The Problem With Toning Down the Rhetoric – And Why We Probably Won’t Do It

[canadianguy1143]

wdtprs.com/blog/2009/07/the-problem-with-toning-down-the-rhetoric-%E2%80%93-and-why-we-probably-won%E2%80%99t-do-it/

Probably the best blog ever written!!

 

[Dandelion_Wine]

Interesting read.

 

[Drawmack]

He makes quite a few gross assumptions about people based on the fact that they want to use non-inflammatory language. Nothing I haven’t come to expect, after brow-beaters for Jesus is in town.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

I saw this response which I thought was interesting.

I agree with every point you make but still think that we must choose our words carefully. More to the point, I can talk about how more infants have been murdered in this country than Jews were by Hitler until I am blue in the face, but, to paraphrase Lincoln, “the people that like that sort of thing are the people that like that sort of thing.” The problem, as I see it, isn’t that the point isn’t being made stridently, strongly or powerfully enough, but that we’ve got, when it comes to abortion, two groups of people who have grown up speaking, as it were, two different languages. Or something like that. That is, when I say the word “abortion,” I would bet that most of the people here would immediately think of a) an image of a fully-formed fetus and b) murder; our progressive friends would immediately think of a) a woman, either notional (probably poor or abused or the like) or someone they know, and b) that woman being abused in some way. For this reason I can agree with an atheist progressive friend that the sex trade is a horrific evil, but even when doing so I am talking about something which I see plugged into a network of pornography, birth control and the de-humanization of sexuality, and he finds the same thing to be part of a nebula populated with things like patriarchical oppression of the feminine, sexual control and the like.

And this is more than a matter of bad catechesis on this specific topic, I’ve come to think. The sort of moral architecture on which our world views, theologies, etc. hang are deeply important to us. This is why it’s not so simple as flying pictures of an aborted fetus or the like about college campuses. When we ask a progressive to consider the unborn at least as morally important as the mothers who bear them we aren’t just asking them to change their mind about one thing, but to sit down and re-consider their entire “moral architecture.” How many people are willing to do that sort of thing? Very few, I’d wager. I bet you it may even be worse than that too: I bet you that in all the various dialects of progressivism, there may not be any way of describing abortion as the murder of a child. I don’t think harsh rhetoric should always be verboten, but I think we must be prudent in its use. It takes a long time of ministering to people (if I can use that word) to get them to see the light. It requires a radically re-positioning. I think shouting at someone isn’t a good idea here because, frankly, it’s a waste of our time and because it’s awfully imprecise (again, I think this issue is obvious to us, so I suppose the need for precision might seem odd. For progressives, the issue isn’t very obvious at all – indeed, part of the reason most progressives aren’t pro-life is because sloppy thinking and the like have confused this issue for them).

Comment by PS — 6 July 2009 @ 4:23 pm

It underscores the neccesity of leading a God centered life, following Christ and His Church and striving to conform one’s conscience every day to see that people can come up with weltanschauen so easily to justify grave evil and then incorporate that evil. Brrrrrrr

 

[Drawmack]

I saw this response which I thought was interesting.

It underscores the neccesity of leading a God centered life, following Christ and His Church and striving to conform one’s conscience every day to see that people can come up with weltanschauen so easily to justify grave evil and then incorporate that evil. Brrrrrrr

To be quite honest, I think the problem lies in relativistic morality.

 

[fix]

Truth is hate to those who hate truth. The current mantra is to call defending life too strident. Of course, those who do not accept the truth of these matters will call any defense inflammatory or uncivil.

The photo of that poor priest being taken away by the police says it all.

 

[Drawmack]

Truth is hate to those who hate truth. The current mantra is to call defending life too strident. Of course, those who do not accept the truth of these matters will call any defense inflammatory or uncivil.

The photo of that poor priest being taken away by the police says it all.

Yeah it was horrible of those police to give that priest three warnings that he could not continue on that path and that if he did they would be forced to remove him. It was horrible of those police to stop that priest before he crossed the kill line that is set up around any place the president is speaking.

 

[fix]

Yeah it was horrible of those police to give that priest three warnings that he could not continue on that path and that if he did they would be forced to remove him. It was horrible of those police to stop that priest before he crossed the kill line that is set up around any place the president is speaking.

What is horrible is trying to control the debate by claiming pro life folks, like that holy priest, are too strident. Do the babies think that?

 

[Drawmack]

What is horrible is trying to control the debate by claiming pro life folks, like that holy priest, are too strident. Do the babies think that?

I am pro-life. I do volunteer work with pregnant teens to educate them about the reality of abortion and attempt to get them not to get abortions. The teens I work with are ones who are at a high risk of getting abortions. After my workshops 80% of them do not get abortions.

So, I don’t know what this talk about controlling the debate is about. I do not know why you seem to have assumed I am not pro-life. And, I think that all those babies from the vast majority of the mother’s I counsel think that I’m a wonderful asset to the pro-life cause.

I really don’t know where this post came from, but it’s implications are patently false.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

I saw this response which I thought was interesting.

It underscores the necessity of leading a God centered life, following Christ and His Church and striving to conform one’s conscience every day to see that people can come up with weltanschauen so easily to justify grave evil and then incorporate that evil. Brrrrrrr

Michael:

I finally got to the “Response” you quoted - We have to remember this isn’t just a War of Ideas - This is a Spiritual War as well, and many of those you’re talking about may be “Spiritually” or “Morally” Blind. At the same time, many of them have become so indoctrinated to the Pro-Abortion, Pro-Death Agenda, they don’t know that ALL of the original “Women’s Libbers”, the Suffragettes, opposed Abortion precisely because Abortion was used by men to imprison, oppress, subjugate & brutalize women. They don’t know that Abortion actually harms women, and most of them have never even heard of “Post-Abortion Syndrome”. Most of them have NO IDEA that something they’ve been convinced to support (because it’s “progressive” & “Helpful to women”) is often forced on women by their families, boyfriends and husbands and then HARMS the women for the rest of their lives! and Most of them have NO IDEA how Planned Parenthood is using Abortion…

maafa21.com/
Abortion & Black Genocide
The Abortion Debate no one wants to have
Confessions of an Ex-Abortionist
Abortion Clinic Emergency Calls (1 of 4)
Abortion Clinic Emergency Calls (2 of 4)
Abortion Clinic Emergency Calls (3 of 4)
Abortion Clinic Emergency Calls (4 of 4)
youtube.com/watch?v=STJTDWjmE0Q&feature=channel
nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/Obamacoveruponbornalive.htm


compleatheretic.com/pubs/letters/020624.html

And, We have to let them know that, As Cardinal Cushing said, we’ll find some way to take care of the women - If CONVENIENCE isn’t what they’re looking for.

Good Counsel Homes - This is a Home
youtube.com/watch?v=OvWG2MOQHsY&feature=channel_page
Nellie Gray on Good Counsel
youtube.com/watch?v=Uo_ctI6xDQ8&feature=channel

As you could see from the Blog you quoted, some people won’t be convinced, NO MATTER what we do - Our job isn’t to convince them. Our job is to lead our lives in such a way that those who would be willing to listen will listen, and then, if their concern is the welfare of the woman, to present evidence of the HARMFUL and sometimes DEADLY effects of Abortion on WOMEN with clarity, making sure they understand that ABORTION IS HARMFUL TO WOMEN. If we do that, we will not be forcing these people to choose between the welfare of women and the lives of their babies, but between the welfare of women (and their baby) and the pocketbooks and agendas of Abortionists and those who support the Gospel of Death of Abortion and Eugenics/Black Genocide.

If we can do that, the service we will render Progressives by freeing them from the prison of the false choice offered by the supporters of the Gospel of Death and the founders of Planned Parenthood and their Eugenics Project will be second only to that given Progressives when they accept the Christ Himself… Because, It will rightly restore Progressives to their rightful place as defenders of the Weak, Powerless and Voiceless.

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

I am pro-life. I do volunteer work with pregnant teens to educate them about the reality of abortion and attempt to get them not to get abortions. The teens I work with are ones who are at a high risk of getting abortions. After my workshops 80% of them do not get abortions.

So, I don’t know what this talk about controlling the debate is about. I do not know why you seem to have assumed I am not pro-life. And, I think that all those babies from the vast majority of the mother’s I counsel think that I’m a wonderful asset to the pro-life cause.

I really don’t know where this post came from, but it’s implications are patently false.

Drawmack:

It’s good that you do the volunteer work - I was walking in front of a local Abortion Clinic this Lent (during the 40-Days for Life - they coincided) after discovering the Pastor at my parish refused to mention the Abortion in any of the parish prayer requests & publications or any of his sermons. He had mentioned them previously, and then some of the parishioners objected - I guess their objections overwhelmed what St. Paul said to St. Timothy:
I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.
2 Timothy 4:1-5 ESV
I even quoted that Scripture to my Pastor, and all I got in response was that “There are people hurting in this parish.” He had forgotten the NUMBER ONE CURE for people who are hurting is the Truth of the Gospel, lovingly applied. and, He had forgotten that, if the Injury was caused by Abortion, NOT mentioning it wasn’t going to do anything to help heal the wound. All it was going to do was help the wound fester some more without the healing touch of Christ and the Church’s Healing Sacraments (Healing & Reconciliation).

I thought I was being really effective a the Abortion Mill until my LAST DAY when a woman walked right in front of me, and I just couldn’t get to her, because I was trying to get some stuff ready for someone else. I was the ONLY ONE there. There were 6-8 during the morning (only one day/week), but I was IT during the afternoon, and I’m mobility impaired. There’s NOTHING more frustrating than when you don’t get a chance to get through to someone…

I don’t think you realize how powerful language is, and how easily language can be used to obfuscate the issue, esp. if that’s what the other side wants to do. I’ve only learned that from dealing with another issue, where emotions are even higher than this one, and where language is used, and misused, even more than on this one. That’s the Middle East, and I won’t get into it here, but dealing with that issue has taught me that the courtesy of calling people by the name they want to be called is OK only as long as the “Name” somehow accurately describes the other party, only as long as the “Title” doesn’t preclude or exclude accurate description, and only as long as the “Name”/“Title” isn’t non-descriptive or false.

In the case of “Pro-Choice”, I believe the “Name”/“Title” doesn’t merit the courtesy, because those who support the “Pro-Choice” position can be relied on to send Amicus Curae Briefs NOT in support of women fleeing regimes (Esp. the PRC) forcing them to have Abortions, but in support of either the US State Dept. or of the Regimes seeking their return so they can be IMPRISONED FOR GIVING BIRTH! In all of these cases, the ONLY Amicus Curae Briefs supporting the women came from PRO-LIFE Groups. The people who supported the women’s “Right to Choose” to give birth, were the Pro-Life Organizations who wrote Amicus Curae Briefs in defense of the women’s Right to Choose to Give Birth, NOT those Pro-Death Groups that claim to be “Pro-Choice”, but wrote Amicus Curae Briefs requesting the women be deported so they could be imprisoned for the CRIME OF GIVING BIRTH.

The ONLY CHOICE the “Pro-Choice” Organizations defend is the “Right to Choose” to KILL the Unborn Baby - That’s NO CHOICE AT ALL.

In short, the “Name”/“Title” “Pro-Choice” is a Fraud and cannot be said to be accurately descriptive in any way or form, unless you made the first one to read, “Pro-Only One Choice,” and made Their position to read, “A Woman’s Right to Choose to kill her unborn child,” which I’m sure they’d never agree to.

It’s up to you, but you’re ceding ground on a debate in the interests of courtesy that we should not cede in the interests of TRUTH. and, Here, Charity requires that we try our utmost to remove their blinders too.

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[Drawmack]

Michael,

Why do you use such large type, it makes your posts difficult to read on my little screen?

Drawmack:

I thought I was being really effective a the Abortion Mill until my LAST DAY when a woman walked right in front of me, and I just couldn’t get to her, because I was trying to get some stuff ready for someone else. I was the ONLY ONE there. There were 6-8 during the morning (only one day/week), but I was IT during the afternoon, and I’m mobility impaired. There’s NOTHING more frustrating than when you don’t get a chance to get through to someone…

About a year ago, I was protesting in front of an abortion clinic in Philly. All we were supposed to do was hold signs. At one point during the day I noticed the man next to me holding something. I stepped in front of him as he went to trow pig’s blood (this was not fake blood, it was real blood) on a 15 year old girl that was walking into the clinic. I then escorted her into the clinic and spoke with her in the waiting room. All those pro-choice nurses knew that I was one of the protesters, but they cleaned me up anyway. All of those pro-choice nurses listened as I counseled this poor confused girl and they didn’t butt in. At the end of it, she did not get an abortion that day. When I asked the man what made him think he had the right to throw blood on someone he said, “I was just showing her that she has blood on her hands, why does the truth offend you?” This is where poor language choice leads!

I don’t think you realize how powerful language is, and how easily language can be used to obfuscate the issue, esp. if that’s what the other side wants to do. I’ve only learned that from dealing with another issue, where emotions are even higher than this one, and where language is used, and misused, even more than on this one. That’s the Middle East, and I won’t get into it here, but dealing with that issue has taught me that the courtesy of calling people by the name they want to be called is OK only as long as the “Name” somehow accurately describes the other party, only as long as the “Title” doesn’t preclude or exclude accurate description, and only as long as the “Name”/“Title” isn’t non-descriptive or false.

When I am talking with a room full of pregnant teenage girls and they begin to quote things they have read on pro-life sites and in pro-life literature and this stuff is dripping with vitriol to the point where I, a pro-lifer, want to recoil from the language being used and they then tell me to explain how someone who respects life could talk to someone else that way – I understand how powerful language is.

When I am talking with a room full of pregnant teenage girls and they quote pro-life literature that implies getting an abortion is no more serious than choosing a soft drink or a salad dressing and then tell me that they cannot take people who would make such a mockery of their situation seriously – I understand how powerful language is.

In the case of “Pro-Choice”, I believe the “Name”/“Title” doesn’t merit the courtesy, because those who support the “Pro-Choice” position can be relied on to send Amicus Curae Briefs NOT in support of women fleeing regimes (Esp. the PRC) forcing them to have Abortions, but in support of either the US State Dept. or of the Regimes seeking their return so they can be IMPRISONED FOR GIVING BIRTH! In all of these cases, the ONLY Amicus Curae Briefs supporting the women came from PRO-LIFE Groups. The people who supported the women’s “Right to Choose” to give birth, were the Pro-Life Organizations who wrote Amicus Curae Briefs in defense of the women’s Right to Choose to Give Birth, NOT those Pro-Death Groups that claim to be “Pro-Choice”, but wrote Amicus Curae Briefs requesting the women be deported so they could be imprisoned for the CRIME OF GIVING BIRTH.

I have stated repeatedly that when I advocate for using the term pro-choice I am only speaking about the United States. If I were in China I would not be talking about using the term pro-choice because there it is not a choice.

The reason that pro-choice groups did not write letters is because they do not view that as as an abortion issue, they view that as a human rights issue. I’m not saying they are correct, I’m simply saying they look at it differently than the pro-life groups do.

to be continued …

 

[Drawmack]

In short, the “Name”/“Title” “Pro-Choice” is a Fraud and cannot be said to be accurately descriptive in any way or form, unless you made the first one to read, “Pro-Only One Choice,” and made Their position to read, “A Woman’s Right to Choose to kill her unborn child,” which I’m sure they’d never agree to.

I’m sorry, but when I see pregnant girls quote pro-life writings that use terms like pro-death, baby killer, etc. and flat out tell me that they view this as disrespectful and therefore the author is a hypocrite when they say that they respect all life I will argue against using such words.

It really comes down to this. I do not care about high-faluten ideals. I do not care about justifications. I do not care how well you think you can justify using inflammatory language. I do not care how much reasoning and though you have put into coming up with a justification for not obeying the golden rule. I care about women who are getting, and contemplating getting, abortions. And, using this type of language makes it harder to really educate these women and girls on what they are doing. They have already been put off to anyone who is pro-life because of this type of language.

If someone tells you that they wish to be called by a name / title and you refuse to call them by that name / title then you are disrespecting their wishes. Disrespecting someone’s wishes is disrespecting the person. Disrespecting a person is in direct opposition to respecting all life. Thus, it makes you a hypocrite to do this.

Use the term pro-choice the entire time you’re explaining exactly what it is a choice to do. But, use the term pro-choice.

It’s up to you, but you’re ceding ground on a debate in the interests of courtesy that we should not cede in the interests of TRUTH. and, Here, Charity requires that we try our utmost to remove their blinders too.

The first lecture in my series for the girls is called “It’s your choice.” I start off by informing them that it is their legal right to get an abortion. Then I inform them that no one has the legal right, in the United States, to stop them from getting, or force them to get, an abortion. Then I say, but there are laws about informed consent. Before you give a doctor permission to perform an operation you’re supposed to know exactly what that operation does, it’s possible side effects, and it’s ramifications. Then I talk to them for an hour and a half about there three things (half an hour on each). The entire time I keep using the term choice.

I inform them, patiently and kindly, about the stages of fetal development. I inform them, patiently and kindly, about how the fetus is removed from them – should they exercise their legal choice to abort. I inform them, patiently and kindly, about the possible side effects – should they choose to abort. I inform them, patiently and kindly, about the hormonal changes in their bodies and what happens if these are suddenly stopped – should they choose to abort. I inform them, patiently and kindly, about the negative psychological effects it can have on the woman for years (if not life) – should they choose to abort. At the end of all this I ask them a simple question.

The choice to abort is the choice to what?

At this point they often say things like murder, etc. I don’t have to use inflammatory language to teach them the truth, I simply have to use the truth.

On the other hand, if I stood up there and ranted about pro-death, murder, etc. I doubt these girls would even listen.

 

[fix]

If someone tells you that they wish to be called by a name / title and you refuse to call them by that name / title then you are disrespecting their wishes. Disrespecting someone’s wishes is disrespecting the person. Disrespecting a person is in direct opposition to respecting all life. Thus, it makes you a hypocrite to do this.

Use the term pro-choice the entire time you’re explaining exactly what it is a choice to do. But, use the term pro-choice.

Sorry, but this is not true. What one wishes their position to be categorized as is no right and they are not entitled to it if it is false, nor is it disrespectful to not oblige error.

What is disrespectful is for such a person to insist that another must agree to their error or be called “disrespectful”.

 

[Drawmack]

Sorry, but this is not true. What one wishes their position to be categorized as is no right and they are not entitled to it if it is false, nor is it disrespectful to not oblige error.

What is disrespectful is for such a person to insist that another must agree to their error or be called “disrespectful”.

Here’s to ignoring the point of a post!

 

[fix]

Here’s to ignoring the point of a post!

pro choice = pro abortion

If you want to use a particular methodology you like, fine. But, why claim others must use only your terms?

 

[RSD]

Here’s to ignoring the point of a post!

I have noticed a lot of that on this site, not just this thread. I have read some insightful and helpful things- I really appreciate what you have written about your experience with pregnant girls- but I have noticed that once people on this site stake out a position, they tend to run roughshod over anyone or any view that might challenge them. It is disappointing that so many of the posts which seem to “answer” a previous post actually only ignore it. It is especially ironic in this thread, because the basic positions seem to be 1) “WE HAVE TO SHOUT LOUDER TO MAKE SURE THEY HEAR US!!!” and 2) Sometimes people hear better when they listen. They listen better when you talk nicely to them.

Then the people who hold the 1) position say WE CAN’T HEAR YOU BECAUSE WE ARE SHOUTING LOUDLY.

 

[Drawmack]

pro choice = pro abortion

If you want to use a particular methodology you like, fine. But, why claim others must use only your terms?

They are not my terms. Read my entire, two part, post. I answered this question already.

 

[Drawmack]

I have noticed a lot of that on this site, not just this thread. I have read some insightful and helpful things- I really appreciate what you have written about your experience with pregnant girls- but I have noticed that once people on this site stake out a position, they tend to run roughshod over anyone or any view that might challenge them. It is disappointing that so many of the posts which seem to “answer” a previous post actually only ignore it. It is especially ironic in this thread, because the basic positions seem to be 1) “WE HAVE TO SHOUT LOUDER TO MAKE SURE THEY HEAR US!!!” and 2) Sometimes people hear better when they listen. They listen better when you talk nicely to them.

Then the people who hold the 1) position say WE CAN’T HEAR YOU BECAUSE WE ARE SHOUTING LOUDLY.

Yeah, I know.

 

[fix]

They are not my terms. Read my entire, two part, post. I answered this question already.

I read them. You agree to use terms. That is your method and you call for others to do the same.