Posts Tagged ‘WBIR’
Nobody is pro-abortion? Really?
.
In the comments appended to the WBIR story on our Urban GAP at Market Square, Canna asserted that nobody thinks abortion is a great thing:
OMG- NO ONE thinks abortion is a great thing- what an IDIOTIC thing to say. No one I know, including myself, is pro-abortion. However, I AM pro-choice. … The points that others are making here are:
1. that no one (few) are pro-abortion, they are PRO-CHOICE and believe the right to bear an embryo to full term is the choice and a matter of the family alone. not your matter.
2. that nearly everyone is a proponent of life and prosperity, but since we haven’t gotten it right yet, why don’t we help those in need of food and health before we force others to bear life. Rights to the unborn are valid but DO NOT PRE-EMPT the rights of the born.
3. regardless of ANYONE’S stance on abortion, your photos are unnecessarily graphic and DO NOT belong on public dislplay, especially in the presence of children. Not only is this rude, it is not an effective tool. ALSO- MOST abortions occur early trimester, when the fetus looks like a tiny lump of cells- not like in your graphics. Would you display graphic images of dead people in front of a DUI offender’s home for all-including children- to see? Of course NOT! Besides, where is the dignity of the deceased you post so proudly on public display??
I responded:
Every time we visit a college campus, a steady stream of students and professors are eager to declare the wonderful benefits of legalized abortion for society. They are most definitely “pro-abortion.” They tell us that abortion helps create a society in which all children are “wanted.” Planned Parenthoods own motto is “Every child a wanted child.” They tell us that abortion helps eliminate child abuse. Who could be against that? They tell us that abortion helps alleviate overpopulation and poverty. Abortion even reduces crime, they say. They tell us that abortion helps create a more equitable society (as if women were somehow inferior to men and thus needed invasive medical procedures in order to be equal). I’m surprised you have never heard these arguments. Here an essay I found online just now: Why Abortion Improves Society.
You said, “Rights to the unborn are valid but DO NOT PRE-EMPT the rights of the born.” I believe the correct term for this logical fallacy is the “straw-man.” You have misrepresented the pro-life position when you suggest we believe that the rights of the pre-born preempt the rights of the born. The fact is that we believe the rights of the pre-born child should be equal to the born child. Not preeminent, but equal.
You said that most abortions occur “early trimester.” Not sure what you mean by that term. If you mean that most abortions occur in the first trimester, then you are correct. It’s about 90% of the total. And most of the abortion photos in our display are, in fact, first-trimester abortions. Only two of the abortion photos were not first-trimester abortions. For more on the developmental stages in the first trimester, visit http://www.EHD.org/.
When I was in high school, we were shown a graphic video of people who had been injured or killed in car accidents. The purpose was to show us the result of careless or impaired driving, and thereby motivate us to drive soberly and carefully. If showing such a photo in public could save just one teenager from being killed by a drunk driver, I would show it in a heartbeat. Of course, we don’t need to do that because our society does not cover up the results of drunk driving. But because all of society’s institutions cover up the results of abortion, you can count on us to expose that truth every chance we get.
I could also have pointed out that when Stephen Douglas debated Abraham Lincoln over slavery, he didn’t say he was pro-slavery. He merely argued that the Southern states should have the right to choose whether to be a slave state or a free state. In private, he stated that he opposed slavery. Would Canna say that Mr. Douglas was pro-slavery or just pro-choice?
Abortion pictures and children on Market Square
Child (at right) looks at abortion photos on Market Square.
The WBIR story on our Urban GAP at Market Square created a flurry of online comments. A common theme was the fear that small children would see the abortion photos. In fact, many did. We saw a few parents who prevented their children from seeing the photos, but most took it all in stride. One commenter on the WBIR story wrote:
I would never subject a young child to the images of abortion no matter what. Yes, the images are reprehensible and beyond belief, but to show a child these images borders on being reprehensible as a parent and as a human being it would be deplorable. This is not the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s where abortion was considered against the law. Today, it is a woman’s choice. There are medical reasons that abortion is needed. Also, its one thing to protest but Dr. Armstrong and the rest need to keep it decent and clean when in a public place with children around. If you choose to show these images to your children then go ahead but give the parents of other children the right to do the same and show those images to their children if they so choose. You took away the parents right to decide if they wanted to show their children or not.
He actually confirmed, again, whey we show the pictures when he wrote that they were “reprehensible and beyond belief.” People don’t believe how bad abortion really is until we show them.
I responded:
On February 23, 1997, Schindler’s List was broadcast by NBC during the family viewing hour. A mini-controversy arose when Congressman Tom Coburn complained that large numbers of unsupervised children would undoubtedly see the very violent video sequences contained in that movie, including the violence of multiple gunshot head wounds.
NBC West Coast President Don Olhmeyer defended their decision, “I just wonder if Congressman Coburn is aware that there was a Holocaust, that millions of people died and it’s not something anybody should ever forget. . . . NBC is extremely proud of its presentation of this unique award-winning film. We think that Congressman Coburn’s statement should send a chill through every intelligent and fair-minded person in America.”
The overwhelming consensus was that NBC was right to show the movie, including all the scenes of violence, so that people could know the truth about what happened in the death camps, and so that people would commit to preventing such a human catastrophe from ever happening again.
We agree. That is why we show pictures of abortion.
We will not submit to a double standard that says (1) it is OK to show violent images that expose an injustice that happened in another place, at another time, perpetrated by other people, even though children might see those images, but (2) it is not OK to show violent images that expose injustice happening here, and now, and perpetrated by our own people, because children might see them.
