Pro Life Victory Re. Graphic Pictures of Aborted Fetuses

Press Release from Thomas More Center ^ | March 28, 2002 | Thomas More Center

[Saundra Duffy]

Good to hear from you DFU.

[NYer]

Kansas

.... the puppy mill capital of the USA. What a great reputation this state has! Live-birth abortion and the auction of animals missing jaws, eyes and other body parts because all that matters is "the other end" of the animal. No matter how you look at it, this is slaughter for profit.

[Khepera]

Fortunately I don't have to worry about being fired for showing pictures.

[Khepera]

the puppy mill capital of the USA. What a great reputation this state has

I support the use of animals for food and other uses. They are not humans. The slaughter of humans is what we are talking about here.

[Khepera]

Actually the use of pictures has been shown to be quite effective. This is especially true when viewed by the young who have not been jaded and hardened their hearts to murder and destruction. They most of all recognize the truth.

[copycat]

I beg to differ. Not enough, already. Perhaps those who are made uncomfortable by these pictures are those who wish to continue to deny the reality.

Far from making me uncomfortable, these pics make me angry. I wish to share that anger with those who try not to see...

[Draco]

Waving signs of bloody baby body parts won't win converts to the prolife cause.

I remember when my liberal law professor wanted to run "Silent Scream." The liberals in class were angry at her and most vehement in opposition. THEY knew it would change the minds of the fence sitters because IT WAS THE TRUTH. No make up; no special effects. Just the plain sad facts. And when you can't stand to see what it is you are doing, that's a plenty good indication you should not be doing it. So I must disagree with your conclusion. It did change the minds of some fence sitters. And it infuriated those who supported abortion on demand. And to that I bear personal witness.

[nickcarraway]

Wait, didn't Planned Parenthood just claim in a lawsuit last week, that being required to warn women of the health risks of abortion violated their free speech rights? But in Montana they don't stand for these free speech rights?

[AnnaZ]

"Unspun with AnnaZ And Mercuria on RadioFR NOW!

LISTEN LIVE WHILE YOU FREEP!

[Dr. Scarpetta]

If women could see these pictures, I doubt if they would ever have an abortion. Also, there needs to be a lot more publicity about the link between abortion and breast cancer.

[Sgt_Schultze]

God bless you and your mom. Bump.

[tinacart]

He can't come soon enough for me... I tell you, people aren't going to pay one iota as much as they would if I was in charge of their punishment. How can any punishment be enough for such pure, unadulterated, vicious evil? Evil dogs!

[Khepera]

Was Jesus our Lord God in human form here on earth?

[Houmatt]

Er ... What part of "Graphic Pictures" is confusing you?

Uh, that is called a "headline." It is making reference to pictures that were shown at a demonstration.

If you are going to post such photographs here, the LEAST you can do is provide some kind of warning.

The failure to do so in this case is something I find disrespectful to other posters and unacceptable.

[FourtySeven]

This is amazing to me. I never knew that abortion protesters had a problem displaying graphic images. I mean, talk about a double standard, when all you have to do is turn on your television, or open a newspaper, and see equally graphic pictures, either violently graphic or sexually graphic.

Me thinks I smell the putrid stench of hypocricy.

[Sci Fi Guy]

You have to hit some people over the head with a 2 by 4 to wake them up...

(I'm not trying to argue or pick a fight, we are on the same side, so please don't take anything personally.) I believe that it is essential that we always treat people with respect and act in good taste. It is simply the pro-life way. Showing the bloody pictures in public places where unsuspecting parents and their children will see them, does not show the proper respect to them. You mentioned that you had nightmares after seeing some graphic photos. Is it right to expose people to something that can cause nightmares without their permission? Is it right to expose children to photos that will cause nightmares without their parents permission?

Also if we say it's ok to expose children to graphic and sensitive material without the parents permission, what do we say when the liberals say they don't need the parents permission before exposing kids to graphic sex ed materials.

Furthermore, lets keep in mind that why we are showing these photos. They are photos of People. Shouldn't we show respect to the victims? I know that I get very angry when I see a photo of a dead American Soldier in some news magazine, because they are not showing respect to the fallen. We had a situation in my hometown where an "activists" went to a shopping center with huge graphic photos. So that everyone would see them. He lost many supporters that day. My brother was so angry that his very young children could have been exposed to those photos. He switched Churches. The "activist" was a sunday school teacher in his church. My brother didn't trust the man's judgement after that day.

And finally, there is a much better way to do the exact same thing. Melody Green (widow of Keith Green) made a video with a baby killed by a saline abortion. She was able to make her point and treat the baby with the upmost respect. And the video was so tastefully done that young children could have seen the video. My church showed the video in the lobby.