There is considerable debate within the pro-life community as to whether shocking photos of the reality of abortion do more harm than good for the pro-life message.
Some believe such ghastly images turn people off toward the pro-life message, while others believe the horrible reality of abortion needs to be faced by society--and say that people have told them that these images have convinced them to oppose abortion.
Regardless, according to this video, it seems our government--built on the First Amendment--is getting into the business of "approved speech" and "disapproved speech."
This video says the Alliance Defense Fund is defending the pro-lifers here, and since the ADF has won at least 3 out of 4 cases they pursue, it's a good bet they're going to win here.
Featured Article
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Pro-Lifers Arrested in People's Republic of Maryland
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I am so happy to hear this!!
I happen to live in Maryland and passed these zealots on my way to work a few weeks ago. They were lining the streets with their placards, displaying mutilated fetuses and signs that said "HONK IF YOU'RE PRO-LIFE!" (As it turns out, I didn't hear a single car horn, but I did see lots of angry faces.)
I can't think of a better way to start my workday than by being forced to look at blown-up photos of bloody fetus corpses, can you? It really put me in a great mood!
In all seriousness, even if I were pro-life, I would have been just as enraged. Regardless of whether you think you're doing important work by showing the "truth that needs to be shown," there's a time and a place for everything. Displaying these kinds of pictures to people on their morning commute is NOT the appropriate time. I even saw several cars with children in them, and I can only imagine the nightmares those poor kids had that evening, ironically given to them by the people who "care so much about the children."
Techniques like this give pro-life advocates a bad name, there's no question. It's nothing more than an indecent scare tactic. Do they honestly think they'll encourage thoughtful conversations this way? It only makes people confrontational and LESS likely to change their minds.
I applaud my state's government for stepping in and putting an end to this farce. Sometimes it's absolutely necessary. What if I were a fervent supporter of the war on terror and wanted to spread my message by lining Ground Zero with massive autopsy photos of 9/11 victims whose flesh had been burned off in the World Trade Center attacks, with a caption saying, "THIS IS WHY WE ARE FIGHTING!!"? It's the truth, so I have every right to broadcast it, don't I? Would my choice of photographs have been appropriate? Would the government be right to arrest me?
And Bob, don't act like you don't appreciate "approved speech" versus "disapproved speech" from time to time. I'm sure you were only too grateful for government intervention when Sarah Palin decided to ban pro-gay children's books from Alaska's public libraries. I guess the First Amendment was on vacation that day.
So you're all for locking folks up for politically incorrect speech, then? Good to know where you stand on our obsolete Constitution.
By the way, what books were those that Governor Palin banned?
Bob, don't let your strong commitment to the pro-life message confuse you into thinking that it doesn't matter how you present it. It does.
I don't believe there was anything politically incorrect about what these protesters were saying. I mean, that's what an aborted baby looks like! It's a fact that cannot be changed by politics. However, as I said, there is an appropriate time and place for everything. In a forum in which people KNOW they will see these pictures and can prepare themselves accordingly (perhaps even leave the little kids at home), I can't think of any valid cause for complaint. But literally FORCING someone - especially children, as I personally witnessed - to look at distressing and traumatizing photographs when they just want to mind their own business, is NOT appropriate and frankly, should qualify as public indecency. I know I said I was happy to hear what happened to these protesters in Maryland, but I'm not necessarily sure whether arresting them was a suitable punishment. I was just relieved to hear that the government at least did SOMETHING.
In your article, you mentioned that pro-life advocates have opposing views on showing abortion photos. What is your opinion?
Let's look at it another way. Let's say that instead of pro-life advocates, these were anti-gay activists who were lining the streets with explicit photos of real men having sex with each other, with the intention of discouraging homosexuality. Not only that, but next to the anti-gay folks are the abstinence-only advocates, who have their own photos - this time showing in graphic, uncensored detail what happens when you get herpes and gonorrhea - to scare people out of having extramarital sex.
Would you want your kids to see this as you drove them into town? What if traffic was backed up and you had no choice but to sit there and look at it? The photos certainly present the truth, whatever your opinion of that truth happens to be, but does that mean someone should force you and your kids to look at it? I remember an article you'd written many weeks ago, in which you said that sexually explicit car decorations should be illegal, as they force children to see things that they're not ready for. How is the situation in Maryland any different?
By the way, these are not rhetorical questions; I'm truly curious to know what you think.
Also, I was mistaken when I said Palin used government to ban pro-gay books. However, witnesses and reports say that when she was city councilwoman, Palin asked about banning books from public libraries. According to her former campaign manager, in 1995 Palin wanted the book "Daddy's Roommate" removed from shelves, saying that it "didn't belong there." As an elected official, would she have had the right to ban it - to determine what was "approved speech" and what was "disapproved speech"?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&hp
I'm glad you brought up the subject of obscene behavior by homosexuals because that thought crossed my mind--what goes on at the Folsom Street Fair and other "gay pride" events around the country.
But more specifically to your point about illustrating the damage of STDs, if that could be done without displaying genitalia, (e.g. using closeups of the sores, etc. themselves) it might be a good idea.
Which brings us to a larger point. Very frequently in our society and the public discussion of issues in our society, we deceive ourselves about the true nature and impact of the things we advocate. For example, calling abortion a "choice" versus the killing of an unborn child, or calling the contents of the womb a "blastocyst" rather an a child, or calling homosexual behavior an innate trait rather than a behavior. These insular techniques make it more bearable for us to allow or even advocate things that, were we to come face to face with their full implications, we would likely oppose.
Showing pictures of aborted fetuses is shocking. But given that our society and the media expends so much effort to obscure, obfuscate and cover up the particulars of the issue, perhaps it is necessary and appropriate to make this bold display in order to overcome the anesthetic effect of the media cover up.
Another significant difference between these graphic images of abortion and things such as, say, explicit displays of sexuality in the streets and sidewalks, or plastic facsimiles of genitalia hanging from trucks is that of purpose, intent and effect. Sexual imagery and displays are intended to incite lust and offend the moral sense and degrade the overall moral fiber and standards of the community, while displays of aborted children are intended to educate about a travesty of justice and are intended to elevate the moral fiber and standards of the community.
As to my personal opinion on the use of such graphic abortion images, I'm divided. I have friends and associates within the pro-life community on both sides of the argument. And I acknowledge the validity of the concerns held by both sides. I find both sets of concerns and priorities so strong and so valid that I have a hard time coming down solidly on either side of the issue. In the end, I suppose where I come down is that I am open to and tolerant of the display of these images...without wholeheartedly advocating their use.
I appreciate your admission about the Palin book-banning myth. It is true that she did ask about removing books from the library, though I have heard differing accounts as to whether any specific books were cited.
As to whether she, as an elected official, would have the authority to remove a book such as "Daddy's Roommate," that would depend on the defined parameters of her office--and I don't know what those are. However, it would be within the scope of authority for the people of a community to make that decision, either through a ballot issue, referendum, or calling on their elected officials to take such actions. The courts have found that communities have the right to define standards of obscenity and to regulate those standards. If the community of Wasilla determined that "Daddy's Roommate" offended community standards, they would be within their right to remove it by whatever means is legally appropriate for the framework of their state an municipality.
But acting as the police seem to have done in Maryland--i.e. without due process and acting outside established laws and procedures--is unacceptable. If the community in Maryland passes a law which clearly prohibits such displays--and it passes the test of Constitutionality and doesn't violate free speech--then the police would have pretty solid grounds for such actions. Without them, it reeks of state thuggery (and I'm a former cop).
Bob,
When those pro-life advocates forced me to look at their photos on my way to work that morning, I was shocked. I was disgusted. It was the last thing I wanted to see, and it put me in a foul mood the rest of the day.
If those pictures affected an adult so profoundly, imagine if I were a child. Do you honestly think a little kid cares about the intent of an abortion photo? All they see is someone's headless baby on a big sign. And not only that - they're taught that the issue is simply a matter of "abortion = dead child."
What these placards ignore is that in extremely rare cases, abortion is necessary. The people who bear these disgusting signs probably don't care to know whether the dead person they're exploiting for a political cause died as the result of an ectopic pregnancy or pre-eclampsia, conditions that frequently kill the baby anyway and sometimes take the mother along with it unless she gets an abortion. They don't care to know whether the mother was a twelve-year-old rape victim in the ghetto, who otherwise would have had to drop out of school and wind up a homeless, penniless, uneducated mother with a starving baby that no one else in her area could afford to raise either. The pro-lifers who were (rightfully) arrested don't care about these things.
I appreciate your ambivalence toward people who display these pictures; I'm glad the issue isn't completely black and white for you. Personally, I consider myself openminded and tolerant about many things - obviously. But I have no respect for people who insist on judging me for advocating choice while they exploit a mother's torment and a child's death for political advantage (while traumatizing unwitting children in the process) just to show off how "moral" they are. It makes me sick.
The police shouldn't have to wait for due process to arrest these...well, your policy against foul language prevents me from finishing that sentence.
A few things to consider:
Why must the issue be more complicated than abortion = dead child"? What outcome is more important than the life of the child?
When is abortion necessary? The latest statistics from the South Dakota Department of Health indicates 84.6% of abortions done in South Dakota were simply because "the mother did not want the child." Only 1.5% were done because "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function" could occur if the pregnancy continued--and since there is currently no requirement that this be medically verified, we have no way of verifying the accuracy of this statement. And none were listed as protecting the life of the mother; indeed, a local doctor has testified that it is almost never necessary to abort a child to save the mother's life.
So I'll ask again: when is abortion necessary? And must we allow more than 80% of children to die simply to protect the rare case when the child must be aborted to protect the mother's life?
What is worse--being poor or being dead?
When did due process become optional in the United States?
An interesting and thought provoking discussion. However, AlexH, you mention an ectopic pregnancy and pre-eclampsia as valid reasons for abortion. Those are strawman arguments. An ectopic pregnancy is not a viable pregnancy as the fertilized egg never reaches the womb and thus, it never becomes an actual pregnancy. Pre-eclampsia does not usually happen early on in a pregnancy. As a wife who has a child and many friends with children, some of whom did suffer from pre-eclampsia, NONE even considered the possibility of terminating their pregnancies after such diagnosis. Rather, they were put on bed rest and in the most severe cases, the children were delivered early via c-section. And those were medical decisions made by these women, their husbands and their doctors.
I am sorry you were shocked by those photos. I am sorry it inconvenienced you to have to look at them. I am sorry that such pictures exist. For a long time, I was with you and was horrified that some parent would have to explain to a young child what was on those placards. But, the reality is those pictures exist because that kind of atrocity is allowed to happen in our society. Children are not a choice. They are a gift from God. Having sex is the choice. If you don't want children, then refrain from sex.
That ALWAYS brings up the "what about women who are raped" issue. I suggest that the answer to that problem is to make the penalities for rape more severe and actually impose those penalities.
There is no quick and easy fix to this complicated issue, but if you want people to stop with the pictures, let's work to make sure those pictures are part of America's dirty, ugly past and work towards a brighter future where signs on your way into work help you to have a better day.
Post a Comment