One of the readers of my article “Thank You, Mommy, for Killing Me,” took exception to what I wrote, posting this comment on the CharismaNews website. (The commenter’s name was Grant.)
He wrote, “I dislike this emotive sort of journalism. I think we’re all very well aware of this issue, and of how barbaric and evil abortion is. It condemns itself categorically and is quite plainly murder. Sticking to the facts and the moral condemnation of such activities should be sufficient, and avoiding swathes of sarcasm is advisable if we are to be taken seriously.” (For those not familiar with the word, “emotive” means “characterized by, expressing, or exciting emotion.”)
Another reader wisely responded, “Quite frankly, Grant, if everyone was aware of how barbaric and evil abortion was it would not be legal. So you are incorrect.”
Of course, this point is well, taken, but there’s more that needs to be said in response. Simply stated, if abortion is so “barbaric and evil” — which it certainly is — then why is it wrong to write with passion about little ones being ripped apart in the womb (among other methods of terminating the baby’s life)? And why is it wrong to stir up the passions of the readers in light of the horrors of abortion?
As for using sarcasm, when Planned Parenthood starts an ad campaign with the slogan, “Your Baby Will Thank You,” it deserves to be exposed with the sharpest of sarcasm.
What do you think? Was my “emotive journalism” and sarcasm fitting here, or do you agree with Grant’s criticism?