25 April, 2006

Stuff I Don't Need To See

I'm not going to get into the abortion debate in this post. It's already proven far too emotionally charged for me and I don't really care to go there.

But I think it's safe to say that regardless of where anyone stands on the issue, no one needs to see things such as are shown in the post linked from this post at Moore Thoughts. Without taking sides on the abortion issue, I would like to ask how it helps anyone to show such graphic things? Whose side is being bolstered? And why do you think anyone is going to listen to what you have to say if you buttress it in that type of gore? I'll be honest. I wanted to read Mark Rose's post. But I can't even read it, nor can I link directly to it because I cannot stand to have the page open even long enough to extract the permalink. So if you are at all interested in seeing graphic depictions, you'll have to go through the above link.

I appreciate that there are those who can view such things dispassionately. I can also understand that there are some who actually enjoy seeing that level of soul-decaying material. I understand that Rotten.com has made a good business catering to those tastes. But I cannot for the life of me understand how showing those pictures has anything remotely to do with compassion.

I've never had a medical abortion, and most likely never will. I have had several early spontaneous abortions and yearn for a child. To this day I will never understand why some in the Pro-Life movement think that the grotesque photos on display here and other places do anything to advance their cause. They are harrowing and foul and cruel to most who view them. Regardless of what side they take in the larger issue.

9 Comments:

At 4:22 PM, April 25, 2006, Blogger Amy said...

I absolutely agree that Mark Rose shouldn't have used that picture as he did. It was horrifying, and you're right--such things should carry a clear warning, not be thrust upon unsuspecting people.

That said, I do think the graphic pictures have their place. Last year I heard a prominent prolife speaker (the picture is terrible--but he's a brilliant and compelling apologist for the prolife movement) who showed about 15-20 seconds of still pictures as part of his presentation. He gave a clear explanation of exactly what he was about to show, then invited anyone who did not want to see it to close their eyes.

I cannot remember what all he said about the presentation, but I do remember that viewed with a somber warning, the pictures he proceeded to show made his presentation all the more powerful. That's because, as Gregg Cunningham of The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform says, "Abortion represents an evil so inexpressible that words fail us when attempting to describe its horror. Until abortion is seen, it will never be understood."

 
At 4:32 PM, April 25, 2006, Blogger Ivy, the Great and Powerful said...

Oh, my crap. I brazenly went over there, thinking, yo, I can look at anything. No. I cannot. Damn. That made me cry.

 
At 4:35 PM, April 25, 2006, Blogger Kat Coble said...

Damn. That made me cry.

Exactly.

 
At 5:03 PM, April 25, 2006, Blogger Amy said...

Sorry--realized my above comment could be misconstrued. The link is safe--it's the bio of Scott Klusendorf--I only meant that the picture of HIM is not a flattering one--not that there are terrible/offensive pictures at that site. There ARE graphic abortion pictures on his site elsewhere, but you have to deliberately click them and read a warning first. As it should be.

If I didn't make it clear--Kat, I AM sorry, in light of the heartbreak you've been through regarding miscarriages, etc, that such an awful image was thrust on you. That's rotten.

 
At 5:22 PM, April 25, 2006, Blogger Lesley said...

Katherine, I empathize with your pain. And somewhat sympathize with it, but that's a subject for another time.

That said, the image didn't bother me any moreso that other images of gross stuff. But I'm a little lacking in the estrogen levels. But my biggest problem with Rose's post and many like it is that it's so misleading. Most abortions do not yield anything like that because most are performed at a point where the fetal development is such that it's not even recognizable as a baby. If I had to guess, I would say that baby, if it were from an abortion, was performed to save the life of the mother or some other extenuating circumstance because it's so far along in development, that it would be illegal to perform in most places.

That said, that's my problem with a lot of these crusading types. They focus their efforts on all sorts of legislation against things instead of on the prevention of what makes those things an necessity. Don't want abortions? Don't have one and make sure the women in your life don't ever have the need or desire for one. Work on that.

 
At 5:43 PM, April 25, 2006, Blogger Kat Coble said...

If I didn't make it clear--Kat, I AM sorry, in light of the heartbreak you've been through regarding miscarriages, etc, that such an awful image was thrust on you.

I empathize with your pain. And somewhat sympathize with it, but that's a subject for another time

Thanks to both of you for being kind. I wrote this post out of a sort of fury at being unintentionally exposed to something I'd rather not have seen. I really didn't mean to be manipulative or crying out for sympathy. I more meant it as a statement of begging for a greater awareness.

I know what people intend to happen when these pictures are shown. I think the desired response is somewhat along the lines of where Amy was going with it--a mixutre of horror and repudiation.

After 25 years of this what I think many people don't realise (or don't care to realise--I'm not sure) is that there are unintended consequences as well. There are those like me that are collateral damage. And it's not just the infertile. It's people whose children have died tragically from cancer or car accidents. It's people who have seen a grown relative murdered. I think pictures like these provoke an unintended anguish that goes beyond the primary issue and leaves a lot of scarring in its wake.

 
At 7:06 PM, April 25, 2006, Blogger Amy said...

I think pictures like these provoke an unintended anguish that goes beyond the primary issue and leaves a lot of scarring in its wake.

Wow. I think you're right--and it's unfortunate that this is not considered. Thanks for being vulnerable enough to help us (me) see a different perspective.

I'm torn between that perspective, and frustration at Lesley's comment:

Most abortions do not yield anything like that because most are performed at a point where the fetal development is such that it's not even recognizable as a baby.

That's exactly one important purpose of graphic abortion pictures. They refute claims like that. The truth is, anyone who looks at the abortion pictures at abortionno.org will see that the claims made by Lesley and other pro-choicers--that an aborted fetus in the first trimester is "not even recognizable as a baby"--is utterly false.

I'm sorry if I've hijacked your post and taken it in a direction you did not intend or want to go. I just have a hard time letting comments like that pass and seeing the myths perpetuated.

 
At 11:18 AM, April 26, 2006, Blogger grandefille said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 11:36 AM, April 26, 2006, Blogger grandefille said...

Katherine, I am sorry for your losses and I'm sorry you had to have those sadnesses dredged up by folks who don't truly have the best interests of the unborn babies OR their parents at heart.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home