A Bad Pro-Life Response to a Pro-Choice Statement

Former President Bill Clinton once said that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.”  Since then, abortion advocates have been touting this statement consistently (whether or not they are acting consistently with this statement is another matter altogether).

One common response to this statement from pro-lifers addresses the ‘rare’ part.  “Why would you want abortion to be rare?  If it is really so good, as the pro-choice person suggests, then there really is no reason for the pro-choicer to desire abortion to be wrong.” 

In other words, the pro-lifer believes that pro-choicers are contradicting themselves when they say that they want abortion to be rare.  The pro-lifer thinks that there is no reason for pro-choicers to want abortion to be rare unless pro-choicers actually considered abortion to be something wrong to do.

This is a dreadful response, and the simple reason for this is that the pro-choicer does not necessarily contradict themselves when they say that they want abortion to be rare.  There is another reason why pro-choicers may want abortion to be rare without it being due to them considering abortion wrong in and of itself and, thus, without denying their own views on the morality of abortion.

This is due to the reality of social services.  Abortion advocates consider abortion to be a social service for those in a ‘desperate’ situation (the desperate situation here being an unexpected and unwanted pregnancy).  Ideally, however, it would be best to prevent the desperate situation from occurring in the first place because desperate situations, by their very nature, suck to be in. 

Pro-choicers can say with consistency to their own view, then, that they want abortion to be rare because they consider the situation that causes the ‘need’ for abortion, an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy (particularly amongst unwed and unprepared-for-parenthood teenagers), to be a situation that would be better if it was prevented from happening in the first place then by dealing with the situation after having already arrived at the desperate situation.

Take homelessness as an example.  Homeless shelters are a social service provided to those who do not have a home.  Homeless shelters are, in and of themselves, good.  But certainly one would, ideally, want homeless shelters to be ‘rare’ in the sense that one would rather want to prevent people from entering into the desperate situation of homelessness in the first place rather then wait for people to become homeless and then provide them with homeless shelters. 

If such a thing were done, then the amount of homeless shelters would lessen, but it would be due to a good thing: the prevention of the desperate situation of homelessness, and consequently the lessening of the need for homeless shelters, in the first place.  This is one of the reasons why education and job access is stressed so highly, so that people can prevent more people from entering into a desperate situation of homelessness.

From the pro-choicers’ perspective, it is no different with abortion.  To them, it is not abortion itself that is the problem, but what leads to the ‘necessity’ of abortion.

Of course, abortion is not truly a good social service to begin with due to the humanity and right to life that the unborn have; this post does not argue against that.  It merely states that the pro-choicer does not contradict him/herself when stating that the abortion should be rare.  By seeing abortion as a social service to solving a desperate situation that, ideally, would be better if it was prevented from happening in the first place, the pro-choicer avoids the charge of inconsistency that is hurled at him/her by the pro-lifer.

As a result, it is ultimately better to attack such a statement by arguing the very fact that we have been trying to help others understand from the beginning: that abortion is not ‘safe’ at all because it takes the life of an innocent human being with the right to life.    

Sine Qua Non

Within the discussion of abortion the topic of ‘equality’ normally comes up: how women should be ‘equal’ to men, how the unborn should be ‘equal’ to the born, and so on.  What do we mean, though, when we say equal?  When we truly look around, after all, we see quite a bit of inequality; everybody is unequal when it comes to class, wealth, job opportunities, material possessions, role in society, and much more. 

So what do we mean when we say that this or that person should be ‘equal?’

It seems to be the case that we speak of people needing to be ‘equal’ in the sense that they have the same intrinsic rights, that they should have or be able to do certain things that no government or agency can take away because they do not give the rights out in the first place.  Governments and other agencies do not give people certain rights, they merely recognize what those rights are and try their best to make sure those rights are not violated.  Sometimes they fail to protect such rights and sometimes they are even the cause of the violation of certain rights, and there may also be limits to the rights that the rights themselves entail; but it is, nonetheless, generally understood that one of the roles of governments in societies is to recognize, not create, the rights we have by virtue of being human beings.

So if there are multiple rights that we, by virtue of being human beings, have then is there a right that is more important then all the others?

Indeed, I would say that there is; that right that trumps all others is a right to life.  If a human being exists then that human being has a right to be alive that should not be taken away.  This right does not extend to people in all circumstances, of course; if one needs to defend themselves against an unjust aggressor by taking their life, for instance, then certainly the aggressor’s right to life does not pertain to this particular situation.  An exception to the rule does not alter the fact that everybody has a prima facie right to life.

I would go on further to say that the right to life that all human beings have is necessary for there to be a right to anything else.  This is where the term above comes in.

“Without which not;” that is what Sine Qua Non means when literally translated from Latin.  It is both a legal and philosophical term.  When something is a Sine Qua Non it means that that thing is a necessary condition for a specific event to happen or for a specific thing to exist.  For instance, constant practice and training is a Sine Qua Non for becoming excellent at a sport; without it, one will never be a good athlete. 

I think it is obvious that the right to life is a Sine Qua Non for all other rights; without the right to life than all other rights do not exist and/or become indefensible.  One cannot have a right to anything else if one does not even have a right to be alive.

The Declaration of Independence itself implies this when it says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.” 

Do you think that that small list of rights (Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness) is in that order on accident?  The right to life is first and foremost above and a Sine Qua Non of the right to liberty and the right to the pursuit of happiness.  For certainly we have a right to pursue happiness, but not when that right violates the right of another’s liberty or life.  And we certainly have a right to liberty, but not when it violates one’s right to life. 

The right to life, however, is existent and applicable even in those times when it conflicts with a person’s liberty or pursuit of happiness; the right to life also creates the opportunity for those other rights to be recognized since it is only a person who is alive and cannot normally have their life taken away that the other rights have any kind of meaning at all for.  No other right is more important than the right to life.

So when the pro-choicer says that abortion should be legal because its legality makes women ‘equal’ to men, the proper response would be that the right for each gender to be treated equally in comparison to the other is based upon the Sine Qua Non that is the right to life.  And if the act of abortion does take away a human being who, by virtue of being a human being, has a prima facie right to life then the legality of abortion is wrong. 

Also, just like how the right to Liberty is not actually violated when the right to life trumps it (it merely has certain limits to it), the right for women to be equal to men is not actually violated when the right to life trumps it.  The woman can, generally, do whatever she wants with her body as can the man with his body so long as their actions do not take away the prima facie right to life that another human being has. 

The right to life is a Sine Qua Non for the right to gender equality (as well as all other rights).  As a result, it is absurd to say that we must violate the former in order to affirm the latter.  It is no violation when the right of gender equality is limited based on a person’s right to life; for all rights, including the right of gender equality, have certain limits and, thus, are not violated when those limits are understood and applied.  Women are no less equal to men when they are legally unable to do certain things with their body that involve taking the life of an unborn human being. 

But it is a violation of the right to life when one is legally able to kill the unborn child, for the unborn child does have a right to life.  It does not matter that the U.S. government does not understand that the unborn have a right to life, for that is not the same as bestowing a right to life.  The unborn have that right to life regardless of whether or not it is recognized, the same right to life that is a Sine Qua Non for all other rights. 

Our job, then, as pro-lifers is not to have our governments grant a right to life for the unborn, it is to have them see the right to life that the unborn already has.

What It Means To Be Pro-Life

A proper definition of “Pro-life” has been attempted and will continue to be attempted.  Many people seem to believe that to be pro-life is to be against abortion.  But from an ideological standpoint most pro-lifers themselves do not accept such a narrow description (though most are willing to accept it for, say, political purposes). 

Pro-lifers often go with a simple definition to replace that: to be “pro” something is to be “for” something, so a pro-lifer is literally “for” life.  But such a definition, while true, is awfully vague.  It does not clear up any possible questions that one might have about what it means to be pro-life.

So how does one define “pro-life”? 

The following answer that I will provide is my own attempt at a definition.  It may very well be a poor definition.  It may very well be an unnecessary definition as well due to the possibility of someone else having already articulated the essence of what it means to be pro-life.  So take what I say with a grain of salt.

That being said:

I think that to be “pro-life” is to believe, defend, and teach to others the idea that all those who are human beings, by virtue of being a human being, have a prima facie right to live (i.e. should have their biological life respected  and, thus, not be killed under most circumstances).

Let us break down this definition piece by piece to make sense of it.

“I think that to be ‘pro-life’ is to believe, defend, and teach to others…”

The first part of the above quote is obvious: if you do not believe what the rest of the definition says concerning the meaning of “pro-life” then you are not pro-life.

I also think, however, that it takes more than just belief in the pro-life position to actually be pro-life; I think that you have to defend the position and teach it as well (sometimes the two overlap).  If you only believe the pro-life position without actually doing and living the pro-life belief that you hold then you are not, by definition, being pro-life.

“…the idea that all those who are human beings…”

In other words, it only applies to individual whole human organisms, not non-human organisms and not simply parts of a whole human organism.  And we can use science to show that an individual whole human organism exists from the time of conception.

“…by virtue of being a human being…”

We do not have intrinsic rights by attaining some quality or characteristic, but by being of a certain kind of thing.  And in this case, that thing is a human being.  Any other criteria are too arbitrary. 

It is only by being a human being that all human beings

“…have a prima facie right to live (i.e. should have their biological life respected and, thus, not be killed under most circumstances).”

Prima facie, as I briefly discussed in a previous post, means normally or usually.  So for one to have a “prima facie right to live” means that they have a right to live unless there are certain extreme circumstances where the right does not apply.  One that most people would agree on as an example of this is in situations where we end up needing to take the life of another in order to defend our own life. 

That is my definition of “pro-life.”  To me it seems to cover more then just the issue of abortion; discussions over euthanasia, in-vitro fertilization, human embryonic stem cell research, capital punishment, war, and so on also appear to be part of the dialogue when a definition like this is involved.

But this is not to say that the morality or immorality of some of these acts is not harder to figure out than others based on such a definition.  One who is for capital punishment, for instance, may very well be acting against this definition of “pro-life” by supporting such an action. 

But they may very well not.  Perhaps such a definition is not necessarily against the support of capital punishment in all circumstances. 

That makes it all the more important to discuss these issues with those who we otherwise agree on concerning issues of abortion, euthanasia, and the like.  And perhaps further explanation of what it means to be pro-life would be the first step towards more fruitful conversations on such topics in the future.

The Morality of Graphic Images: A Response to Todd Bullis, Beatrice Fedor, St. Michael’s Helper, and Maria Szpunar

*The following is a blog post I put up on prolifebook.com.  In it, I respond to four other bloggers' statements about the morality of abortion.  Two of them are for it, and two are generally against it, but there are things that each person says that I agree with and disagree with.   I hope that this is helpful in showing whether or not the use of graphic images is morally acceptable and, if so, when it is morally acceptable to use them.*

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 1^st 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).

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.