A Reply to Kristan Hawkins

Kristan Hawkins, the national president of Students for Life of America, recently wrote an article on the use of so-called graphic images in the anti-abortion movement. Hawkins’ goal in writing the article was not to make a categorical argument against using pictures of abortion victims. Instead, she argued against their overuse in pro-life advocacy. Unfortunately, the article was marred by some significant tactical, factual, and logical errors. I am writing today to provide a respectful response to some of those errors.

Hawkins committed a serious tactical error in the opening of her article - one that has justifiably upset a number of people in the pro-life movement. She opened her article by admitting that on occasion she is tempted to go and scream at men who are dropping off their girlfriends at abortion facilities. But just as she restrains herself from screaming at them about their cowardice and about “God’s righteous judgment,” pro-lifers need to consider restraining themselves from showing “graphic pictures” of aborted children as the movement ushers in a “new generation.” Hawkins’ opening is problematic for at least three reasons.

First of all, there is simply no rational basis for comparing the tactic of showing abortion victim pictures with the tactic of screaming in the faces of people who have decided to have (or decided to help facilitate) an abortion. Reasonable people may disagree about the use of abortion victim pictures. But no reasonable person would seriously defend the tactic of screaming at people outside of abortion clinics. Even a subtle comparison between the two constitutes a grave error in judgment on Hawkins’ part.

Second, it is unwise to continue using the term “graphic” to describe these pictures. In this context, “graphic” means “provocative” or “prone to give offense.” The emphasis on the emotional reaction to the pictures invites relativism. We should not be defining these pictures in terms of the emotions they evoke. We should be defining them in terms of what they are: Pictures of abortion victims.

Third, it is generally a bad idea to suggest that we need to convey truth differently based on the audience we are trying to reach. I encounter this claim all the time in academia. The African American Studies professor tries to justify the use of Ebonics in order to communicate with blacks, the Women’s Studies professor castigates people for overreliance on “male logic” and so on. These suggestions make sense for those advancing a postmodern worldview. But they are ill suited for those espousing a Christian worldview, which is grounded in objective reality and oriented towards the ascertainment of objective truth. Suggesting new strategies for a new generation because they are steeped in relativism does not promote resistance to relativism. It is simply acquiescence to relativism.

Hawkins compounds her opening tactical errors with some factual errors later in the body of her article. For example, she notes two things about the first two videos exposing Planned Parenthood for selling body parts: 1) that these two videos had the most views on YouTube, and 2) that they didn’t show images of aborted babies. Hawkins presents this as evidence to bolster her argument against over-reliance on abortion victim pictures.

This is both poor research and sloppy thinking on Hawkins’ behalf. Around the time she published her article the first Planned Parenthood video had 2.9 million hits. The second one had 1.2 million hits. But the third and fourth videos had over 1.1 million hits. In other words, there was a drastic drop-off in views after the initial video launching the controversy. In fact, it was roughly a sixty percent drop-off. But then when the pictures of abortion victims enter the sequence in the third video the decline slows considerably. There is less than a ten percent drop-off in the third video, which features abortion victim pictures. In the fourth video, which also features abortion victim pictures, there is virtually no decline in interest.

Here is how a reasonable observer would interpret these numbers: Sequences of videos on any topic tend to decline steadily from the first in the sequence to the last in the sequence. That general trend is on display in the recent videos exposing Planned Parenthood before abortion victim pictures enter the sequence but not afterwards. These abortion victim pictures had the effect of slowing and indeed almost reversing the expected drop-off in viewer interest. Therefore, abortion victim pictures should remain an important focal point of anti-abortion advocacy.

Hawkins’ next factual error occurs when she claims that women who have decided to have an abortion have already seen abortion victim pictures while searching for an abortion clinic on the Internet. That is simply false as any reader can readily ascertain by Google searching the phrases “abortion services” and “abortion clinics.” No images show up in either case.

Had Hawkins done her research before making her claim it still would have been a meaningless example. Suppose the phrases, which are commonly used by women seeking an abortion, really did produce pictures of abortion victims. And suppose some women ignored them and had an abortion anyway. For purposes of comparison, how would Hawkins then measure the number of women who saw the images and decided not to have an abortion? Where would she go to measure the effects of viewing the images?

In addition to these tactical and factual errors there are a few logical errors that need to be addressed. Unfortunately, I am running of space. I’ll take them up in the next installment.

Mike Adams Column

Please Freepmail me if you want to be added, or removed from the ping list

“But no reasonable person would seriously defend the tactic of screaming at people outside of abortion clinics.”

She said “men” not “ people”.

This author gets a lose for distortion, even after he provided the info he distorted.

She wasn't making a relativistic point. She was talking about exercising restraint.

I've prayed outside of abortion clinics and marched in the Right to Life March in DC with people carrying large placards showing an aborted, murdered baby. I think those images do more to turn people away then turn them to a change of heart. They hinder discussion when we should be trying to engage discussion.

Just my two cents.

Re: “She said “men” not “ people”. This author gets a lose for distortion, even after he provided the info he distorted.”

The author, Mike Adams, was not quoting here, but referring to the tactic of screaming at people in general, men or women, as not being comparable to showing pictures of aborted children. There is no distortion because he was referring to a “tactic”, not the object of the screaming.

If seeing the truth of what is actually happening does little to change hearts and minds then why did the Allied troops make those living near concentration camps walk through and face what they had ignored? Why did they make Nazi soldiers watch movies showing images from the concentration camps?

I’ve seen footage of the people talking and laughing while walking to the camps and sobbing while walking out. There are pictures of the soldiers crying while looking at the images that revealed what their actions supported. Their hearts and minds were changed by the truth revealed in images, not by engaging in meaningful discussion.

Abortion is horrific and the pro abortion crowd has been successful in removing the horror and evil from the public image. We should never be too polite to reveal the truth of what it is.

I used to date a college professor who had a picture of an aborted baby on the inside of her office door, where students could see it as the left her office. She related to me that one student had seen it and said "That's gross!" She replied, "Yes, it is." She believed the picture did make her students less likely to approve of abortion.

I was at March for life last year. Some friends had very young chldren who couldn’t miss the billboards of aborted babies. The kids were crying and their mom was furious.

That said, there’s a place for that stuff but it’s limited.

Re: “I believe there is a big difference between engaging men who drop off a woman for an abortion and any others.”

That may be, but that is not Mr Adams point. You accused Mr Adams of distortion, which he did not do. If you look again the his statement in context, he was referring to the “tactic” of screaming regardless of the gender of the recipient of the screaming.

You may disagree with Mr Adams in believing that using a screaming tactic is much more provocative than to showing pictures of aborted children, which is his point. In fact, your contention that screaming at men is not the same as screaming at women fits with his point that the screaming tactic itself is more provocative than using pictures of aborted children. So, where is the distortion?

It is not a distortion because he was not speaking to the issue as to who the object of the screaming was, men or women, rather he was comparing the tactic of screaming as opposed to showing pictures of aborted children.

It may be that Mr Adams believes men and women are both examples of “people” in general, but he wasn’t addressing the issue of the differences between screaming at men or women, but the tactic of screaming in and of itself, and that he disagreed with that specific pro-life leader in equating screaming at people, whether men or women, with showing pictures of aborted children.

You are focusing on the word “people” as opposed to the word “men” as somehow a deliberate misquote by Mr Adams, which would be true if he was claiming to be quoting her at that point in his article, but as I have pointed out several times, the object of the screaming was not what he was discussing.

Also, you miss the elephant in the room - Mr Adams DID in fact give her exact quote early in the article, but then went on to discuss screaming as a tactic by itself. This is not distortion, but a discussion why he disagreed with her in equating the two aforementioned tactics.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.