Graphic Pictures Of Abortions

[SJRod55]

Do the graphic photos not just compound the tragic death / murder of these innocents? Is it not adding to the disresepct of the human life to show these mutiolated corpses? Many countries experimented with graphic posters showing the 'actions' of terrorists in attempts to get people to 'turn in' the terrorists. The posters were no more effective than regular 'wanted' notices.

I think it is a definite cross roads. There are many innocent people who are assaulted by these photographs indirectly and unsuspectingly. I for one say No to the graphic posters.

[hierochloe]

I think there is definitely a time and place for graphic scenes of the aftermath of abortion. Just as strongly I agree that outside of this apropos time and place these things should definitely be absent.

I make a living as a GIS specialist, doing computer cartography, etc. I can fully support the proverbial statement that a picture is worth a thousand words and beyond. You can describe a particular geography ad nauseum both verbally and mathmatically to someone yet still not accomplish the same as displaying an aerial photo draped over topographic relief in a dynamic 3D display. It inevitably illicits literally physical responses such as 'ooooo' and 'ahhhhh', even 'wow'. Heh, makes the job a bit more fulfilling to be sure.

I know so many veg-heads whom will not consume animals after seeing the carnage of a slaughterhouse or the sqaulor of feedlots and poultry factories. Most of the people I know whom vehemently refuse to purchase any cosmetic product that was tested on animals became convicted along those lines after seeing PETA images of vivisected rabbits. Many of these life choices required such graphic, visual exposure despite prior awareness of the nature of these things through written and spoken word.

Likewise with so many things, including the carnage of war, the holocaust of the Jews during WW2, starvation in third world countries, withdrawal sickness resulting from drug abuse, total debilitation and deterioration of HIV/AIDS/cancer victims, even environmental devastation like oil spills and wildfires.

In the same way that so many people are passively or even willingly ignorant to the true nature of what is involved in food and cosmetic production, people tend to be ignorant of the true nature of the abomination that is abortion. Nothing breaks through this barrier of ignorance faster nor deeper into the core of our empathic nature than these striking images. While there's a strong argument that the images alone demonstrate little or nothing in terms of right vs wrong, at times it seems this is the only way to clear a path for an open, honest discussion or at least reflection on the nature of abortion and all the issues surrounding it.

This is your brain on drugs, this is your baby on abortion. Dirty little secrets laid open for the light of day. If graphic imagery can lead people to abstain from meat and recycle, then it can certainly lead them to recognize proper status of the unborn. I think most here can agree on which is most important.

So within the correct frame of time and place, I say go for it. If it has a chance of guiding someone to enlightenment on the truth of abortion, then it becomes warranted imho. It's a tough call on walks/protests. Depending on the venue, I think it's OK for some imagery to be present but definitely not the centerpiece! In nearly all cases I would say one image is plenty. Positive is generally better than negative, but there's nothing like a bucket of ice water to get someone's attention.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1175413' date='Jan 24 2007, 10:41 PM']
I disagree. I am Catholic. I have nothing to offer the the world except what has been given to me: Jesus Christ. I don't just want to stop abortions, I want to convert hearts. As far as I'm concerned, it is completely about being Catholic, because the alternative to abortion is the Gospel of Life, the redemption of the cosmos and the hope that is found in the Son of God. Mother Teresa used to remind people that she was not a social worker. She did everything for Jesus. Abortion is not a "religious issue," but I don't believe the pro-life movement is about an issue. It's about [i]people[/i] who are degraded and driven to desperation and death, death of their child. A mother who despairs to the point of taking her child's life may one day take her own life. My mission as a Catholic is to lead her beyond that despair to Jesus Christ, and hopefully, save the life of mother [i]and[/i] child.
[/quote]

Sorry, but as someone who used to lead a pro-life group at a large [i]public[/i] university, I must disagree with you on a few counts. Religion is OK for one-on-one personal discussions, but other than that, you don't need to be Catholic or other Christian to be pro-life. And while we're attempting to convert the world, how many unborn children are you willing to lose?

Edited January 26, 2007 by Norseman82

[jmjtina]

Have you seen The Learning Channel? More people tune in to watch the TLC for surgeries of every kind. In fact if you ask people if they have seen a surgery, most likely they have. Even kids. I've never really understood people who oppose abortion who were opposed to letting it be seen, citing that it isn't appropriate. But when you ask them, the root of the answer is that, "They won't like us." or my favorite, "They will hate you for showing that pic"

Certainly, showing images of an abortion, and what an abortion does to a baby, has to be done in ways that properly prepare the audience for what they are about to see, and place the matter in the context of the compassionate care which the Church gives to those who are guilty of an abortion. One of the most well-known videos of abortion footage is called "The Harder Truth" (a revision of the previous "Hard Truth"). It comes with a manual which gives clear instructions about how to prepare the audience for viewing. People are told, for example, that they are not being asked to watch anything that they don't want to see. They are invited to avert their eyes, and the video has no narration, so that people do not even have to hear anything they don't want to hear. (The video, incidentally, has been used with great effect in Churches.)

Yet even with all that in place, there is still a great deal of resistance to the notion that we should expose the evil for what it is, bringing it into the light of day for the naked eye to see.

If we study social reform movements, we find that they always exposed the injustice they were fighting, and that this was an integral key to their success.

The civil rights movement was galvanized, for example, when the 14-year-old boy, Emmett Till, was killed and thrown in the Tallahatchie River. Authorities wanted to bury the body quickly, but his mother insisted on an open casket funeral so the world could see what was done to her boy. Black Americans everywhere saw the mutilated corpse when the photo was carried in Jet magazine.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was guided by the philosophy he expressed in his famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail, in which he wrote, "Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured."

As long as segregation was hidden under the veils of euphemism, or was discussed in words alone, it could not galvanize the opposition required to overcome it. But when the injustice of it was brought before the TV cameras of America as our black brothers and sisters were attacked with dogs, hoses, and other forms of violence, people saw the evil that words alone could not convey.

My point is, Graphic pictures need to be shown, in context, to have an impact and a chance of saving a life. My definition of abortion is very different from the average 25 year old's definition of abortion. You can't deny that abortion has been sugar-coated with downplaying the real life that has started in the womb which will become a baby at conception.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1176164' date='Jan 25 2007, 07:52 PM']Religion is OK for one-on-one personal discussions, but other than that, you don't need to be Catholic or other And while we're attempting to convert the world, how many unborn children are you willing to lose?[/quote]
No, you don't need to be Catholic to be pro-life. I'm talking about what it means for [i]me[/i] to be pro-life, as a Catholic. When we demonstrate at an abortion clinic, we are trying to change someone's mind. It's not the same as, for example, stopping a person from shooting a gun; that is an act of force. We can't force women not to have abortions, we have to convince them. I believe, as a Catholic, that my duty is to convince them why they should not have an abortion, and that involves the Gospel of Life. Disgusting or shocking them with public images of aborted children may turn them away that day, but if their hearts are not converted with the hope of the Gospel, then there is nothing there to replace that despair, and they may go back and have that abortion eventually. I don't have a problem with discussing and showing the medical aspect of abortion, I believe it is important to do that individually. What I do not support is the [i]public[/i] display of these images, because that "snapshot" message that I want to convey is an alternative to abortion, that there is hope, that there is adoption, that there is forgiveness for past abortions, and with the holy images, that there is redemption.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1176583' date='Jan 26 2007, 07:05 AM']
No, you don't need to be Catholic to be pro-life. I'm talking about what it means for [i]me[/i] to be pro-life, as a Catholic. When we demonstrate at an abortion clinic, we are trying to change someone's mind. It's not the same as, for example, stopping a person from shooting a gun; that is an act of force. We can't force women not to have abortions, we have to convince them. I believe, as a Catholic, that my duty is to convince them why they should not have an abortion, and that involves the Gospel of Life. Disgusting or shocking them with public images of aborted children may turn them away that day, but if their hearts are not converted with the hope of the Gospel, then there is nothing there to replace that despair, and they may go back and have that abortion eventually. I don't have a problem with discussing and showing the medical aspect of abortion, I believe it is important to do that individually. What I do not support is the [i]public[/i] display of these images, because that "snapshot" message that I want to convey is an alternative to abortion, that there is hope, that there is adoption, that there is forgiveness for past abortions, and with the holy images, that there is redemption.
[/quote]

What you are referring to is called "street counseling" by us "old school" pro-lifers. And obviously it takes a special knack talking to a woman on her way in to the clinic and you need to be able to read them carefully and have the "goodie packet" ready of abortion alternatives and addresses of nearby pro-life centers, lawsuit information against the clinic, etc.

But large scale clinic protests also have as their goal educating the general public as to the reality of what abortion is, and that is what I believe what this discussion is referring to, and I firmly believe that the general public needs to see what abortion really is and I shall continue to strenuously aver that in order to win that public debate we must focus on the baby and keep religion in the background. And if you are uncomfortable with graphic pictures, then images of the developing baby or examples of how pre-born babies have been operated upon. But keep the focus on the baby otherwise the other side is going to control the terms of the public debate and we will be on the defensive as we constantly will have to defend ourselves against charges that we are trying to impose our religion on people.

[Era Might]

I'm okay with images of the child in the womb, because it is a positive statement on the gift that is life, and why life should be chosen. I'm not averse to graphic pictures themselves, but to their public usage, because I don't feel that they necessarily convey the right message. I understand what you're saying about counseling, but I think all public demonstrations are ultimately a statement to women out there who are having abortions, or who may have abortions. I just think that there are more effective ways to educate people with the gruesome images of abortion (such as websites, which maybe could be advertised at a demonstration).

I could be wrong, and maybe my approach isn't necessarily for everyone. But, I do feel strongly that these kinds of demonstrations always have a Catholic dimension for me, because my focus is always on bringing the Gospel to people. Maybe I'm confusing evangelization with a practical social issue.

But, God knows everyone's heart, and hopefully we can all reach people for life in the way we know best.

[RezaMikhaeil]

The Truth is the Truth, abortion of "unwanted fetuses" is murder and the severity of it should be known... however, some women have had abortions because the baby would have killed them, and I don't think that their situation should be tainted with such graphic images because it's not right to do to them, because its not that they didn't want their fetus, it's that they wouldn't have been alive to care for their child and their child would have lost in the long-run [because it wouldn't have had a parent(s)].

I know lots of women, having been given the honest truth about what an abortion is about, and having been raised to genuinely charish the miracle of a sacred life [and marital relations] would have taken a different path, rather then abortion but to me, abortions are a sign that we're not doing enough to help women to keep their babies. In the west, we've got this mentality that "if you have a baby at the age of 15 it's going to ruin your life, prevent you from being everything that you could be, etc" and we create this "downer" attitude towards women that decide to have their children, rather then abort them, while they're not in the best financial, etc situation. I believe that it's quite the opposite, having a life is such an amazing gift from Jesus Christ, that it should be respect as that which it is, sacred but that as a community, we should be held to higher standards to help single women.

In my neighborhood there's a hospital that I was born at, and my daughter Naila was born at, named "St. Joseph's Hospital" and it was founded by Roman Catholic Nuns like 100 years [or more] ago. These Nuns attitude was to help uplift the social condition of an impoverished community [and it's still very much the ghetto and the hospital still offers help with healthcare to the surrounding community(s)]. There's another Roman Catholic charity titled "Catholic Community Services" that help the elderly that can't afford the proper assistance. These help uplift the social condition of the people and through that, help them make the right decision.

Now I dont believe that one's situation justifies an abortion, but it contributes to it. If single mothers were given more help financially and young girls were encouraged to do good, to preserve their virginity by their community, that it would help.

Reza

[Moneybags]

Show them the truth. Like my priest says, if more people see abortion, more people will be pro-life.

[jmjtina]

I agree that much must be done, but even with your example, the majority of abortion cases are not because a mother's life is in danger, but one out of convience or ignorance. Abortion is a grave sin, and even when the mother's life is in danger, it does not justify murder. The Church is VERY clear on this.

[I'm Mr. Snikkers]

Iah vote yes.

[toledo_jesus]

While it produces a visceral emotional reaction, the desire of the pro-life community should be to convince people of the reason behind their stance. A dead child is gut-wrenching, but like other emotional experiences it fades with time. Influencing the thinking of other people is far more effective in the long term.

Showing those pictures is the equivalent of news reporters showing dead American soldiers to influence foreign policy. Stupid way to make decisions, using the heart.

[XIX]

I voted that it depends on the situation.

But I'm too tired to describe.

[jmjtina]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' post='1203650' date='Feb 23 2007, 06:31 PM']While it produces a visceral emotional reaction, the desire of the pro-life community should be to convince people of the reason behind their stance. A dead child is gut-wrenching, but like other emotional experiences it fades with time. Influencing the thinking of other people is far more effective in the long term.

Showing those pictures is the equivalent of news reporters showing dead American soldiers to influence foreign policy. Stupid way to make decisions, using the heart.[/quote]

Abortion is a vague idea where some do not think that the child is human. Showing what it is, shining light in the darkness of abortion and exposing the ugly truth is necessary in some situations.

Last time I checked, they didn't show the body of the mutilated solder or pieces of the blown up body. It was always a smiling photo of the soldier.

Seeing a body of a baby mutilated can save a life. Every situation is different and the use of pictures should reflect that situation.

The fact that we are having this conversation shows that showing the pictures is an emotional experience that has not faded with time.

[prose]

There is like a 15 page debate on this somewhere in PhatMass history... try searching for it. IT was one of the best debates I can remember having on here. I think it may have been in open Mic.

[Socrates]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' post='1203650' date='Feb 23 2007, 08:31 PM']While it produces a visceral emotional reaction, the desire of the pro-life community should be to convince people of the reason behind their stance. A dead child is gut-wrenching, but like other emotional experiences it fades with time. Influencing the thinking of other people is far more effective in the long term.

Showing those pictures is the equivalent of news reporters showing dead American soldiers to influence foreign policy. Stupid way to make decisions, using the heart.[/quote]
The pro-life side has had reason on their side, and has been using rational arguments for over 34 years.
If it were a simple matter or convincing people using reason, Roe v. Wade would have been overturned decades ago.

While we must continue to use rational arguments, the truth of the matter is that oftentimes people do not respond to reason and rational arguments, but instead form emotional responses. Unfortunate, but true. The pro-life movement must use both reasonable argument and emotion in fighting abortion.
My mom (who has been active in the pro-life movement since before I was born), said that an experienced pro-life activist said years back that they began using reasoned arguments, but that these got little response from people. People responded more to emotional-based messages.