Confronted together
Heather Mitchell claimed Tuesday (“Pro-life ad propaganda skewed scientific truth,” ODE, Feb. 6) that the Human Life Alliance’s insert had a “lack of integrity” and “tabloid-style rhetoric.” I concede that some of the insert’s arguments are easily contested. It is good to expose rhetoric, but it’s ironic that her editorial was dominated by rhetoric as well.
Little more than a third of her argument gave me any reason as to why I should side with a pro-choice position. This is not a personal attack on Heather Mitchell, but an attempt to expose how crafty rhetoric is littering the debates in our culture.
Take the often-used term “anti-choice.” This label is given to those who hold a “pro-life” viewpoint. It doesn’t accurately describe the pro-life position. Pro-life obviously means “for” the life of the fetus/baby — not “anti-abortion” or worse, “anti-choice.” Pro-lifers would not object to a method of terminating a pregnancy (abortion) that kept the fetus alive.
These labels are used to sway an impulsive audience before reason even enters the dialogue by appealing to our distaste for oppression. It is easy to slip into the rhetoric wars.
Slowly, perhaps too slowly, I am becoming more intellectually honest and less defensive. We are a culture quickly losing our intellect and our soul. We are confronted together with the issue of abortion. As a culture committed to virtue and community, what will we do about this issue?

Mike Alverts

Eugene