Using shock value rather than logic

Ian Hoppe, Columnist
Published On: 10/20/2009

One day last semester, between classes, I headed to The Commons to grab a quick lunch and a few minutes of study time.

I was approached by a young woman brandishing a newspaper, breaking my meditation. “What’s this?” I asked, trying my best not to be rude.

“Information,” she said simply. This vague and obscure description immediately seized my attention as deceptive.
As if my taking the paper would relive her of the responsibility of defending what was inside.

“Information about what?” I asked, obviously offended now at this apparent attempt to mislead me.

“Abortion,” she stated.

I looked up and felt my stomach spin. A group of people had assembled in front of The Commons with an enormous picture of a dismantled infant.

“Disgusting,” was my response, as I brushed past her, quickening my steps.

These people were members of the Pro-Life Action League, an anti-abortion activist group whose defining characteristic is blown up pictures of dead babies.

The group’s website calls these displays “Face the Truth” tours. Their intention is to expose the truth about the horrors of abortion through grotesque and oversized pictures of the product.

This particular tactic is only a very small portion on the fringe of the actual Pro-Life movement. The Catholic Church and its various subsets have always been huge proponents on the global level.

Their humble yet sturdy approach is backed by both scientific facts and religious dogma.

Pope Benedict has made several statements regarding abortion, calling it a “Crime against society”, but their protest and public demonstrations are much less intrusive and are centered in arguing against abortion in a logical fashion rather than flailing arms and screaming hysterically.

Most would say they are the leaders in the anti-abortion pressure group and seem to be making steady and honest progress through lobbyists and marches in capital cities.

So why is it that a group of rogue protesters would take on such an undomesticated approach to what seems to be a well organized and broad push towards what they feel is ethically sound?

I have no intention of striking an abortion debate, nor do I wish to take a stance on the matter at the moment.

The Pro-Life Action League is not only perpetuating a horrible case for their cause, but creating a rift and doing real damage to what was a respectable political force in America.

I must say, though, I respect their fervor. A group of people, small or large, passionately declaring a cause is something I will always be in support of.

But there are many other, far more convincing reasons why a woman should consider alternatives to abortion, such as the supposed link to breast cancer, potential guilt, paternal rights, the possibility of a botched procedure, etc., not a repulsive photograph.

The foremost problem I have with this campaign of sorts is their blatant divergence from the masses. This fringe approach does for the pro-life movement what Ralph Nader does for the Democratic Party. This kind of political activism creates a fissure in the face of the larger whole and ultimately hurts the cause. As people of this persuasion are much more visible than the rest, they inadvertently become the face of the pro-life stance.

They are thrown into the group with extremists such as Eric Rudolph, the man responsible for abortion clinic bombings in Atlanta and here in Birmingham. People undecided on the abortion issue instantly choose sides when faced with that kind of propaganda. Who would want to be associated with a group who spends their time taking pictures of dismembered children? If I were of the pro-life persuasion, I certainly would not admit it in close proximity of a group like this.

Perhaps these activists may persuade one or even fifty people to reconsider abortion as a grotesque act, but I am convinced that were their weight and enthusiasm thrown behind the mainstream trend, and their intellect combined with others who have the same end in mind, that the objective they are striving to attain would come to light sooner rather than later.

As it stands they are presenting an unconvincing argument and actively harming the ideas they speak so loudly to defend.

Email: ihoppe@uab.edu