A Response to the Libertyville Abortion Demonstration Video
I stumbled onto this Pro-Choice video on YouTube today. The author disabled embedding, so I wasn’t able to place it directly on this post. I was, however, able to add it to my vodpod application (you can click on it at the top of my list).
The interviewer behind the camera, let’s call him Jackball, asks the following question to various abortion protesters:
“Should abortion be illegal?”
Abortion protester predictably replies:
“Yes, I think abortion should be illegal.”
Jackball:
“If aboriton were illegal, should there be a penalty for the women having these illegal abortions? (What should the penalty be?)”
Most of the protesters stumble and stammer before stating, “I don’t know.”
What does this answer mean? It means nothing more than that these particular protesters had not thought about what the legal ramifications of having an abortion, in a future where abortion is illegal, should be. That’s it. However, Jackball follows several of these I don’t knows with the following:
“You’ve been involved in this movement for [x] years, and you’ve never thought about what would happen to the women?”
Nice sleight of hand, Jackball. The obvious jab here is that these protesters don’t care about real women, but only “theoretical persons”. Of course, this is not what any of the protesters actually said. They merely stated that they haven’t thought out the legal/punishment aspect of the issue.
And what if they haven’t? So what? How is this relevant to the real issue at hand – whether or not a human fetus is deserving of the legal protections afforded to other ex utero humans?
—————-
And yes, Jackball, those complicit in performing abortions, were they to become illegal, should face punishment. This would include the pregnant woman who knowingly and willingly permits her human fetus to be killed. What punishment, exactly? I don’t know, but if society were to rightly recognize a human fetus as deserving as much legal protection as a human infant, I wouldn’t want to be caught killing one.
This video seems to be little more than propaganda for the already persuaded – an attempt to make one’s opposition look foolish. Bravo. While I’m sure you gave airtime to only the most eloquent of your interviewees, Jackball, if you stumble onto this post and are looking for an intelligent conversation on the abortion issue… I’m your Huckleberry.
—————-
Now playing: Grammatrain – Execution
via FoxyTunes
How is what this ‘reporter’ did any more manipulative or dishonest than holding up giant pictures of dead babies on the side of the road? I mean honestly, these people aught to be ashamed of themselves. If you want to lobby congress, go ahead. If you want to elect leaders who are pro-life, go ahead. If you want to gather to raise awareness in some peaceable fashion, go ahead. Don’t shove a picture of an aborted fetus in my face while I’m driving to work
“What does this answer mean? It means nothing more than that these particular protesters had not thought about what the legal ramifications of having an abortion, in a future where abortion is illegal, should be.”
I think that what it means is these people have been lobbying/protesting to make abortion illegal for years and yet haven’t even thought about what the punishment would be. I think some of the protester’s answers shed light on an unfortunate attitude among many pro-lifers which is, “if you get a back ally abortion we don’t really care so long as we don’t have to be made aware of it because you’re going to burn in hell either way.” This may seem harsh, but you can’t tell me that woman who said ‘they’re punishment would already be upon them’ didn’t mean just this.
Further more, many of those protesters didn’t even know if there should BE a penalty for having illegal abortions. It wasn’t that they hadn’t thought of what it should be, it was that they wouldn’t even commit to saying there should be one in the first place.
In the end I think you’ve missed the point this ‘reporter’ was trying to make, it wasn’t that pro-lifers don’t care about women, it was that they don’t really care about abortion per se. They want to make it illegal because they think it is immoral for our culture to sanction abortion. Would these same people be out trying to shut down back alley abortion clinics if it were illegal? I doubt it, this is little more (for many) than a battle in the ‘culture war’. It’s about saving our culture, not about saving babies.
If it takes giant pictures of dead babies on the side of the road to wake people up to the enormity of this crime, so be it. Because it is a crime to take an innocent human life both in the eyes of our culture and in the eyes of God. Yet, here we are, claiming to be a Christian nation and murdering unborn babies every day routinely, just like in scripture when people routinely sacrificed their children to Baal.
In America we just sacrifice them for convenience.
Those signs may be a mere annoyance to some, but we need to understand that even a tiny fetus can feel pain. How harsh is it to have your arms and legs torn off while you’re still alive? Could you imagine yourself or anyone else deliberately doing that to a live kitten or puppy? Think of the outcry.
Not to mention the lasting guilt abortion leaves in the hearts of parents, who when they get older have terrible regrets for doing such a thing. My daughter’s best friend, now the mother of three beautiful little girls told me
now that she realizes the value of life, she will always have a hole in her heart where her first child, whom she had aborted, should have been. There are countless untold stories like hers.
However, I know folks, and I’m sure you probably do too, that will go to great lengths to protect an animal, but who see absolutely nothing wrong with sacrificing a human child on an abortion table, merely because it would interfere with their lifestyle.
Those are the irresponsible folks who should merit punishment for using abortion as a form of legalized birth control. What should that punishment be? Let that be a decision of the people and the states and the courts just as sentences for other crimes are. However, the father of the aborted child, as an equal perpetrator, needs to share in any punishment decided upon, should abortion be declared illegal.
However, the fact that abortion is still legal doesn’t make it any less a heinous moral as well as a physical crime. Except for the lasting guilt it leaves with many of these women, it just goes unpunished because the innocent victim presently has no recourse posthumously, like all other murder victims do.
So it really isn’t about the “culture war”, although I’ve read the book too. It’s about the war on the daily carnage of innocent human beings who cannot protest for themselves, and grief for a life unlived, and potential unrealized.
The next time you see those “manipulative” signs, try to remember what they really represent – real human beings who are and were literally thrown in the trash by folks who considered these unwanted children nothing more than either embaressing evidence of their own failure to be more responsible in the first place, or an inconvenient disruption of their lifestyles.
Seriously John,
You wouldn’t be bothered by a picture of an aborted baby in your face while drivning to work if you didn’t have a conscience. The truth is God’s law of justice is written on your heart.
“You wouldn’t be bothered by a picture of an aborted baby in your face while drivning to work if you didn’t have a conscience.”
Yes clearly it’s my conscious; because I definitely wouldn’t be bothered by pictures of open heart surgery or any other gruesome medical procedure. Yeesh.
Sorry but there is a big difference. The other medical procedures are to save life not destroy it. Grow up guy.
Sorry ,but what a wimp you are John.
“Sorry but there is a big difference. The other medical procedures are to save life not destroy it. Grow up guy.”
Ya…I get that. The point is that they elicit certain reactions simply because they are gruesome, not because they make any sort of logical or reasonable argument about the issue. They are propaganda pure and simple.
“The point is that they elicit certain reactions simply because they are gruesome, not because they make any sort of logical or reasonable argument about the issue. They are propaganda pure and simple.”
I’ll bet those aborted babies who appear on the signs wouldn’t agree. That is, of course, providing they had been given a fighting chance to have a voice in the argument in the first place
The real crime here? Not propaganda, but total indifference to the plight of those who have no choice, no voice, and no chance to defend themselves except through signs and protests against this senseless slaughter.
“I’ll bet those aborted babies who appear on the signs wouldn’t agree. That is, of course, providing they had been given a fighting chance to have a voice in the argument in the first place
The real crime here? Not propaganda, but total indifference to the plight of those who have no choice, no voice, and no chance to defend themselves except through signs and protests against this senseless slaughter.”
The real crime is that you and others muddle this entire debate by relying on propaganda campaigns designed to play on people’s emotions rather than making a clear, concise and reasonable argument. The real crime is that people will continue to flock to the pro-choice side because in general they can find discourse of actual substance there, where as all they get from the pro-life side are pictures of bloody fetuses.
I think a great disservice is being done to the pro-life camp and ironically it’s mostly being perpetrated by pro-lifers themselves. It’s almost as if they’ve given up on actually reasoning with people in order to win them over and thus have resorted this kind of BS. The problem is that all this hot air about ‘baby killing’ and ’slaughter’ only hits home if people already agree that abortion is murder, and it seems the entirety of the pro-life camp don’t realize that the majority of Americans don’t even agree with that basic premise.
If you want to win people over you will never do it with road side protests; you have to reason with people, you have formulate strong, convincing arguments that persuade people to believe that life begins at conception. Until you do that all the pictures of dead babies in the world won’t move anyone to agree with you, as matter of fact they will only work to alienate everyone who doesn’t see eye to eye with you.
John,
I think the most convincing arguments are out already there on the signs. If that can’t touch a heart and prick a conscience, nothing else will. As the old saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words.
The idea that taking an innocent life is a crime is a basic tenet of our society in every other case except this one.
I heard a interview on Sean Hannity’s radio show which might interest you. The woman who was the subject of Roe versus Wade, the case which started this whole thing, regrets that she let pro-choicers talk her into pursuing this all the way to the Supreme Court. Now she is working to get it all undone. Google it and check it out.
I’d say that was pretty convincing.
There are alot of reasons why a teenage girl would have an abortion. Some are because she’s bought into the lie that that growing fetus in her body is nothing more than a blob of tissue.
You mean John you have never heard the convincing arguements of why that blob is a person who has their own DNA?, their own fingerprints? What ? Are you the only person who has never heard that? C’mon John. Please. That’s not the issue and you know it. You sound pretty intelligent and don’t sound like you were born yesterday. You don’t strike me as the type of person who really is willing to change his mind. Just assert his view on us. By the way, those of us who are blogging here with the exception of you are not questioning whether abortion should be a woman’s
be a right.
BTW,
I guess pictures of German concentration camps should be removed from textbooks cause they are
gruesome. yeesh.
John,
Here’s a link which will give you the rest of the story of the lady who was the center of Roe vs. Wade:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080120/ts_alt_afp/uscourtsabortionrightsanniversary
I have a website for you, http://www.goveg.com/photos_cows.asp
Are these photos not disturbing? And yet I’ll bet you won’t be giving up burgers anytime soon. Why is that? It’s because you don’t believe that killing a cow is tantamount to murder.
My point? Many (from what I’ve seen most) Americans don’t believe that life begins at conception. You can try to disturb them as much as you want with pictures of dead babies but in the end you won’t change their minds any more than those PETA photos are going to make you become a vegetarian.
Pro-lifers have to lay off the propaganda if they ever hope to change anything. Convince people with reason and logic that life begins at conception and you’ll be on your way to seeing abortion made illegal. Continue standing on the side of the road with pictures of dead babies and people will continue to ignore you.
As for the link, I’ve hear the story. Just because she recanted doesn’t prove anything other than that she is now pro-life. So what?
John,
Sigh…
1. “It’s about saving our culture, not about saving babies.”
It’s both. Do I care that 1million in utero humans will be aborted this year in the U.S.? Yes. Do I also care what it says about the culture that allows this to happen? The culture in which I live and raise my family? Yes. It’s not an either/or.
Do you not care about culture?
2. “Yes clearly it’s my conscious; because I definitely wouldn’t be bothered by pictures of open heart surgery or any other gruesome medical procedure. Yeesh.”
I have to side with the ladies here. I cannot take someone seriously who claims to recognize no difference between an abortion and a knee-replacement surgery. I’ve seen some pretty gross stuff. Pictures of dismembered fetuses (you do know how an abortion is done, don’t you, John?) are not disturbing, because they’re “yucky”. They are disturbing, because they expose the abortionist lie that a fetus is nothing more than a “mass of undifferentiated cells”. They are disturbing, because they force the viewer to come to terms with what an abortion actually is.
Fact is, abortionists don’t want a woman to come in for an abortion until the stage where a fetus has arms, legs, fingers, toes, eyes, etc. It’s much easier to kill and extract that way.
3. “Propaganda”
Mary hits at the absurdity of this tack. Are you offended at WWII/Holocaust pictures of piles of emaciated corpses? Aren’t these just Zionist propaganda designed to elicit an emotional/unthinking response?
Those emotions are important. It reminds us that Nazism killed people – real people like you and me with faces. The abortion images are no different.
The question should not be whether these images are propaganda evoking an emotional response. The question should be: are they honest? Do they reflect reality? That’s what people don’t like. They see these pictures and they see reality. They don’t want to see reality. They want to live in their self-indulgent consumer world, and not have to think bad thoughts. Most people are not Pro-Choice. Most people don’t care.
4. PETA
Are you equating humans and cows? And no, those photos did not disgust or disturb me. I’m having ground beef tomorrow for lunch. I can’t wait.
(I also killed and gutted my first deer this past fall. That was gross. But I still ate the loins for dinner.)
5. I agree that the protesters in this video should have been more prepared to respond to the kinds of questions they were confronted with by Jackball. However, John, you are following Jackball’s argument, based on the responses of about FIVE PEOPLE. Do you really believe Jackball only interviewed these five? Don’t you think he probably put forward the five protesters that best made the point he was trying to make? And don’t you think it a bit uncharitable to critique an entire movement (consisting of MILLIONS – BILLIONS, worldwide) based on the biased interviews of one schmuck?
————————–
If you want to interact with something a bit meatier, try this.
God Bless
Great link, Jim. How fortunate you are to have such a great teaching pastor in John Piper.
“It’s both. Do I care that 1million in utero humans will be aborted this year in the U.S.? Yes. Do I also care what it says about the culture that allows this to happen? The culture in which I live and raise my family? Yes. It’s not an either/or.
Do you not care about culture?”
I’m not saying that all pro-lifers care only about the culture war side of this debate, only that the pro-life camp in general seems far more preoccupied with winning a battle in the culture war than they are with the actual human lives involved. You have to have found it at least a little unnerving that someone could be involved in this movement for so long without ever thinking long enough about what should happen to women who have abortions to be able to provide in the vaguest of answers. Let’s be honest, if these people were as concerned with the mental health of women as many pro-lifers claim they are (when accused of not caring about women) you’d think they would think twice about carrying around giant pictures of dead babies in a public place were one of these ‘poor broken women’ might see and be further hurt. This lack of caring leads me to believe that they are more concerned with winning a battle in the culture wars than with the actual human toll.
“I have to side with the ladies here. I cannot take someone seriously who claims to recognize no difference between an abortion and a knee-replacement surgery. I’ve seen some pretty gross stuff. Pictures of dismembered fetuses (you do know how an abortion is done, don’t you, John?) are not disturbing, because they’re “yucky”. They are disturbing, because they expose the abortionist lie that a fetus is nothing more than a “mass of undifferentiated cells”. They are disturbing, because they force the viewer to come to terms with what an abortion actually is.”
I’m not claiming there is no difference, I’m claiming that the ‘yuck’ factor plays a large part in eliciting a strong reaction before the viewer has a chance to consult reason. This seems okay to you because you’ve already come to the conclusion that abortion is wrong and thus the ends justify the means. But how would you react if I stood in the street with pictures of dead soldiers? If I believe the war is a horrible atrocity that must be stopped before it takes more lives does that justify such a disgraceful attempt at manipulating people’s emotions? Am I really just ‘exposing the realities of war’ or am I trying to convince people to join my cause without really thinking about it first?
Furthermore, regardless of whether or not this kind of display is moral, it isn’t effective. People see it for what it is, they find it ethically bankrupt and they become alienated from the pro-life movement. I have to wonder why anyone would advocate this kind of approach if they thought they had solid logical reason to believe what they do. Why not rely on reason rather than shock value protests?
“Mary hits at the absurdity of this tack. Are you offended at WWII/Holocaust pictures of piles of emaciated corpses? Aren’t these just Zionist propaganda designed to elicit an emotional/unthinking response?
Those emotions are important. It reminds us that Nazism killed people – real people like you and me with faces. The abortion images are no different.”
But we can all agree that killing people en mass because of their ethnicity or religion is wrong. We don’t all agree that life begins at conception and thus we don’t all believe that abortion is murder. In a future were abortion is almost universally recognized as murder I would see no issue with exposing people to these issues in the proper context.
Let me ask you this, do you think the best way to confront Holocaust revisionism would be to walk the streets with blowup pictures of Holocaust victims?
“The question should not be whether these images are propaganda evoking an emotional response. The question should be: are they honest? Do they reflect reality? That’s what people don’t like. They see these pictures and they see reality. They don’t want to see reality. They want to live in their self-indulgent consumer world, and not have to think bad thoughts. Most people are not Pro-Choice. Most people don’t care.”
Your making some huge assumptions about people here without backing them up. I’m not convinced that people don’t care, nor am I convinced that they have a distaste for these images because they twinge their conscious. I think people have a distaste for them because they don’t feel their morning commute is the proper time or place to confront these images or this issue; I think people can tell when someone is trying to use propaganda to get them to agree with a particular position without actually thinking about it, and they resent that.
“Are you equating humans and cows? And no, those photos did not disgust or disturb me. I’m having ground beef tomorrow for lunch. I can’t wait.”
Well I think we both know you’re in the minority, and somehow I don’t think you would be supportive of PETA protesters were they marching up and down your streets with giant posters of dead and mutilated animals.
“I agree that the protesters in this video should have been more prepared to respond to the kinds of questions they were confronted with by Jackball. However, John, you are following Jackball’s argument, based on the responses of about FIVE PEOPLE. Do you really believe Jackball only interviewed these five? Don’t you think he probably put forward the five protesters that best made the point he was trying to make? And don’t you think it a bit uncharitable to critique an entire movement (consisting of MILLIONS – BILLIONS, worldwide) based on the biased interviews of one schmuck?”
I never said that Jackball wasn’t being dishonest, only that his propaganda is no worse than these protesters.
A question John: Are you a Christian?
“But how would you react if I stood in the street with pictures of dead soldiers?”
I don’t see the analogy. Not even the most hawkish Republican believes a soldier is less-than-human or that a soldier’s death is not a tragedy. The point of abortion images is to demonstrate the reality that an aborted fetus is clearly a human. John, you don’t seem to want to face the reality that most people have never seen an aborted fetus and have no idea what an abortion actually entails.
“People see it for what it is, they find it ethically bankrupt and they become alienated from the pro-life movement.”
I think, perhaps, you are projecting your own reaction on to others. Do you have any evidence that the above is true? How exactly is it “ethically bankrupt”?
You also seem to be assuming that if a protester displays an image, he/she has no other arguments. What leads you to this conclusion? I display images on this blog and also make arguments. Abort73.com displays images and makes many compelling arguments. You seem to be arguing against a caricature.
“But we can all agree that killing people en mass because of their ethnicity or religion is wrong. ”
Obviously, at the time of the Holocaust, we couldn’t. (One could compellingly make the argument that we still can’t.) The images help make the argument that the victims are/were human. This is precisely the point of abortion imagery. A human fetus is a human being.
“We don’t all agree that life begins at conception and thus we don’t all believe that abortion is murder.”
Forget conception. A fetus is well beyond the stage of conception, and the VAST majority of abortions are done on developed fetuses. (For the record, I do believe life begins – and should be protected – at conception, because a distinct human being with distinct DNA is created at this moment. However, this is often tossed out by Pro-Choicers as a distraction when a conversation is being had about fetal abortion.)
“Let me ask you this, do you think the best way to confront Holocaust revisionism would be to walk the streets with blowup pictures of Holocaust victims?”
It would be one way – a legitimate and powerful way.
“Well I think we both know you’re in the minority, and somehow I don’t think you would be supportive of PETA protesters were they marching up and down your streets with giant posters of dead and mutilated animals.”
Wrong and wrong. I am not disgusted at the images of mistreated cows in the same way I am disgusted at images of aborted fetuses. I am not disgusted in the same way I am disgusted at images of human genocide. If I have to explain the difference between the two (humans and cows), I’m not sure there’s any fruit in further discussions on this matter – our worldviews may simply be too far apart.
Also, I fully support PETA’s right to protest whatever they want to protest with whatever animal images they want to display. I will ridicule and mock them, but I support their right to protest.
God Bless & Good Night… er… Good Morning
“I don’t see the analogy. Not even the most hawkish Republican believes a soldier is less-than-human or that a soldier’s death is not a tragedy. The point of abortion images is to demonstrate the reality that an aborted fetus is clearly a human. John, you don’t seem to want to face the reality that most people have never seen an aborted fetus and have no idea what an abortion actually entails.”
And images of dead and maimed soldiers and civilians demonstrates the reality of war. I don’t see what it is that you aren’t seeing to be honest.
As for how many people have seen an aborted fetus, I don’t really know or care, my argument isn’t that most people know what abortion entails, it’s that the kind of road side protests these people are involved are not only little more than a form of propaganda, but also unethical.
“I think, perhaps, you are projecting your own reaction on to others. Do you have any evidence that the above is true? How exactly is it “ethically bankrupt”?”
I think that if you really believe that the average American reacts favorably to having people wave blow up pictures of dead babies at them while they’re driving in their car with their family/friends you are dangerously out of touch with mainstream culture/society. And to circumvent what I expect will be your reply, “the culture is corrupt so I don’t care,” you should care, because you can’t win this battle without connecting with the culture at large. Ignoring cultural norms may seem brave and independent minded, but it will relegate the pro-life movement to the fringes.
Why are these demonstrations ethically bankrupt? Because they rely on nothing more than knee jerk reactions, because they prevent people from having a real conversation about this important issue.
“You also seem to be assuming that if a protester displays an image, he/she has no other arguments. What leads you to this conclusion?”
I’m not assuming they don’t have an argument, I’m pointing out that they seem to feel the need to protest in a way that ignores that argument. Again, when someone drives by these images they don’t have a chance to have a real conversation about this issue, all they are allowed is a knee jerk reaction.
I would argue however that those who participate in these kinds of displays either don’t have a well developed argument, or have decided to abandon such arguments in favor of reactionary propaganda. As the legislature debated revising federal hate crime laws to include sexual orientation this past summer (an issue that for those in the GLBT rights movement carries as much emotional charge as the abortion issue) it would have been easy to parade around blow up pictures of Matthew Shepherd’s beaten bloodied body, it most definitely would have exposed people to ‘the reality of the hate GLBT peoples face’. But if anyone would have done that I would have opposed it just as vehemently because it clouds the issue and makes it difficult to have any sort of reasoned discourse about the issue, and even worse it would have alienated those on the fence about the issue.
“I display images on this blog and also make arguments. Abort73.com displays images and makes many compelling arguments. You seem to be arguing against a caricature.”
I’m arguing against a particular practice of the pro-life movement, the kind of protest that these people are taking part in. I have nothing against you or anyone else making images available on the internet, that kind of freedom of information is what makes the internet so revolutionary. I also believe that when you couple these images with well thought out arguments you are much more likely to convince others of your beliefs. The difference here is that what you do allows people to stop and think about what they are seeing and then to read and evaluate your arguments as dispassionately as possible.
“Forget conception. A fetus is well beyond the stage of conception, and the VAST majority of abortions are done on developed fetuses. (For the record, I do believe life begins – and should be protected – at conception, because a distinct human being with distinct DNA is created at this moment. However, this is often tossed out by Pro-Choicers as a distraction when a conversation is being had about fetal abortion.)”
First I think I need to clear up some semantics. When I say life I’m referring to the quality innate of humanity that leads us to require protections for it. Obviously biological life in and of itself does not warrant (in both of our views at least) protection, otherwise you wouldn’t have enjoyed that ground beef for lunch. So when I say life what I’m referring to is what we might call a soul, what others may call free will or any other number of terms. Either way it is that which is unique to humanity that we seek to protect.
So with that definition in mind; my point stands. Not all people believe that life begins at conception, thus many are unsure as to when life DOES begin and so find themselves unsure in this issue. I think it is you job as a pro-lifer to convince them that life does begin at conception. I just don’t see how blow up pictures of dead babies on the side of the road does that.
“It would be one way – a legitimate and powerful way.
Wrong and wrong. I am not disgusted at the images of mistreated cows in the same way I am disgusted at images of aborted fetuses. I am not disgusted in the same way I am disgusted at images of human genocide. If I have to explain the difference between the two (humans and cows), I’m not sure there’s any fruit in further discussions on this matter – our worldviews may simply be too far apart.
Also, I fully support PETA’s right to protest whatever they want to protest with whatever animal images they want to display. I will ridicule and mock them, but I support their right to protest.”
Imagine this situation for me; Lydia is, oh let’s say 10, and we’re all wandering around the Minnesota fair when we come upon a PETA booth. Now, all over this booth are pictures bloodied and mutilated cows, chickens and other such animals. Lydia begins crying, you calm her down and move on. But later that night when you try to serve up some juicy hamburgers for dinner Lydia informs you that she doesn’t want any, upon further investigation you find that those images so disturbed her that she’d decided she never wants to eat meat again, and insists that you start serving her vegetarian meals. Would this not bother you?
Now you insinuated that I may not see a difference between mutilated cows and mutilated humans, but I do. My argument was never that these images are of the same caliber, only that they serve the same purpose; to elicit a reaction from the viewer that will move them to your side of an issue without any actual discourse about said issue.
That is what I find dishonest and unethical about these kinds of displays; that is, I think, what most of those not entrenched in either camp (a group that I would argue is very large these days) find distasteful about these kinds of protests.
So yes, pro-life groups can continue to hold these kinds of protests and claim that the ends justify the means, but I think they will only continue to alienate those on the fence, the very people that they need if they are ever to see a future in which abortion is illegal.
“Imagine this situation for me; Lydia is, oh let’s say 10, and we’re all wandering around the Minnesota fair when we come upon a PETA booth. Now, all over this booth are pictures bloodied and mutilated cows, chickens and other such animals. Lydia begins crying, you calm her down and move on. But later that night when you try to serve up some juicy hamburgers for dinner Lydia informs you that she doesn’t want any, upon further investigation you find that those images so disturbed her that she’d decided she never wants to eat meat again, and insists that you start serving her vegetarian meals. Would this not bother you?”
Interesting that you seem to be resorting to the same type argument that you find offensive in pro-lifers – i.e. using graphic images to make a point, then instead of following that with the reasoned dialogue you seem to expect from the the other side you simply ask: “Wouldn’t this not bother you?”
I think maybe you are beginning to get the point: Images are graphic and elicit powerful emotions, which ptentially could lead to change, such as Lydia refusing to want to eat meat after viewing bloody carcasses of animals. The idea is to shock folks into realizing that humans are being bloodied and killed in horrible ways so that they will think twice about not having abortions. That IS exactly the point.
“Now you insinuated that I may not see a difference between mutilated cows and mutilated humans, but I do. My argument was never that these images are of the same caliber, only that they serve the same purpose; to elicit a reaction from the viewer that will move them to your side of an issue without any actual discourse about said issue.”
I posit to you that actual discourse which would take place after the fact of an abortion would be useless without the graphic evidence of what an abortion really entails beforehand. Sort of like having a talk about birth control with a pregnant woman. The damage is obviously already done.
Most people find child porn horribly offensive. Realistically, do you think a predator is going to listen to any reasoned dialogue? Better let him/her face the public shame they deserve. The idea is put these people’s name before the public as sex offenders, where ever they go. Does seeing pictures of known sex offenders posted publically offend you too? They are posted everywhere out here where I live. No one seems to object to that.
The bottom line is it may be gory, offensive and gruesome to display pictures of aborted babies, but contrary to your opinion they do stop some women from having abortions when they are shown these images beforehand. It is not those “sitting on the fence” those images are trying to reach, or even folks like you, but the pregnant women who may be considering taking the abortion route first, without being made aware of the full extent of what really takes place. They need to see and hear both sides of the story so they can realize what they’re getting themselves into beforehand.
If publically displaying these signs means saving one life vs. having someone’s delicate sensibilities offended, then so be it. It’s the difference in potentially saving a life or pandering to political correctness.
So the ends justify the means? How far are willing to go with this line of thought? What about violent intervention, I mean if you’re right and abortion is murder are you not morally obligated to do EVERYTHING in your power to stop it? Are you justified in taking the law into your own hands here, I mean the doctors working in abortion clinics are mass murderers, and by your logic it doesn’t really matter if the means of stopping abortions is tasteful or not because the end result (saving millions of lives) justifies the means.
You seem to be arguing that if what you’re doing might stop a woman from having an abortion (and I would argue that this ISN”T necessarily the only end sought by those at these protests) so I ask you this, how do you feel about those who protest outside of Planned Parenthood screaming at those trying to get in? Is calling a frightened 16 year old pregnant girl ‘baby killer’ justified if it will scare her out of an abortion?
No, John, you are missing the point entirely, and making extreme examples. No, I do not think it is right for pro-lifers to call women who are entering abortion clinics “baby killers” because that’s damaging two human beings. That’s quite different than displaying the evidence of an abortion on a sign and I certainly think you are intelligent to realize the difference between passive and aggressive behavior.
Images of diseased and blackened lungs are used everyday to deter people from smoking, and graphic pictures of cancerous lesions are used to alert people to the dangers of skin cancer. Do you object to those being shown publically as preventive measures for the sake of someone’s health?
I’m sure drug users find public anti-drug billboards offensive too. Would you join them in objecting to that?
It is estimated that 75-80 of the internet is dedicated to porn, yet do you stop using it in objection? Obviously not. There is more graphic violence in most movies and on television nowadays than on one abortion sign, yet do you get so offended that you quit watching either? I doubt it. Neither do all those others you are talking about who are offended by the abortion signs. Seems to me there’s a lot of hypocrisy there when folks object to a sign of an aborted baby and then furnish their children violent video games that teach them take how to take human lives to win the game.
We could on and on with this. You have obviously made your choice on the side of abortion, so anything which opposes that is going to offend you, whether it’s presented in a reasonable manner or not.
In all due respect, I suggest that if the abortion signs bother you so much, that it might be a good idea if you take another route to work.
So the pain you cause a woman who has had an abortion and now regrets it when you bombard her with these images as she tries to get to work is okay (again because the ends justify the means) but you stop at trying to prevent women from getting abortions by protesting outside clinics? Why? I see no reason to draw the line here, if your in the business of saving babies and the end can justify any means why draw the line.
“We could on and on with this. You have obviously made your choice on the side of abortion, so anything which opposes that is going to offend you, whether it’s presented in a reasonable manner or not.”
Please don’t make assumptions. I never once in this entire debate indicated that I am pro-choice. The fact is I refuse to even approach the issue until both sides learn a little civility and stop constantly screaming at each other. Further, if I was forced to chose a side it would most likely be pro-life, not because I am so certain that I know when life begins, but precisely because I don’t know. Maybe life doesn’t begin until birth, but if it does begin at conception (I don’t think we have any way of knowing that it doesn’t) then we have all made a terrible mistake; so I would rather err on the side of caution.
I find it so baffling that people get so upset when someone points out that maybe their side should sit down with the opposition and have a real dialog about this rather than shoving their agenda down people’s throats as they drive down the road. I’ll say it one last time, why resort to propaganda (and using images like these to evoke knee jerk emotional reactions that leave no room for reason) if you have a real and solid argument to make?
John,
With all due respect, if a woman had an abortion and later came to regret it, I would hope that she would want those signs made public so others would avoid the mistake she made. Even though those painful memories arise. The truth is abortion is ugly and evil. There is no way to get around that. And it is never pleasant to admit you fell for a lie. Our culture lies to us everyday. But you never did answer my statement-isn’t enough to consider that a fetus has it’s own DNA and fingerprints? Isn’t that a sign of life given to it by it’s Creator? Are you a christian John?
John,
Granted, there are radical extremes on both sides and dialogue has been going on for several years. it is an highly charged emotional issue as well as a moral one.
That you consider it propaganda for pro-lifers to use the same kind of advertising everyone in this country uses is telling. I object to some of the sexually oriented ads and language on television, and the content of many of the programs borders on porn. Not to mention the Christian bashing that goes on daily throughout the media and the politcial and social arena.
Do I get offended at some of it too? You bet.
But, I get more offended at the indifference shown to the real issue in abortion, which is the value of life, which is being trashed by a self indulgent culture who thinks anything is okay as long as it doesn’t inconvenience them personally.
Although we all have freedom of choice, we need to be sure we are choosing the right priorities. Abortion is literally a matter of life and death, being offended by a sign isn’t.
In all due respect, I honestly don’t see what your arguing this point here is going to accomplish your goal, which is obviously having the signs which offend you removed. There are things you can do in your local area to protest that and I would suggest your time would be far more profitably spend pursuing that avenue.
As for me, I think we have pretty much said all there is to say on the subject of offensive signs.
God bless.
Margret, Hey i really appreciate your heart on this. (something we totally agree on, Jim too) these two statements really hitting me;
“Except for the lasting guilt it leaves with many of these women, it just goes unpunished because the innocent victim presently has no recourse posthumously, like all other murder victims do.”
The point is that they elicit certain reactions simply because they are gruesome, not because they make any sort of logical or reasonable argument about the issue. They are propaganda pure and simple.”
“I’ll bet those aborted babies who appear on the signs wouldn’t agree. That is, of course, providing they had been given a fighting chance to have a voice in the argument in the first place”
these are real people. Man, wow I am getting really stirred. We just launced our chapter of Bound 4 Life two weeks ago, but there is something John had said, (though most of his posts angered me) that rings true.
Some in our camp have fallen to the place of defending egos and having a divisive party spirit.
***these are people being slaughtered*** and some are just looing to get a notch on thier belt, not really wanting to seeing a life saved. Lord let me not fall pray to this.
Thanks for being bold on bringing up the abortion issue into the public sqaure like this Jim. The Lord Bless You my brotehr.
John B.
Thanks, Haybark.
Yes, I agree that sometimes folks on both sides lose sight of the real issue – the deliberate taking of innocent human life. That core issue is too often detracted from by the arguments on both sides about a woman’s right to decide.
In my opinion, the real decision should take place prior to conception not after it. To use abortion as a form of after the fact birth control involves much more than disposing of a condom. It means a human life is disposed of needlessly because of someone’s lack of responsibility in the first place. That’s the double tragedy in abortion.