I will be honest from the get-go: I may very well create a
“war on all fronts” of sorts with this post, for I attack a little bit of what [Todd, Beatrice, SMH, and Maria] have said thus far concerning the use of graphic images within
pro-life outreach. The only thing I can
do to tamper this before beginning is to announce what everyone already
(hopefully) knows: that everything that I say I say out of love for each of my
brothers and sisters in Christ, that we may come to understand the Way, the
Truth, and the Life better then we already do, and that we may become closer to
Perfection and closer to each other as family that seeks the best out of
ourselves and each other.
The structure of this post is unique when compared to the
way I normally present argumentative posts, but I feel that I need to set it up
differently due to the sheer volume of…stuff that I will be addressing.
So I will, first, state my general position concerning the
use of graphic images of aborted fetuses.
Then, rather than directly go into a defense of my position, I will give
each person in the title above a section in which I discuss what I agree with
and what I disagree with concerning their statements on this topic. It is my belief that such a setup will
present several opportunities for me to bring up clarification of my position
and the reasons I hold for deeming my position to be correct.
POSITION
I believe that it is morally acceptable for pro-lifers to
use graphic images of aborted fetuses for pro-life activism (i.e. in front of
abortion clinics and the like), though it should not be mandatory, it is not
the only effective form of activism, and there are times and places in which it
should not be used.
TODD BULLIS
Common Ground
Todd Bullis, in the comments section on Maria Szpunar’s blog
“Graphic
Images Once Again” says a good amount within one comment.
One thing he says that I agree with concerns the
effectiveness of the use of graphic images.
I do not see how it can be denied that graphic images do have an impact
in changing hearts and saving lives.
Everybody who uses graphic images in their activism can personally
attest as a witness to such effects.
What particularly stood out from Todd’s comments, however,
was the description of the battered and broken Jesus on the cross. This struck me as something profound, for I
had never made such a connection before.
Indeed, the very depiction of Jesus suffering and dying for our sins is
anything but easy to see, and yet we need to understand that that is exactly
what Jesus did for us. So those who do,
in fact, look down on those with graphic images should remember that oftentimes
those same people are, deep in their soul, connecting the suffering they are
depicting with the suffering of Christ (this is not to say of course that those
who disagree with the use of graphic images are looking down on those who do;
Maria and Beatrice are extremely loving towards all and that cannot be denied).
Lastly, I agree that “truth and love work together.” That is how it should be in any aspect of the
pro-life movement, including the use of graphic images.
Disagreements
There are two main parts of Todd’s comment that I disagree
with.
The first one comes about when he says, “Is it painful for
people who have had abortions yes, very much so but it is more important to
save a baby then it to spare the feelings of someone who is in recovery.”
I think Beatrice does an effective job of replying to this
statement in her follow-up comment when she says, “Graphic pictures are not
painful for people who have had abortions, they are traumatic.” Being pained by seeing such pictures and
experiencing trauma as a result of it are two different things and one may have
much more of a psychological impact on the post-abortive person then the
other. I as a Social Worker have studied
such a difference and it needs to be understood that these images have the
potential to be very damaging to the post-abortive person. Thus, while graphic images can illuminate the
condition of abortion, it can also cause true harm that will only cause further
psychological damage. This is why I believe
that, while such images do have their place in the public domain, they also
need to be limited based on the time and the place in which they are shown.
The second part of Todd’s comment that I disagree with is
when he brings up the effectiveness of the pictures in changing the hearts of
pro-choicers. As I said before, I agree
with him that such images are effective
in changing hearts, but what I disagree with is the implication he makes behind
it. He seems to imply in his comment
that because such pictures are effective in changing hearts then that proves
that they are good to use.
But he commits the fallacy of Begging the Question here; he
assumes the very point that he needs to prove.
For nobody would truly say that something is good to do merely because that something is
successful in accomplishing the goal. As
I stated in my blog “The Means” it
does not matter how good the goal is or how effective the means is in achieving
that goal if the means is evil. If it is
evil then it should not be done.
So while I agree with Todd that the means in this case is
good, my objection is that Todd does not prove that the means is good, he
merely asserts it. The one argument he
does give for the goodness of the use of graphic images is its effectiveness in
changing hearts. But that is only a good
argument if it is true that the ends justify the means, which it does not and
cannot.
BEATRICE FEDOR
Common Ground
One piece of common ground that I have with Beatrice that I
already alluded to before was her statement concerning the difference between
‘pain’ and ‘trauma.’
Another area of agreement is on the importance of healing
for those who are post-abortive and are traumatized by it. Those who are in the process of healing
should stay away from graphic images as much as possible and should stay away
from them to the best of their abilities for good if such images will have no
other effect but the effect of a traumatic experience.
Also, Beatrice mentions in her blog
on the subject that it is sometimes difficult for her and others like her
to join pro-lifers on Planned Parenthood protests and outreaches because of the
amount of graphic images that such protests and outreaches sometimes
entail. While I do not share her belief
concerning graphic images in general, I do agree with her that there are other
ways that are also effective and such ways should be incorporated alongside
graphic images; graphic images should never be the only strategy.
This leads me to another agreement that I have with
Beatrice, which is that those who do use graphic images should be wary of those
pro-lifers who would be traumatized by such images. It should not be forced upon a post-abortive
pro-lifer to use graphic images if they do not want to. So if an organization or a church wants to
use graphic images in front of clinics then so be it, but at the very least
they should make it so that only some of the protests use graphic images, not
all. This will allow women and men who
are post abortive more of an opportunity to participate in such protests.
In the comments
section of a poll on graphic images she mentions how many of the pictures
used for the graphic images are not accurate in terms of the usual time during
pregnancy that an abortion is done; most abortions are done during the 1st
trimester, but the more common images used in graphic pictures are of those who
were aborted in the second or third trimester.
This is not to say that it is not important to show that abortions
during these times are done; this is only to say that those who use graphic
images of the latter oftentimes tout it as the ‘norm’ when they shouldn’t. I agree with this completely.
Lastly, I agree that graphic images are not the only way,
nor the only efficient way, to change hearts.
Indeed, I would even say that it is not always the most efficient way to change a person’s heart (though
sometimes it is (I will go more in detail with this later)). Other methods of witness can and should be
used. We are not a one-trick pony. Thus, we should not use graphic images “all
the time” for there truly is “something unhealthy about looking at them all the
time.”
Disagreements
As you may have thoroughly deduced by now, I disagree with
her belief that graphic images should not be used “on the street.”
The main reason she gives for not wanting to use graphic
images (except in very controlled educational settings) is because of the
trauma that may be felt by those who are post-abortive when they see the
graphic images.
I believe that this can be addressed by using the Principle
of Double Effect (if you want to learn more about the Principle of Double
Effect and its relation to abortion, you can see my blog posts on the matter here,
here,
and here).
- Is showing graphic images of aborted children in and of itself immoral? Certainly not, and Beatrice agrees with me, otherwise she would be contradicting herself when she says that graphic images can be used in educational settings. If such images are wrong to show in their very nature then no justification can be made for it.
- Is the good effect intended and the bad effect merely permitted, though not intended (the good effect being the spreading of truth and the possible changing of hearts, the bad effect being the trauma that a post-abortive person may experience if they see the image)? Absolutely. I think Beatrice and I would both agree that the majority of those who use graphic images do not intend for people to experience trauma. They do not even intend to cause a slight amount of pain (if they do, then they are wrong to do so). They recognize that pain might come about and that those who are post-abortive may experience trauma upon seeing it, but they do not intend such bad effects; they only intend the good effect.
- Is the good effect produced by the showing of the graphic images, or is it produced from the bad effect? I think Beatrice would agree with me that it is the former that is the case. The graphic image user does not accomplish the good effect by first bringing about the bad effect, but by doing the very action of showing the images.
- Is the good effect sufficiently desirable for the allowing of the bad effect? This is the only part of the Principle that I think Beatrice would disagree with me on. I would answer yes, but she would probably answer no. And I am guessing that she would explain by saying that we have other ways to bring the truth about abortion without using images, so we should not use the images so as to help prevent the bad effect from occurring in the first place (please correct me if I am wrong, Beatrice).
As I said before, I agree with
Beatrice that there are other ways to advocate against abortion other than the
use of graphic images and that such images should not be the only method. However, I still feel that there is
sufficient reason to allow the bad effect of possible trauma. The reason is because the other methods may
not convince a person to change their mind about abortion when a graphic image would convince them (or at the very
least open their mind when they would otherwise be close-minded). There are many people who do not listen to
logic, or personal stories, or the like; sometimes they just need to see
it. Thus, it is necessary to show these
images in order to, at the very least, convince those that would otherwise not
even consider it or those that would otherwise not change their heart on the
matter.
And for those that would say in
response, “Well graphic images do not convince everybody either. Sometimes it is personal stories, or
sometimes it is logic that they need to hear,” I would completely agree, which
is why I advocate for using all
methods of outreach, not only graphic
images.
Thus, with the four criteria for the Principle being met,
this seems to show that the use of graphic images “on the street” can be
morally acceptable and thus is licit to use, despite the unfortunately terrible
possibility of post-abortive men and women being traumatized by such
pictures.
There are other smaller disagreements that I have with some
of what Beatrice says though.
One is the comparison between those who use graphic images
and pornographers. Beatrice says in her
blog, “Pornography has some similarities with the abortion pictures. Isn’t the
graphic representation of degrading sex also the ‘byproduct of mankind's
ultimate selfishness’? I don’t use the pictures but I DO correct pro-choicers
who say ‘abortion is just the removal of a fetus’, I always say: ‘no it is first
and foremost about destroying a developing human’. I ask if they know what kind
of tools are used. But do I need to say more? Do I need to actually show
graphic pictures and barbaric tools like a pro-life pornographer of sorts?”
Now I recognize that she is referring more toward those
pro-lifers that always use/only use graphic images, but I feel that I must
clarify something: pornography is wrong
because it is the opposite of what the graphic images are. Pornography is wrong because it is a lie, a
lie with the body but a lie nonetheless.
It says to the viewer “This is what truly good, beautiful, awesome sex
is” when in reality it is a distortion of truly good, beautiful, awesome sex. Graphic images, on the other hand, are true in that they accurately show
what happens to an unborn child when aborted; such images say, “This is what
abortion does to a living human being”
and it is completely true.
Thus, while many pro-lifers might be “graphic-image happy”
just like many people are “pornography happy” and use it all the time, they are
still different in relation to inherent goodness. And Beatrice agrees with this, otherwise she
would not think that using images in even a controlled educational setting
would be good (pornography would not be good to use in even a controlled
educational setting, after all).
The last disagreement I have with Beatrice is when she
responds to Todd Bullis on Maria Szpunar’s blog, “The pictures also cause (not
all but most) pro-choicers to hate you and hate all pro-lifers because you
might be the only pro-lifer they’ll ever met. And you might be the only
Christian they’ll ever met so they’ll hate Christians as well.”
Surely she recognizes that we pro-lifers are not doing this
to be loved; we are doing this to save lives and change hearts. To be a Christian is to make such a truth
even more obvious; if we only desired to not make people hate us then none of
us should be Christians. But that is not
why we are Christians and that is not why we are pro-lifers. So it should come as no surprise that
pro-lifers do not use graphic images in order to be loved.
Furthermore, sure it is possible that they will grow to hate
us because of these images, but such hate could indeed be due to a misconstrued
perception. For instance, when
Christians explain why sexual actions between two people of the same sex is
immoral, we are often met with hatred and insults such as homophobe. Yet their hatred for us is, at least
sometimes, due to misconstruing what we say to mean that we hate them, even though that is not true.
The same goes for the use of graphic images. Sure, people might hate us for using
them. Yet sometimes such hatred is
merely due to people erroneously thinking that we are showing the images
because we hate pro-choicers, which is not true (and for those that it is true for they should stop using such
images).
ST. MICHAEL’S HELPER
Common Ground
Like Todd Bullis, SMH does a good job proving the
effectiveness of said graphic images.
Also, in a response to Beatrice Fedor, SMH explains that the
images of aborted fetuses in the first trimester are, in fact, being used. This is particularly important when
discussing what point during pregnancy most abortions are done. This is a terrific step towards the accurate
portrayal of truth.
I also agree with SMH when he says, “I am not
suggesting that everyone do what I do to end the slaughter…Everyone should do
what they feel God has placed on their heart to end this genocide.”
Disagreements
Like Todd Bullis, SMH merely begs the question when it comes to the
effectiveness of graphic images.
More than that, though, is that much that is written in his
blog on the subject does not seem to make a whole lot of sense.
I must stipulate first that I am not knocking his heartfelt words on his
own personal experience in the abortion of his child. This was a truly powerful part of his post
that rings with anybody who has read it and will read it. I am glad he brought this up, for such an
experience and his recognition of being forgiven is encouraging words for any
post-abortive person.
What I am saying, though, is this: this his use of the question “What do
pre-born babies really want?” is nonsensical and irrelevant to the question of
whether or not it is morally acceptable to use graphic abortion images.
Children in the womb, at least for most of the pregnancy if not all of it,
cannot desire or not desire anything because they are not developed enough to
be able to choose what they do or don’t want.
And even if unborn children did have the actual capacity to desire, it
would be wrong for us to use graphic images simply because our end goal is to
end abortion and these children would like us to use such a means. It just further begs the question. For if a dying family member of mine asked me
to kill them to relieve their suffering, it does not matter that they desired
it and that the end goal (relief of suffering) was good; it is wrong to do
because the means (directly killing the loved one) is immoral.
Thus, while I agree with SMH that the means (use of graphic images) is
morally good, I disagree with his reasoning; he assumes the very point that he
needs to prove instead of giving a valid argument as to why the means is
morally acceptable.
MARIA SZPUNAR
Common Ground
Maria Szpunar brought up an interesting thought that I am sure many people
do not think of, and that is the necessity of reflection on the morality of
pictures of any human persons in a deplorable condition, such as those in war
(“Should he take this picture? Was it ethical?” etc.). I agree that such questions are absolutely
important to ask, and they are relevant to the discussion of the morality of
graphic abortion images.
Maria also recognizes, and I concur, that when we show
pictures of aborted children we are showing a picture of a person’s body. Respect should always be given, then, to the
unborn person that you are picturing. If
you are not respecting that unborn child then you have no business holding an
image of them, for you are not acting as a consistent pro-lifer.
Lastly, Maria brings up a good point concerning
culture. It is possible that, based on
one’s culture, graphic images of abortion may end up doing very little
good. If a given culture generally
accepts as law and practice the immorality of abortion, then I could see how it
could be argued that graphic abortion images in such cultures are not only not
helpful but actually quite harmful to that culture. This is a significant issue that should not
be overlooked.
Disagreements
One of the disagreements I have is with (what I believe to
be) Maria’s implicit belief about general graphic photographers. Some of the questions she asks us to reflect
upon include, “When do you have to put your camera aside and actually do
something, help something? Would this be a treason of journalism? What about
other solution? What about seeing all suffering and just taking pictures, not
caring whether to help, whether someone wants to be photographed or not...”
The first question especially seems to imply that
journalists and photographers are not “doing something,” let alone something to
help. But that is not true. Their very photography is the way that they help.
Medics, soldiers, etc. provide what is necessary to do what they can on
the ground, and journalists make sure to capture them on camera to make sure
that they are not forgotten, to make sure that they are not lost in the annals
of history. (It should also be noted
that many journalists and photographers simply do not know any other way that
they can help other then to document
it via photography).
The “other solutions” that Maria speaks of are oftentimes
either things that journalists can do alongside their photography or are things
that more qualified personnel should handle (lest journalists risk making the
situation even worse). Awareness is just
as powerful a tool of help as any. Think
of all the commercials you see of organizations that are helping handicapped
animals, starving children in Africa , and the like. Many people throughout the world would not be
aware of any of these problems, let alone know how to help solve this problem,
if it was not for journalists and photographers spreading attentiveness of the
issue.
And this partly addresses the next disagreement I have with
Maria. In her blog she concentrates on
the dignity of the person and the dignity of the body of the person once they
are dead. She says, “And when presenting
images of unborn babies that died from abortion... Well, we present someone's
body. And we would NOT present this body if it was a 5 year old child,
murdered.”
I disagree that we would not present the body of a murdered
5 year old child: I think there could be certain reasons (though admittedly not
many) for presenting a picture or video of said footage. But even if I accept that we would never
present the body of a murdered 5 year old, the comparison of that to presenting
the body of a murdered unborn child is not a good comparison. The reason?
Virtually everybody understands that the murder of a 5 year old is wrong
(and yes I am aware of one country that allows for the killing of severely ill
or disabled children up to 12 years old.
But that is one country (certainly not making them anywhere near the
majority) and is not meant for all children
below 12 years old (don’t get me wrong, it is still absolutely terrible, I’m
just saying that it does not come close to proving wrong the fact that
virtually everyone knows the wrongness of the murder of a 5 year old)).
By contrast, significantly more people do not even know what
the abortion of an unborn child even looks like or does to the body of the
unborn child. Even fewer people
recognize the wrongness of said actions.
Furthermore, images of people who have been murdered or
seriously injured are presented in their death or injury specifically because of the dignity that they, as people,
have. Are some graphic images in general
wrong to show? Perhaps. But many graphic images are not wrong to show
because their being shown is actually giving justice to a victim who may
otherwise not receive the justice that they deserve.
That is why (and this is my third and final disagreement) I
do not like the comparison Maria makes between graphic abortion images and the
hypothetical example of her being raped, tortured, and murdered and then
showing pictures of her body. There
truly is no comparison. The very thing
that would make showing photos of her body unnecessary and, thus, wrong is the
very thing that is missing from the case of the aborted child: the unanimity of
the wrongness of the death. Once the
wrongness of abortion becomes as universally accepted as the wrongness of
raping, torturing, and murdering a young woman then Maria’s premise can be
granted.
Until that time though, such a comparison does not make
sense. While we do not have to show photos of aborted children
in order to show them and their bodies respect, showing the images of their
bodies, at this current time when abortion is not even close to being accepted
by the general public as a grave moral evil, actually does give the respect that the body of the unborn deserves.
In an era where many are not even aware that the unborn have a body, much less that that body is
the body of a once living human being with the right to life, visually showing
our murdered brothers and sisters reveals at least a hint of that truth; the
very nature of such images, then, can give respect to the persons and the bodies
of those people by showing a the outcome of an objective immoral action. It is anything but a paradox.
CONCLUSION
In Microsoft Word, this blog ended up being roughly 9 pages
long. So I feel that I have said all
that I should say (for the time being).
I would just like to thank Todd, Beatrice, SMH, and Maria
for their contribution to this discussion.
I hope and pray that I have at least done their positions justice and
that I have effectively shown what I believe and why I believe it. I also hope and pray that none of this is
misconstrued as disrespect for everybody mentioned. I am sure I can speak for everybody involved
by stating that we all love each other, and it is because we love each other as brothers and sisters in Christ that
we seek to help each other come closer to the Truth, closer to Perfection.
May God watch over you all, and keep you in his loving arms
always.
No comments:
Post a Comment