychology of pro-choice women offers insight into why the pro-life movement has not been as effective as it might have been in persuading women to choose life; it also offers opportunities to improve dramatically the scope and influence of the pro-life message, particularly among women of childbearing age. | ||
| + | > | ||
| + | > This research suggests that modern American women of childbearing age do not view the abortion issue within the same moral framework as those of us who are pro-life activists. Our message is not being well-received by this audience because we have made the error of assuming that women, especially those facing the trauma of an unplanned pregnancy, will respond to principles we see as self-evident within our own moral framework, and we have presented our arguments accordingly. This is a miscalculation that has fatally handicapped the pro-life cause. While we may not agree with how women currently evaluate this issue, the importance of our mission and the imperative to be effective demand that we listen, that we understand, and that we respond to the actual concerns of women who are most likely to choose abortion. | ||
| + | > | ||
| + | > The importance of a new approach became clear from the results of sophisticated research pioneered by the Caring Foundation((in 1994 and 1997)), a group that presents the pro-life message to the public via television. This group has been able to tap into some of the most advanced psychological research available today, so-called “right brain” research. (emotional intuitive creative / rational logical part of brain) [...] | ||
| + | > One objective of the research was to answer a question that has baffled pro-life activists for some time. How can women, and the public in general, be comfortable with being against abortion personally but in favor of keeping it legal? Because pro-lifers find it morally obvious that one cannot simultaneously hold that “abortion is killing” and “abortion should be legal,” they have tended to assume that people need only to be shown more clearly that the fetus is a baby. They assume that if the humanity of the unborn is understood, the consequent moral imperative, “killing a baby is wrong,” will naturally follow, and women will choose life for their unborn children. This orientation has framed much of the argument by pro-lifers for over two decades, with frustratingly little impact. | ||
| + | > | ||
| + | > The new research shows why the traditional approach has had so little effect, and what can be done to change things. | ||
| + | > | ||
| + | > The summary report of the study bears the intriguing title “Abortion: | ||
| + | > | ||
| + | > Unplanned motherhood, according to the study, represents a threat so great to modern women that it is perceived as equivalent to a “death of self.” While the woman may rationally understand this is not her own literal death, her emotional, subconscious reaction to carrying the child to term is that her life will be “over.” This is because many young women of today have developed a self-identity that simply does not include being a mother. It may include going through college, getting a degree, obtaining a good job, even getting married someday; but the sudden intrusion of motherhood is perceived as a complete loss of control over their present and future selves. It shatters their sense of who they are and will become, and thereby paralyzes their ability to think more rationally or realistically. | ||
| + | > | ||
| + | > When these women evaluate the abortion decision, therefore, they do not, as a pro-lifer might, formulate the problem with the radically distinct options of either “I must endure an embarrassing pregnancy” or “I must destroy the life of an innocent child.” Instead, their perception of the choice is either “my life is over” or “the life of this new child is over.” Given this perspective, | ||
| + | > | ||
| + | > Even those women who are likely to choose life rather than abortion do so not because they better understand fetology or have a greater love for children, but because they have a broader and less fragile sense of self, and they can better incorporate motherhood into their self-identity. | ||
| + | > | ||
| + | > Adoption, unfortunately, | ||
| + | > | ||
| + | This is very interesting, | ||
| + | > The attitude of these women toward abortion is quite surprising. First, all of the scores of women involved in the study (none of whom were pro-life activists and all of whom called themselves “pro-choice”) agreed that abortion is killing. While this is something that is no doubt “written on the human heart,” credit for driving home the reality of abortion is also due to the persevering educational work of the pro-life movement. Second, the women believe that abortion is wrong, an evil, and that God will punish a woman who makes that choice. Third, however, these women feel that God will ultimately forgive the woman, because he is a forgiving God, because the woman did not intend to get pregnant, and finally, because a woman in such crisis has no real choice, the perception is that the woman’s whole life is at stake. | ||
| + | > | ||
| + | > In fact, while abortion itself is seen as something evil, the woman who has to make that choice is perceived as being courageous, because she has made a difficult, costly, but necessary decision in order to get on with her life. Basically, abortion is considered the least of three evils because it is perceived as offering the greatest hope for a woman to preserve her own sense of self, her own life. This is why women feel protective towards the abortive woman and her “right to choose,” and deeply resentful towards the pro-life movement, which they perceive as uncaring and judgmental. | ||
| + | > | ||
| + | > Note that the primary concerns in any of the three options revolve around the woman, and not the unborn child. This helps to explain the appeal of the rhetoric of “choice.” It offers the sense that women in crisis still have some control over their future, and it allows women who may dislike abortion themselves to still seem compassionate towards other women in crisis. | ||
| + | > | ||
| + | > These insights also shed light on another fundamental source of frustration and failure in the pro-life movement. A quarter century of polling has shown over and over that most Americans oppose most abortions, and that women are slightly more pro-life than men. Yet Americans are increasingly comfortable with the pro-choice rather than the pro-life label, and pro-life activists are still viewed as dangerous extremists. Is this due entirely to media bias? Why is it that the pro-life movement has not been able to build on the innate pro-life sentiment of the average person, and may even be losing ground in the arena of public opinion? | ||
| + | > | ||
| + | > Results from this study suggest that the difficulty in gaining public support is not due entirely to unfair treatment by the media, although such treatment has no doubt played a significant role. The pro-life movement’s own self-chosen slogans and educational presentations have tended to exacerbate the problem, as they focus almost exclusively on the unborn child, not the mother. This tends to build resentment, not sympathy, particularly among women of child-bearing age. | ||
| + | > | ||
| + | > When a woman faces an unplanned pregnancy, her main question is not “Is this a baby? | ||
| + | > | ||
| + | > Her central, perhaps subconscious, | ||
| + | ==== Some Discussion ideas ==== | ||
| * Another issue, semi-unrelated to Klusendorf' | * Another issue, semi-unrelated to Klusendorf' | ||