I was just reading a couple of op-ed pieces on whether pro-lifers should use graphic images of to persuade people of the evils of abortion. I am not opposed to such images, because they do show the truth. And many people are ignorant about the nature of abortion.
Father Orsi's op-ed makes the assumption that those who use more aggressive tactics do not use more spiritual ones. I don't think that's a fair suggestion to make. I don't believe that using morally neutral or good tactics in an effort to discourage women from entering an abortion clinic is a bad thing. As Scripture says, we must be wise as serpents. I do not consider these tactics a lack of "love".
However, I will side with Father Orsi on some points. I do agree that such tactics are "anti-beauty". Hostility and ugliness will steer some away from choosing abortion, but it will not help people to embrace the culture of life. Beauty is in short supply in the pro-life movement.
If we are to persuade more people of the rightness of our cause, we need more than the negative. We need to uplift souls. If something isn't uplifting or positive, people generally do not buy into it. This goes for everything, from religion to food to any kind of gadget. If the potential consumer doesn't feel good about a choice or an idea, he won't adopt it.
Some might think this is irrational, but all you have to do is think about the feelings people have when they convert to Christ. Most people experience a feeling of love and being uplifted. Some might convert out of fear of hell, but the fear of hell cannot sustain a person or make him a true Christian. The negativity only goes so far. If the convert doesn't develop positive feelings about God, Christ and his transformation, he will abandon the faith, even if it is the Truth. Truth that doesn't give a positive experience on the long term might as well be a lie, because we're all destined to be happy.
Mary Poppins says "A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down". Many conservative-minded people flinch at this idea, because in our predominantly liberal culture, we're used to a lot of sugar with no medicine, and in the absence of medicine, we just give it straight, however bad it tastes. But giving medicine straight isn't always the most effective way to transmit the truth. Any parent knows that if you want to make an infant take bad-tasting medicine, you inject it in his formula, or you stir it in his cereal.
Most people are like infants when it comes to the subject of abortion. They can't take the medicine straight. That's not to say that abortion photos should never be used in a judicious fashion. But the pro-life movement cannot be sustained on ugliness alone.
If we are to reach into the heart of people, we have to create our own positive images, our own art. By "art" I mean any kind of story-telling or thematic medium-- whether it's painting, writing, film-making, whatever. We can't just rely on advertizing or propaganda. We have to tell stories, both ficitious and not. The advantage of art is that you can transmit pro-life values without drawing people to the fetal rights debate, which many people avoid because they do not like its generally shrill and hysterical quality. Art draws people into your world and makes them experience it and seeing how it works.
Every major successful social movement in the last half century has its own literature. Pro-lifers do not. Is it any wonder that we don't make as much progress?
Fasting and prayer are surely helpful, but we need to also use the ways of the world. Other movements have learned to make their movements and causes attractive, and have promoted their message through Beauty (or art). If we're to have the same success, we have to adopt the same kinds of tactics.
Check out the Big Blue Wave Message Board
