Day of Silence

Loghan Pickett
Gail Bennett-Edelman
ENG W377: Writing for Social Change
January 29, 2014

The Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity began in 2004 when a student asked Bryan Kemper, founder of Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity, what he could do to help end abortion. A thought then occurred to Bryan and slowly it has evolved into a day of protest that people choose to remain silent for those who never had a voice. The poster advocating for the movement is not very effective at persuading its audience to agree with the act of remaining silent to help end abortion.
I have always been passionate about ending abortion. For this reason, I attempted to implement this movement in my own high school. During the four years I attended high school, I campaigned the Pro-Life Day of Solidarity to help raise awareness for the issue of abortion. This “Day of Silence,” as I campaigned it, was a 24-hour period where you would not speak with those around. Essentially, you would remain silent for those who will never have a chance to put up a fight (i.e. the infants whose pregnancies were aborted).
The poster is trademarking the Day of Silence. The words across the top read, “October 21st Tuesday 2014” which is when the Day of Silence will be recognized this year. The woman pictured in the center of the top portion of the poster appears to be silent with a red piece of duct tape with the word “LIFE” written across the middle. This is a symbol for those who are supporting the worthy cause. The words across and below the woman read, “Pro Life Day of Silent Solidarity.” The words displayed at the bottom of the poster, “Can you lose your voice for a day for those who will never have one?” reveal the cause of the entire campaign. The campaign is centered on a silent protest against abortion. The babies whose lives are aborted during the pregnancy will always remain silent, for they were never given the chance to defend their lives.
Thus far, there are 862 schools registered to observe the Day of Silence that will be recognized on October 21, 2014. The vivid colors on this poster are effective tools for drawing an individual’s attention. The rhetor is attempting to use pathos to evoke emotion on behalf of the audience. This is accomplished through the symbolic use of a woman as the center of the poster. However, the choice of the design is effective in evoking emotion of both the actual and intended audience. In this case, the actual audience is two groups of individuals. The first group is those who are strongly against abortion, while the other group of individuals is those who believe that the choice should be left up to the woman. The intended audience is those people who do not have an opinion either way (Pro-Life or Pro-Choice). In the case of the intended audience, the rhetor is trying to alter, or change, their opinion through the use of emotional appeal. The color of the duct tape (red) is chosen as such because it signifies death. However, the word written across the duct tape states exactly the opposite (LIFE). This contrast is a very effective tool in persuading the intended audience’s opinion. To me, it says, “You could choose death, but why not choose life, instead?” Red duct tape placed across the mouth and red armbands are used as symbols to let others know that the individuals who have the armbands and duct tape are supporting and participating in the Day of Silence. Along with these symbolic markings, those who are participating in the Day of Silence will also be handing out fliers that explain why they are silent and help to educate others who may not be knowledgeable on the subject.
Not only do the colors of this poster elicit an emotional response or pathos, the woman’s eyes also portray a sadness that will only make the viewer sympathize with how she is feeling. Perhaps she is feeling the weight of this decision that she must make, the life or death of her child. I think it is interesting that the rhetor selected a woman to represent the act of silence because they are still promoting the fact that the decision to abort the child is ultimately the woman’s choice. At the same time, though, the rhetor is hoping to completely eradicate abortion, thus confiscating the entire choice in the matter. This simple design choice could confuse viewers and even supporters of the Pro-Life movement. This choice of strategy makes the motivations of the silence seem rather confusing to the various audiences that the poster can attract. The rhetor is saying that they are Pro-Life, while at the same time, supporting the Pro-Choice movement. Essentially, the poster is attracting the attention of both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice viewers. The poster is advocating for the choice to be left to the woman, but in its mission statement, the rhetor is focusing primarily on a Pro-Life stance.
Overall, I believe this poster is a good attempt at supporting the Pro Life movement. However, it could be improved by letting the viewers know what they are hoping to accomplish by remaining silent. As can be viewed at the present moment, viewers could see the act of silence advocating either ending abortion or leaving the choice left to the woman. For this reason, it can be asserted that the poster advocating for the movement is not very effective at persuading its audience to agree with the act of remaining silent to help end abortion.