Apr
13
The rhetoric of opposition
April 13, 2009 | 5 Comments
Suction-aspiration: [T]he abortionist must first paralyze the cervical muscle ring (womb opening) and then stretch it open. This is difficult because it is hard or “green” and not ready to open. He then inserts a hollow plastic tube, which has a knife-like edge on the tip, into the uterus. The suction tears the baby’s body into pieces. He then cuts the deeply rooted placenta from the inner wall of the uterus. The scraps are sucked out into a bottle (see color photo in back of book). The suction is 29 times more powerful than a home vacuum cleaner.
Those of us who oppose the abomination described above are informed repeatedly by supposed allies in the fight against abortion that we have to tone down our rhetoric. Pro-lifers damage the cause by our obstinacy. We must guard against the kind of rough rhetoric that might turn off some people. Moreover, making a big stink about America’s most well-known Catholic university inviting the pro-choice President of the United States is counter-productive. We need to engage in dialogue, and remain open minded enough to allow free discourse on our campuses.
Dilatation & Curettage (D&C): This is similar to the suction procedure except that the abortionist inserts a curette, a loop-shaped steel knife, up into the uterus. With this, he cuts the placenta and baby into pieces and scrapes them out into a basin. Bleeding is usually profuse.
This call for caution is understandable, if misguided. It seems that we stand on the precipice, and just the slightest slip will have us hurtling off, destroying the pro-life cause with our reckless disregard for others’ sentiments. Hurling ad hominem insults is certainly no way to convince another of your arguments – that much is certainly true. But this fear to engage in “strong” rhetoric goes beyond a reluctance to insult others. For example, some writers seem to spend paragraphs trying to lay out common ground qualifiers before they finally get to their point, and even then they almost seem apologetic for taking a firm stand in opposition to abortion.
Other methods: A pliers-like instrument is used because the baby’s bones are calcified, as is the skull. There is no anesthetic for the baby. The abortionist inserts the instrument up into the uterus, seizes a leg or other part of the body, and, with a twisting motion, tears it from the baby’s body. This is repeated again and again. The spine must be snapped, and the skull crushed to remove them. The nurse’s job is to reassemble the body parts to be sure that all are removed.
But when we are confronted with manifest evil, it is not just proper to take a vigilant stand, but it is in fact our sacred duty. Evil will not fold at just a soft spoken word. It must be shaken to the ground by firm resistance of those willing to fight for good. Burying our heads in the sand and hoping that the storm will blow over, that we’ll just let this wrong slither on by without kicking up too much of a fuss, is a recipe for continued isolation in the wilderness. It is isn’t about who can shout the loudest or throw up the biggest fuss, but it is about who is willing to highlight the evil and confront it, unashamed and unabashed and with the courage to proclaim the truth even when the truth is unwelcomed by a hostile audience.
One can apply to this to more than just Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame or to just the issue of abortion. The idiotic hand wringing over Rush Limbaugh’s comments about his hoping for Obama’s failure was an unnecessary distraction that forced too many pundits to dwell on a few words of a radio commentator rather than address the problems that the administration’s “solutions” were only multiplying.
But in the specific context of abortion, one does wonder what motivates the timid towards expressing more angst at the response than the underlying issue. I believe that there are four classes of people who protest the protest, so to speak, with a descending order of spinelessness and maliciousness.
Indeed there are people who truly are concerned that testy rhetoric is a detriment. Depending on what is being said, this group’s concerns are not wholly without merit. But I think they fail to distinguish between truly malicious rhetoric and forceful opposition, and dwell overmuch on how things are said rather than what is being debated.
Below this group are those who I think are, quite frankly, simply embarrassed by their would-be brothers in arms. They don’t like having these not so bien pensants making a mock of a cause they believe in. Oh sure, they really want to confront evil, but in a way that is much more cultured.
The third class is somewhat related to the second. They hate to kick up too much of a fuss because they don’t want to anger the people they prefer to associate with. They roll their eyes at those “pajama wearing” americanist Catholic bloggers who are attacking their precious President who, while he’s wrong about abortion, is right about so much else. Oh sure, he supports the legal right to murder unborn children (and even born in some extreme cases), but he also wants to implement socialized health care. And is it worth angering the god Obama over the issue of abortion when he wants Americans to have access to free health care that will be paid for by greedy Calvinists?
Finally, and I’m not sure how big a class this is, but there are those who I suspect are not really pro-life at all. They’ll go through the motions because the are publicly professed Catholics and it might look bad if they confessed that they simply didn’t care about all those poor children massacred at the hand of the abortionist. So they say the right things about being pro-life and “regretting” that the otherwise well-intentioned President happens to be pro-choice, but secretly they couldn’t care less. Heck, they may even be in agreement with him. So they are more than willing to portray the pro-lifers kicking up the fuss as the real problem. It turns the spotlight away from them and towards those who would destroy the potential for a socialist utopia all because of some issue that the Catholic Church, truth be told, is kind of wrong about. Why worry about some fetus getting its spine snapped and skull crushed when there’s a gay man hoping to marry another gay men?
Whoops. Probably shouldn’t tout that opinion too loudly either.
It is thought to be crude to say, “You are either with us or against us.” But when it comes to the most pressing moral evil of our generations, concerns about crudeness should never be a deterrent to action.
Note: All descriptions of these abortion procedures provided by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke.
No TagComments
5 Comments so far
They roll their eyes at those “pajama wearing” americanist Catholic bloggers who are attacking their precious President who, while he’s wrong about abortion, is right about so much else. …And is it worth angering the god Obama over the issue of abortion when he wants Americans to have access to free health care that will be paid for by greedy Calvinists?
Hmmm, who could this be? And how do you tell them from the next group you list afterwards?
And how do you tell them from the next group you list afterwards?
It’s beginning to be tougher to tell the difference, but they are legitimately anti-abortion. The issue is just not as big of a concern, or they hang on to some fantasy that the radicals they support will find the error of their ways, and then they’ll have a perfect socialist utopia in some dream future of theirs.
Wow.
Consider your site bookmarked for life!
That was outstanding! (Sad topic material, but a clarity that brings tears to the eyes like a Rocky Mountain wind on a clear winter day!
Paladin:
Thank you, I appreciate that.
I believe you are overlooking a fifth class of people — those who have had abortions or know someone who has, and simply find the whole subject too painful to discuss, even many years later. You almost certainly know people who fall into this group, though you may not know WHO they are. They know abortion is wrong, and have no desire to justify it; but they still struggle with unresolved guilt or grief, or feel they have no “right” to speak out against abortion when they are guilty of the same offense.