Anti-abortion group doesn’t promote intelligent dialogue

UK Students for Life has embarked on a campaign to spread awareness of their opinion on the controversial issue of abortion by bringing an anti-abortion group called the Genocide Awareness Project.

While all individuals and student groups should be encouraged to express their opinions, especially during a presidential election year, the strategies that Students for Life employed for the purposes of conveying their side of the abortion issue are inappropriate and are not conducive to the intellectual discourse that ideally should take place on a college campus.

The images used by GAP utilize a scare-tactic technique meant to upset students into supporting the anti-choice stance rather than giving them facts on the issue or encouraging them to take the time to examine the subject intellectually and for themselves. Shocking students into agreement with a particular stance is not an appropriate practice for a college campus where all sides of any topic should be considered when making an informed decision. The posters do not provide information or data to undecided students or create an environment where conversation is encouraged; instead, they work against the intellectual discourse that is at the very heart of a college campus.

This board must also reject GAP’s claim that abortion is an act of genocide. According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, genocide is defined as “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political or cultural group.” No particular racial, political or cultural group is being deliberately or systematically targeted by individuals who choose abortion. Deliberately calling abortion an act of genocide is more than a mistake in diction, it’s irresponsible and deceitful.

In addition, we are disappointed by the lack of efforts that the GAP organizers put into publicizing their event prior to its commencement. Publicizing the event beforehand not only helps the group’s efforts to reach a broader audience, it also invites dissenting individuals and student groups to give their own presentations on the subject, thus inciting an actual discussion that is meaningful to those involved. Still, it’s not too late for abortion-rights groups on campus to organize events aimed to inform the campus of their opinions and the reasoning behind them.

In the future, we would like to see both anti-abortion and abortion rights groups holding events on campus that encourage discussions among the student body. Displaying bloody and repulsive images may have its shock value, but it does little to promote an intelligent discussion on the issue of abortion.