The modern use of the word “rhetoric,” often pejorative, in phrases like “mere rhetoric,” implies superfluous stylistic flourishes or manipulation. I, of course, feel that this is a misapplication of the word, as you stated. Throughout the centuries, several other definitions have been offered for the term “rhetoric,” which I feel are more appropriate. Aristotle gives us: “an ability in each [particular] case to see the available means of persuasion.” Cicero a couple of centuries later writes, “The function of eloquence [rhetoric] seems to be to speak in a manner suited to persuade an audience, the end is to persuade by speech.” I like these two definitions because together they provide an analytical and productive view of rhetoric. We can analyze others’ arguments and we can persuade them with our own.

Now, the history of the words rhetoric and sophistry is complex. The term “sophist” is older and first appears in Ancient Greece in the 5th century. It was first used for the 7 Older Sophists, a group of esteemed, historical wise men in Greece’s history. Itinerant teachers of speech seemed to have then used to the term for themselves because of its original prestige and association with wisdom. In the 4th century, Plato and Isocrates use it derisively against each other and their rivals. This shift in the connotation of the term may have resulted from the reputation the itinerant teachers of the 5th century gained for being morally relativistic, corrupting the youth, and charging exorbitant fees for their services. In the first century AD/CE, there arose what has been termed the Second Sophistic, which describes a movement of “sophists” who were concerned with declamation, or speeches that displayed the orator’s verbal prowess.

The term rhetoric too has a tumultuous and perhaps even more complicated history. The term was probably first coined in the 4th century by Plato and he used it in fairly dismissive way to denote two kinds of arts: rhetoric and philosophy. Ever since, rhetoricians have had to justify, to varying degrees, that they are not doing “mere rhetoric” or “sophistry.” However, for much of late antiquity into the Middle Ages, and even the Renaissance, rhetoric had a prominent and respected place in culture and education. Rhetoric seems to have fallen out of favor beginning during the Enlightenment period with the rise of scientific discourse and logic, resulting in its contemporary pejorative sense.

So, I think that the history of those words explains their modern connotations. I wouldn’t mind at all if people used the term sophistry, rather than rhetoric, when they wanted to describe someone’s speech as flowery or manipulative. Regarding rhetoric’s relationship to “the truth”… I agree with Socrates that “rhetoric (just like any other activity) should every be used in the service of right.” But we all know, unfortunately, that’s not always the case.

“Art, like morality, consists of drawing the line somewhere.”

There must be some way to hold a high moral principle, or at least to recall a high moral principle from time to time, to facilitate the attempt to “make things better.” While it is true that we commonly set aside “life” in pursuit of something else, it should not be done lightly, and it should not be done without understanding the consequences. The Catholic Church grapples with all kinds of things, and attempts to have coherent responses to the vagaries and realities of our fallen existence. Sadly, seldom do we see in print or on TV an accurate representation of the Church’s position. You comment that absolute application of a principle doesn’t work. I think it depends on the principle, and it depends on what you mean by absolute.

For example, one could certainly ascertain from the media presentation that the Church would oppose abortion at all times in all places. This is actually not true, though the circumstances are rather specific. Suppose for an example a pregnant women has uterine cancer, and medically it is clear that the mother will die without emergency surgery. However, emergency surgery will necessarily abort her baby. What do you do?

The Church would say, “do the surgery.” The abortion that results, not being the intent of the surgery, but rather an accident of the surgery, is sad and unfortunate. But it was not an evil act. There is no “sin.” The moral principle of “defend life” was applied.

I hope you can see where I am going there.

One thing missed in the “pro-life” / “pro-choice” non-dialog is the issue of chastity. Say what you want, but if men stopped using women as dumpsters for our lust, abortions would be all but eliminated. Now, that’s a strong statement, but my point is, if men simply did not put women in the position where they “had to choose” most of this would simply go away.

This fact is simply not in the debate, and it should be. In our world of free choice, we have tried to pretend these choices don’t have consequences. There are a series of choices that get made that result in an abortion, not just the final choice. I’d love to see people exercise their freedom of choice earlier in the process, with some foresight and yes, a moral basis. You commented that abortion will not be legislated out of existence. I would agree. Ultimately people do choose to do things they shouldn’t. But we are sadly lacking in real discussion of the cause of abortion, which frankly, the root cause is the rejection of a chaste life. (And I don’t mean celibacy.)

Simple legislation will not accomplish the goal 100%,that is all too true.

Thank you for your comments. FB

I am nether a rhetorician nor a Catholic but I have an interest in what you have written and the hubbub around the President’s visit to ND.

I have been an advocate of the pro choice stance for most of my life but I have a heart for those who are motivated by the sanctity of life. I have a heart for every aborted fetus.

Being “pro-life” is a noble and high calling especially, in my view, because it is applied to ‘the least of us’. Especially again, when we consistently apply this principle to every aspect of life and not only those to which we feel most called.

I have two points. The first is that the absolute application of a principle, any principle, doesn’t work. If you think it does I am willing to take your examples under consideration. Second, we tend to be more drawn to certain expressions of our sacred principle than others. When we are inconsistent in the application of our principles we lose power and the high moral ground in all applications of them.

I wish it were true that “life” is the highest value of the human family but I am afraid that it is not nor has it ever been. I cannot state this as a matter of fact but simply as my anecdotal and subjective experience of the world.

We regularly place other values ahead of life. When we go to war we place every reason for being in war ahead of life as our ultimate value. At the very least we place a higher value on our own lives and what we believe over the lives and beliefs of others.

When we submit people to capital punishment we derive satisfaction in knowing that justice, or our view of justice, is served without mercy and that the taking of the doer’s life completes a just circle.

When we use toxic chemicals in the production of farm crops that eventually find their way onto our tables and into our bodies for the sake of profit we have a higher value than life. It is not as bold and in your face as abortion but it is no less a subverting of life.

I can continue on in this vein but the point is we regularly place a higher value on many things over life. We tend to get ourselves worked up over the most obvious transgressions of the rule and not so much over those that are less obvious but equally in opposition to our values.

For “life is the highest value absolutely” folks being an anti abortion advocate is like breathing. It is life expressing and feels perfect. In truth it is.

Although I have empathy for that view I cannot surrender my free will to it absolutely. I believe that absolutes seldom work in life and the older I get the more I believe this. I have seen the cost for absolutism. Is the cost always worth the price paid? I do not think so. I believe there are circumstances, life situations, which can trump the absolute application of a principle.

Some abortions might be examples of this. That does not mean that I do not believe in the core principle that the subverting or taking of human life is wrong. That does not mean that I believe the potential abuse of power that an abortion represents is not seductive and wrong because I do.

What it does mean is that I do not believe in the absolute application of a principle. I will hold it as an ideal, aspire to it, but not worship it.

Why can we not seek to make this a country where abortions are the rarest form of reproductive intervention? Can we not recognize that it is more than likely outside of our power to eliminate abortions completely, even with legislation?

To dis the President for being circumspect in this matter is not only misplaced angst but takes energy away from moving forward with the best expression of what can be achieved for people, especially unborn children.

Respectfully,
MF

I sadly agree with your observation that there are those that want him (President Obama)to fail. I didn’t vote for him, but I want him to be successful. Of course opinions vary on what successful looks like. But, I think failure of his presidency on most levels would be very bad for this country, and possibly the world.

On a completely different note, if I can task your patience, I am no student of rhetoric, but it seems to me that the word ‘rhetoric’ is usually mis-applied. Am I correct in thinking that what many call rhetoric is in fact sophistry?

It seems that the purpose, or maybe the value of rhetoric is in arguing for ‘the truth’ while sophistry is essentially arguing to convince someone of your position, whether it is ‘the truth’ or not. Making sophistry sort of rhetoric’s perverse cousin. I’m wondering, if my understanding is correct, if the reason for the misapplication of terms is due to the fact rhetoric is a discipline taught in universities while sophistry is better known as advertising.

Again, thank you for your time. FB

So, to answer your question: yes, the Democratic Party has also tended to politicize abortion in an unhelpful way. But this is an important moment for abortion politics, when a Democratic President has made abortion reduction a concrete goal and has acknowledged that abortion is a moral issue.

However, I think there are agitators with a vested interest in seeing President Obama NOT succeed who are helping stoke the kinds of demonizations that make it impossible for people from both sides to work together toward common ground solutions. And it’s unfortunate that certain members of the Church hierarchy are buying into and legitimizing this harmful rhetoric.

So, I am interested in your comment that Obama’s reluctance to criminalize abortion does not mean he is in favor of it. Clearly, this is a valid view. It does not follow automatically, there is not a cause and effect leading from one to the other. I find myself having to rethink a couple of assumptions regarding Obama.

However, it does seem that abortion gets a certain pass through the mechanics of a false bundling with “reproductive rights” and “women’s choice.” I think everyone really knows what goes on with an abortion, at least today, it is well documented. To focus on reproductive rights versus killing a baby is necessary for the position to remain tenable in, I think, any rational mind. Let’s face it, even in this society, or go abroad to Denmark or some such place, people don’t send out notices trumpeting their daughter’s first abortion. It is not a celebrated act – and we all really know why. There is nothing to celebrate, despite the assertions that Choice is Good.

Also ignored are many studies linking abortion to suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, etc. Frankly, if the Centers for Disease Control would be honest, they’d have to state that abortion is quite frequently harmful to the woman having it, on at least the same type of statistical levels discussed regarding artifical sweeteners and the like. But, there is no communication of these realities as they are not – something. I don’t even know how to express the disconnect. We can tell people they shouldn’t eat certain things because of stats that show increased incidence of heart disease or whatever, but we can’t tell people to reconsider abortion as a tool toward “reproductive health” when it causes physcial and mental health problems.

So, my question: Why is it that the Democratic world view does not include the protection of this particular corner of the down-trodden?

Thank you for your time. FB