I thought this blog post was really awesome and made excellent points. Please read it!
Here is some nitty-gritty
I was present when Scott Klusendorf gave the Pro-Life 101 seminar here in Ottawa in October 2001. One of the things he mentioned to us was that more and more pro-abortion advocates are refusing to debate him (and pro-life apologists in general). Indeed, Scott had also been in Ottawa for a debate six months previously; during the day, the University of Ottawa chapter of Ottawa Youth For Life had rented space to allow him to make a presentation on campus. Instead of trying to refute Scott with facts and arguments, the campus "Womyn's Centre" complained to the administration about "hate crimes" (because of STR's moral stand on homosexuality, which of course was merely a convenient excuse, as it has nothing to do with the abortion issue). OYFL representatives were also questioned by the Ottawa police, and Scott was detained and interrogated at the border for an hour before being allowed into Canada. When the time came for his presentation, one of the campus "womyn" sabotaged it by pulling the plug on a television set Scott intended to use to show a video, and refused to relinquish it while other onlookers attempted to shout him down. (Scott agreed to a change of venue when the police and campus security were called in, and the presentation continued.) Finally, his debate opponent that evening decided to back out, though she later changed her mind.
This anti-intellectual trend amongst abortion-rights activists is ongoing. Albert Mohler's radio program a few weeks ago pointed me to the article "Bioethical Politics," by Jon A. Shields, in the March/April 2006 issue of Society, a sociological journal published by Rutgers University. Conventional wisdom is that the pro-abortion side of the debate is the intellectually respectable one, while the "Religious Right" attempts to impose dogma and superstition on society. Shields argues that, in fact,
it is actually the secular left that has undermined a national discussion on vital bioethical questions - such as when a human organism deserves state protection - by depicting them as fundamentally religious and therefore beyond legitimate public debate. Even more surprising, the religious right increasingly embraces sophisticated philosophical arguments in its efforts to convince Americans from across the political spectrum that embryonic stem cell research and abortion are not religious issues.1
I am also noticing this trend. Apparently pro-abort apologists are telling their gang not to debate pro-lifers. And they do not seem like they want to engage. Mind you, from a Canadian perspective, they have nothing to gain from this, as they have everything want (or almost) and the first rule of marketing is that when you get everything you want, shut up.
This can bode well for fetal rights activists, because the more they remain silent, and the more we speak up, the more we will persuade people. It's that simple. But the point is: WE MUST SPEAK UP!