UNPERSUASIVE

The abortion debate is not just a disagreement. It is a "two movies on one screen" scenario.

People are seeing two very different realities. And each reality has its own echo chamber.

inside that echo chamber, it is incredibly difficult to tell what is a persuasive argument and what it not. As long as it aligns with "our side", confirmation bias will lead us to believe the quote or meme we are sharing on Instagram is airtight and incontrovertible . 

It seldom is. The other side is more likely to see the flaws in our arguments. 

I am not looking to get political here. I am wanting only to give an example of an opinion that seems profound within one side of the abortion reality and incredibly weak and ridiculous from the other.

I've seen the following opinion reposted frequently since last week when the news was first leaked about a possible looming Supreme Court overturning of Roe v. Wade. This post from the pro-choice side flops hard outside the pro-choice echo chamber:

I do not intend to denigrate Barnhart as a pastor. I am a supporter of pastors in general. It is a tough job and pastors take a lot of arrows already. On the other hand, pastors have a high calling and they are not untouchable. They should expect to be held accountable for their words. 

The quote attributed to Barnhart above was from a post he made on Facebook back in 2018.

And it reads like a Facebook post. There is nothing profound or eloquent here. 

And it makes several mistakes if it is trying to be persuasive.

First, Barnhart assumes the worst motives of his fellow Christians: "The unborn" are a convenient group to advocate for. If you are trying to convince someone, it is best not to insult them. 

Then he echoes a familiar trope which I have never seen offered with even a crumb of supporting evidence: And when they are born, you can forget about them because they cease to be unborn. If you are trying to convince someone, show your evidence. 

The unborn are "the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe." This comes across as more insults; it is cynical, judgmental, and arrogant. 

If a person hopes to persuade another, he or she should at least be capable of understanding and vocalizing the viewpoint on either side of this issue. No attempt is made here. 

Finally, if you hope to convince someone, stick to logic. Barnhart's conclusion is a non-sequitur. Why would a Christian need to choose between serving the poor, sick people, prisoners, widows and orphans on one side ... and the unborn on the other?

There is no reason to think of this in terms of either/or. 

It is clearly both/and. 

And the vast majority of pro-life people and ministries I personally know are adept and serious about serving both the born and the unborn. 

So often an argument meant as a "Ha! I got you there, don't I?!" comes across as a "It's clear I haven't thought past my own assumptions."