You can expect an audio blog every Thursday, monthly ERI updates, and occasional live speech/Q&A audios. Pretty soon we’ll also start featuring regular 3-5 minute snippets from the Equipped for Life Course Podcast as well.
Josh Brahm and Rachel Crawford dive deeper into the pro-choice argument regarding back-alley abortions than we ever have before on ERI. Topics include understanding why this argument is particularly persuasive to pro-choice people, the most persuasive responses, several bad pro-life responses, and how some pro-abortion-choice advocates lied about this before Roe vs. Wade.
Josh, Rachel, and Elijah Thompson from Dank Pro-Life Memes discuss the various ways pro-life advocates tend to define the word “abortion,” and how this can be confusing to pro-choice people. They also talk about tips for responding to life of the mother cases, and explain how some pro-choice advocates mean something completely different than we think when they ask about that.
Josh and Rachel interview Elijah Thompson from Dank Pro-Life Memes to compare and contrast his messaging with ERI’s. Topics include the potential value of snark, whether it’s possible to make memes that aren’t strawmen, whether Dank Pro-Life Memes feeds people’s vice, and Elijah even responds to a question from a pro-choice follower who is critical of Dank Pro-Life Meme’s work.
00:00: Introducing Elijah Thomson.
2:52: The history and goals of Dank Pro-Life Memes.
7:06: How mocking and snark affects DPLM’s goals
18:38: Can a meme be made that isn’t a strawman argument?
25:49: The time and place for snark.
33:01: Elijah responds to a critic of Dank Pro-Life Memes.
43:19: Are you feeding people’s vice by mocking stupid arguments?
59:07: Renee asks “Why don’t you call out bad pro-lifers more?”
You’ve likely heard about the documentary that premiered on FX, AKA Jane Roe, claiming to offer the true story of Norma McCorvey, the “Jane Roe” in Roe v. Wade. Pro-life and pro-choice people are interested in this story, regardless of how relevant it actually is (or should be) to our beliefs about abortion. Even if it feels off-topic, we need to be prepared to talk about this, and shifting to another topic too quickly will likely hurt your conversations about abortion.
I’m explaining our main thoughts below but feel free to use these links if you’d prefer to watch or listen to our discussion on the documentary that covers all of the points below, albeit in more detail.
Why does this matter, especially if our views on abortion shouldn’t be influenced by whether Roe was pro-choice or pro-life? The question this documentary poses isn’t what people should believe about abortion, but rather whether the pro-life movement is corrupt. We then need to answer whether it contains an accurate depiction of the modern pro-life movement.
After the entire ERI staff watched the “AKA Jane Roe” documentary, we processed our thoughts together and in this nearly unedited discussion, Josh and Rachel offer their analysis of the film, including:
Why this story is relevant to pro-choice people and shouldn’t be brushed away by pro-life advocates.
A video editor’s take on whether the documentary was deceptively edited or merely biased.
Why getting paid speaking fees or through “benevolence gifts” doesn’t prove that your statements are entirely insincere.
How the labels “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are adding confusion to this particular discussion.
What we believe is the most plausible explanation for Norma McCorvey’s statements in the documentary.
Considering several alternative explanations and why they seem less plausible to us.
Responding to some of the other pro-life and pro-choice reactions to the documentary.
A few lessons that pro-life advocates should take from this situation.