Pro-Life Shock and Awe?
by Motte Brown on 09/26/2007 at 4:06 PM
I think what Denise and the Focus on the Family Institute students are doing today is courageous. The use of public displays of aborted fetuses is controversial even among pro-lifers -- with some saying it plays right into the hands of pro-abortioners who claim we're only interested in shocking women, not helping them.
Should such criticisms be considered? Not according to author and pro-life advocate Randy Alcorn. He writes,
The question we should ask is not, "Why are pro-life people showing these pictures?" but "Why would anyone defend what's shown in these pictures?" The real concern about pictures of unborn babies isn't that they're gory, but that they prove the accuracy of the pro-life position.
Denise uses an appropriate illustration when comparing these displays to images of the Holocaust. Alcorn makes the same comparison,
The Holocaust was so evil that words alone couldn't describe it. Descriptions of Nazi death camps had long been published in American newspapers, but when these papers started printing the pictures of slaughtered people, the American public finally woke up. If not for the pictures, even today most of us wouldn't understand or believe the Holocaust.
The question is, even when they see the horror of abortion, will a complacent America ever wake up to the plight of the pre-born? Certainly on an individual level these pictures have proven effective. It happened to me. But now that I'm on the other side of it, the shocking thing about these photos is not that they're gory, it's that they are often met with indifference.
Most people know it's a baby, they just don't care enough to be outraged. So much so it makes me wonder whether Americans would have the same reaction if the Holocaust happened today as they did 63 years ago.
1. Jake said the following at 6:39 PM on Sep 26:
"So much so it makes me wonder whether Americans would have the same reaction if the Holocaust happened today as they did 63 years ago."
Genocide is presently taking place in many parts of the world. Clearly there is very little American outrage that this is taking place. I'm not certain that American reaction was entirely negative to the Holocaust. The U.S. Government actually increased restrictions on immigration in the years preceding WWII to hinder jewish refugees from coming to America. Remember that throughout most of American history (especially during the Great Depression) bigotry and xenophobia were the norm, not the exception.
People in general are selfishly motivated. As long as you're safe and comfortable, you can live with the pain and suffering of others. I'm certain that a signficant number of women considering abortion would be able to harden their heart and go through with the abortion even after seening the photos of the dead fetus or watching a video of the procedure.
I think that trying to change public opinion of abortion is a good thing. That's a productive way to reduce abortions. I don't think lobbying Congress to outlaw abortion is effective. That seems to work almost as well as asking the Devil not to tempt people to sin. I think Christians should re-invest the money we spend to lobby Congress in two venues. First, we should give more to charities that help women find alternatives to abortion. Second, we should use that money to influence public opinion.
The other thing we can't forget is abortion is a side effect of a deeper, more sinister problem. The men and women involved are unsaved. If we redouble our efforts to convert more Americans to Christianity, the root cause of the problem will addressed. It does no good for the woman to have her baby only for both of them to live out their life and die unsaved.
2. chris said the following at 8:34 PM on Sep 26:
If we redouble our efforts to convert more Americans to Christianity, the root cause of the problem will addressed. It does no good for the woman to have her baby only for both of them to live out their life and die unsaved. Firstly, is this to say that just because someone is a christian, she won't have an abortion? I don't think so. I think christians as well as non christians need to be taught what abortion really is. I applaud their efforts. Secondly, the second part of your comment...Who are we to say who should live or die? especially an unborn? Is it possible that any child regardless of their parents beliefs will come to the saving knowledge of Jesus?
3. Randy said the following at 11:15 PM on Sep 26:
Not exactly on the subject, but related. A few weeks ago, I think it was Newsweek, ran an article on their last page. A man had interviewed protesters outside an abortion clinic and his question was,"How would you punish the mothers. Since you say they are commiting murder, what should their punishment be?" Answers varied from 'I'll have to think about it', to 'she has already suffered enough', to 'it wasn't really her fault, she was talked into it'.
None of those seem like really satisfactory answers, but I must admit, the question brought me up short and I 'm not sure how I'd respond.
The overall tone of the article was one of smugness, like they've got us where they want us. Any thoughts on what what you's say?
4. nikki said the following at 7:56 AM on Sep 27:
One of my good friends works at an abortion-alternative clinic where they provide free counseling, baby clothes, and that kind of thing for pregnant women. She said their first and foremost goal when an unsaved woman comes in is to talk to her about God. It's horrible that we are forced to think this way, but really, if the woman aborts her baby, the baby will go to heaven. If this woman dies without knowing God, she won't. So the focus is first on the woman, to at least introduce her to the gospel. She might walk out of there and go down to Planned Parenthood and get an abortion anyways, but she has heard the truth and perhaps it will stay with her. (Of course the clinic also attempts to persuade the woman to keep her child.)
Anyways, about the original post...I agree that pictures should be shown, but I don't think they should be our main "argument." There is plenty of common sense that would demonstrate abortion's wrong-ness, without a picture. Someone who needs a picture is someone who's really confused to begin with. Would we think the Holocaust was alright until we saw pictures of stacked bodies? No, we'd already KNOW it was wrong, but the pictures add to the disgust. So yes, use the pictures, but use them wisely, and not at the expense of common sense and persuasion.
I haven't decided what I think about them being in public places. It's true that people need to see them, but even the Holocaust museum had warning signs, and stuff children couldn't look at because it was much too graphic. (Even I got a stomachache from some displays.) It's just a matter of decency maybe...if we're going to protest violence on TV and in movies, then maybe we don't need to be propogating it when it happens to suit our cause. At least that's an objection I'd anticipate.
On the other hand, last year I was able to spend some time with the people that drive around with aborted-fetus pictures on the sides of trucks. Their quote regarding that issue was something like "Yes, we do care about the feelings of children, but we care more about the lives of children."
5. Jethro said the following at 4:31 PM on Sep 27:
Good question Randy. If abortion is murder, and the unequivocal position of most evangelicals is just that, what punishment should be meted out to the doctors and women? I would love to hear what people think.
6. Motte said the following at 4:44 PM on Sep 27:
Randy and Jethro:
One answer to your question can be found here -- "Pro-Lifers Squirm at the Punishment Question...but Why?"
7. Stephanie said the following at 4:53 PM on Sep 27:
hmmm...would Americans be concerned if the Holocaust happened today? It seems to me there is a great deal of human genocide/slaughter going on in african countries. Is this less than the Holocaust destroyed? I'm not an expert on what's going on in the world but it seems that Americans are already indifferent.
8. Sara said the following at 8:38 AM on Sep 28:
For argument's sake, assuming you could call abortion 'first degree murder'...
Hypothetical case: two teenage guys kill a classmate. One of the boys is smaller and weaker and it is found that it was his companion's idea, and that he threatened to torture him if he didn't go along with it. The result would be lesser punishment for the accomplice.
The pressure, from within and without, on, say, a 16-year-old aspiring scholar who's been raped and impregnated to abort is much deeper than the above example. Even if abortion was considered first degree murder, I don't think there'd be grounds for the harshest of punishments for the woman that some people seem to be seeking.
It might be more fruitful to look at the pressures pregnant women have to abort: how could people help allay these pressures?
9. Jo said the following at 8:47 AM on Sep 28:
Sara: impregnation from rape is pretty rare. the vast majority of abortions are 'committed' by women who willingly had sex. your point that there is often a lot of pressure to abort is still valid, but i think you've picked a rather obscure situation for your example.
10. Sara said the following at 9:30 AM on Sep 28:
Still, complicated cases are just the ones that need attention, to make sure sweeping laws aren't injust.
11. E B said the following at 5:19 PM on Sep 28:
Having counseled a young woman who had an abortion, I can tell you it is a truly heartbreaking thing. I sat there stunned: not because I've never known people to have abortions, but because I could feel a measure of the hurt she expressed. I will doubtlessly never forget what that conversation felt like. I believe women who have gone through abortion or contemplated it need an immense portion of love. I imagine her walking past a visual display such as the one described and absolutely losing it, because I know she is fully aware of the gravity of her decision. I agree that it is necessary to be truthful and sincere about the gravity of abortion. I just hope we are as compassionate to embrace those for whom the hurt persists as we are to confront those who believe abortion is of little consequence.
12. kate said the following at 11:52 PM on Sep 28:
The issue I have with the public displays being discussed is that often it forces a debate and confrontational situation where not everyone is a willing participant. Example: in my town, there is a clinic where protestors regularly go, next to it is a art gallery/theater. The gallery had a children's theater workshop, and before the children started to arrive, the staff came down and politely explained that a large group of children would be walking by, and would the protestors mind displaying the signs so they looked away from the gallery entrance. The protestors instead moved the signs closer.
Freedom of speech is essential, but so is common courtsey. I feel terrible for the parents who had to explain those violent bloody images to children who looked to be about 4 or 5.
13. obewan said the following at 9:45 AM on Oct 10:
We should never lose our grip on reality. Morality can not be legislated into existance. I have heard it said that Victorian England had the highest abortion rate in the history of the world, and pre-marital sex was taboo and abortion was illegal at that time in history. We should instead focus on prevention of unwanted pregnancy, and adoption of the unwanted children. We have an obligation to support those babies we seek to rescue if no one else wants them. When the bumber sticker stating "The Moral Majority is neither" came out, 40% of abortions in America were performed on young women who came from "good christian homes." If we make abortion illegal, tens of thousands will rebel anyway, and people will die in illegal hack attempts to abort. Also, our courts and prisons will be overwhealmed with cases to prosecute - and to what punishment for the offenders? Life in prison, or the death penalty? Would lives be truely saved?
14. Ted Slater said the following at 1:35 PM on Oct 10:
Obewan -- I don't mean to pick on you, but I just need to respond to some of the things you're saying.
You say, "Morality can not be legislated into existance." Of course it can. Most legislation is *based* on moral issues. Murder is *illegal* because it's immoral. Stealing is *illegal* because it's immoral. Rape is *illegal* because it's immoral. Hurting a woman such that she has a miscarriage and loses the baby is *illegal* because it's immoral.
You say, "Victorian England had the highest abortion rate in the history of the world." Again, there's no evidence to support this claim.
You say that instead of providing legal protection for the pre-born, "We should instead focus on prevention of unwanted pregnancy, and adoption of the unwanted children." Why not "both-and"? Why not both protect the children and provide services for those who don't want their children? Christians are doing both. I know people who are waiting for years to adopt a child. Years. Why be confined to "either-or"?
I'm not sure where you got the "40% of abortions in America were performed on young women who came from 'good christian homes'" figure from. I did see a report that most women who have abortions claim to be Christian. And that's a tragedy. But I'm not aware of how researchers would be able to differentiate those from "good christian homes" from those who are from other types of Christian homes. Can you provide a reference for this stat?
Obewan -- I'm concerned that you're playing fast and loose with the facts in order to substantiate your already-formed positions. Hopefully our readers will take the time to research for themselves whether or not what you're saying is factually accurate.