Good article, thanks. I found the idea of cashing in especially helpful. A recent Vox article, https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/9/16614672/ideology-liberal-conservatives says: "We choose our [political] party for a variety of reasons — chief among them being the preferences of our family members, core groups, and community — and then we sign on to their platforms." This is not a completely new idea, but the author cites work by Kinder & Kalmoe that seems to further establish the idea. Jonathan Haidt and others have also done work recently bolstering the idea that our tribal loyalties determine our ideologies and not vice versa. We want people to "change their minds in a healthy way," as you say, and "sign on to the pro-life platform," as the Vox article would say, but unfortunately it seems that the power of arguments has little to do with why people change their minds. Most people will change their ideology only after changing their "family members [or de facto family members], core groups, and communities." Pro-lifers need to offer an attractive community. Pro-life organizations should follow the lead of many churches and emphasize bonding through social activities and personal friendships, and not try to create bonding through purely ideology-driven meetings, marches and outreach alone. Some pro-life organizations are already closely associated with churches of that kind, but in order to break the abortion deadlock in the US, secular and non-denominational pro-life organizations also need to start following that model and creating attractive communities. ERI's relational apologetics seems like a perfect gateway to a pro-life community, but the community it will lead to must be a fully developed one. It seems that human beings cannot easily transcend their tribalism, but it can be made to work for a positive end.
You have not included the most important aspect of a respectful dialogue on a difficult or controversial topic...permission or consent. And much like consent when it comes to intimate relationships, permission is always ongoing. Too often pro life advocates engage without permission or push to far without consent and undermine their outreach before it begins.
Engagement does not always equal consent. That's the point and its an important one if your goal is to change minds... The only reason to dismiss this point as you did, would be if you had no interest in changing someone's mind and had an altogehter different motive for engagement.
Just because someone engages with pro lifers in a booth does not mean they have any interest in debating the morality of abortion (or that such a debate is appropriate).
Just because someone engages with pro lifers in a booth does not mean they have any interest in debating the morality of abortion ...in which case they can end the conversation if they don't like the way it's going. Or talk about whatever else they're interested in. So where are you going with this? What's wrong with the way ERI conducts pro-life outreach, and how would you do it differently if you were trying to change minds about abortion on a university campus?
A recent Vox article, https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/9/16614672/ideology-liberal-conservatives says:
"We choose our [political] party for a variety of reasons — chief among them being the preferences of our family members, core groups, and community — and then we sign on to their platforms."
This is not a completely new idea, but the author cites work by Kinder & Kalmoe that seems to further establish the idea. Jonathan Haidt and others have also done work recently bolstering the idea that our tribal loyalties determine our ideologies and not vice versa.
We want people to "change their minds in a healthy way," as you say, and "sign on to the pro-life platform," as the Vox article would say, but unfortunately it seems that the power of arguments has little to do with why people change their minds. Most people will change their ideology only after changing their "family members [or de facto family members], core groups, and communities."
Pro-lifers need to offer an attractive community. Pro-life organizations should follow the lead of many churches and emphasize bonding through social activities and personal friendships, and not try to create bonding through purely ideology-driven meetings, marches and outreach alone. Some pro-life organizations are already closely associated with churches of that kind, but in order to break the abortion deadlock in the US, secular and non-denominational pro-life organizations also need to start following that model and creating attractive communities. ERI's relational apologetics seems like a perfect gateway to a pro-life community, but the community it will lead to must be a fully developed one. It seems that human beings cannot easily transcend their tribalism, but it can be made to work for a positive end.
they have any interest in debating the morality of abortion
...in which case they can end the conversation if they don't like the way it's going. Or talk about whatever else they're interested in.
So where are you going with this? What's wrong with the way ERI conducts pro-life outreach, and how would you do it differently if you were trying to change minds about abortion on a university campus?