When is it appropriate to use satire like that of the last post?  When should sarcasm, even biting sarcasm, be used?  Is it helpful?  Does it help to persuade those who disagree, or does it seem obnoxious and therefore only alienate them?

In general, I don’t think it’s the way to go.  What the pro-life community most needs right now is effective advocates able to clearly and convincingly convey the very sound rationales underlying the pro-life commitment.  To the extent opponents will listen at all, I believe they are most likely to listen to calm and careful analysis.  They will be most receptive when we first take the time to accurately and charitably articulate their reasoning before attempting to show the gaps in their logic.  Nobody appreciates when their positions are inaccurately presented as straw men only to be mockingly attacked.  It may buy you laughs and kudos from those of like mind, but it will almost never win over your ideological adversary.  It is unhelpful when dealing with those who are somewhat on the fence regarding the morality of abortion.  And it is downright destructive for those trying to come to terms with their own abortions.

Yet, there are times when sarcasm, and even invective, are not only appropriate but clearly called for.  There are certain acts that are so beyond the pale that it is not appropriate to give them even preliminary legitimacy by attempting to consider their merit before deconstructing them. 

Okay, so let me see if I understand you correctly.  In a partial-birth abortion, it’s important to puncture the baby’s skull and vacuum out the brains while the head is still in the birth canal in order to ensure that the act can be classified as an “abortion” and not as “infanticide”?  Gotcha.  And as an added benefit this measure works to collapse the skull and ensure easy passage once the baby is dead?  Okay, good.  So now, you think the right to do this is guaranteed in the Constitution because . . . .

I don’t think so.

And there are certain persons and organizations who are so responsible for promoting a culture of death, so completely convinced of the moral legitimacy of their mission, that it is beyond a waste of breath to attempt to convince them of anything.  They must instead be condemned, shamed, and, yes, sometimes even graphically mocked.

That is why Steve Hickey’s admittedly gruesome satire was so fitting.  Planned Parenthood’s “award” to Sarah Stoesz for employing deceptive advertising to ensure that laws protecting innocent life are overturned on false premises is not deserving of charitable dialogue.  The only appropriate response is condemnation and vivid description of exactly what Planned Parenthood is celebrating.

So, I just wanted to put out this apologia for those who read my previous post (or may read it in the future) and perhaps wonder if such graphic sarcasm is my general modus operandi.  The answer is no.  But when it is called for, it is called for, and I won’t shy away from using a blunt weapon, offensive though it may be, when that is the case.