Liberal Chicago Sun-Times columnist Neil Steinberg wrote a fasinating column yesterday, after stumbling on two of Pro-Life Action League's graphic signs displays in downtown Chicago during the course of one depressing day. Last paragraph:
That's the problem with the whole conflict. There's no balance. On one side you've got guys like Joe Scheidler, practically a biblical figure, John Brown holding a staff and spreading his arms over bleeding Kansas. On the other, you have bland rationality under the by-definition indecisive banner of "choice" (hmmm, which one, let's see ...) afraid to give their names and lacking anywhere near the passion their opponents possess. It hardly seems a fair fight.
Doesn't sound so much like a potential change of heart as it does a dull, listless pondering of why it is that the bloody-fetus crowd has so much more passion.
"Doesn't sound so much like a potential change of heart as it does a dull, listless pondering of why it is that the bloody-fetus crowd has so much more passion."
Agreed. He's disappointed that there is little passion to be found from the pro-abortion side. Well, how it is possible to be passionate about a lie ("choice") which results in the death of over a million innocents every year?
He is obviously upset that "platoons of grim, lipless yokels and gimlet-eyed, corn-fed fanatics" dare to tell the truth about what's going on every single day in America. He prefers to ignore the bloodshed. He is absolutely NOT having second thoughts.
Christina/JWL, a thoughtful reader of Steinberg's column will understand that, along with his observation that boldness and substantive arguments are more on the pro-life side, was his juxtaposition of the lament of a "murdered" dead fish being flushed down the toilet vs. the apathy of many toward aborted dead children.
I disagree, Jill. I don't see that at all. I see nothing but Steinberg mocking pro-lifers as crazy extremists who are passionate about their lunacy, similar to members of al Qaeda. He doesn't think we have good arguments; he's just disappointed that the folks on his side aren't fighting us with more ferocity.
It's basically the abortionist equivalent of the conservative argument that we aren't fighting hard enough against Islamist extremists.
JWL, he began with the topic of the dead fish for a reason: "Significance is a human gift we bestow capriciously."
He included all Joe's quotes honestly, without twisting them. Joe said, "We're winning!" and Steinberg basically agreed. He wrote the column because the fish, the signs, and the spineless pro-aborts made him think.
I have the advantage, I guess, of having spoken with Joe about the piece, and he was pleased with it. He thought Steinberg was honest and came to a positive conclusion for our side. I also dropped a line to Steinberg, who responded by wanting me to know he takes a "dim view" of abortion.