Content warning: This conversation necessarily includes some thought experiments that relate to sexual abuse, as well as the real-world example of Jeffrey Epstein. As usual, the discussion isn’t graphic, but we want our listeners who are survivors of sexual assault to know that and make an informed decision of whether they want to listen to this episode or not.
It’s Rachel’s last episode! She and Josh discuss how pro-choice people are often inclined to believe that adult women should be prioritized over fetal humans because adults have thoughts, dreams, and relationships. They offer some talking points for pro-lifers including some thought experiments that might help the conversation become more productive. Josh also tells a story about a related dialogue he had with a philosophy professor about prison reform, and how pro-life advocates tend to be primarily motivated by different things, especially when they first become passionate about this issue.
The other day, I saw a clip from an old White House Press Briefing. Reporters were barraging the press secretary with leading questions, reciting statistics that directly challenged the effectiveness of the new policy, and presenting contradictory quotes that the press secretary had said literally the day before.
But the press secretary calmly took in the critiques, acknowledged the flaws, and ended the event by saying “Thank you so much for bringing these problems to my attention. You all have made some really great points today, and maybe we should be rethinking this policy!”
Josh and Rachel discuss the common pro-choice phrase, “consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy” in greater detail than we covered in our recent video on the “Abortion as Self-Defense” argument. There is a version of this argument that is so strong, Rachel says she would use it if she were pro-choice! There are both strong pro-life responses to that argument, and there are also some really cringey ones, and we want to help you avoid the bad ones so you can change more minds!
Several months ago, we asked people who follow us and a number of other pro-life groups to take a survey about dialogue habits. We wanted to analyze the ways people approached conversations about abortions on different platforms and see if there were measurable relationships between medium, conversation length, and effectiveness.
Estimated reading time: 6 minutes.
In total, we received 134 responses from people with all sorts of different backgrounds in dialogue. If you responded, thank you! Because this was a voluntary, non-representative survey sample, the results don’t have ironclad scientific value, but they should still contain valid information about general trends.
The two main relationships we looked at were: 1) conversation medium (social media, private messenger, in person, etc.) and conversation length (number of messages/minutes); and 2) conversation length and how often the other person’s mind changed. We broke the last category up into four parts, based on the intensity of change (no change, minor change, moderate change, and major change).
The next couple of sections are going to be heavy with statistics, so you can skim it if you’re not curious about the data itself and just want to see what it means in the analysis section. If you want to see me show my work or you just enjoy stats, read on.