Graphic Images of Abortion

A graphic image of an aborted fetus, an unwanted child, a murdered baby. I look down to see something that disturbs me terribly, a horrible image: a baby killed before it got a chance to take his first breath. His head ripped off and black from saline burns. I wished I hadn’t seen this image. My first thought was that no one should have to see this. This picture shouldn’t exist. Who would want to see this? Is a vivid portrayal of the reality of abortion necessary? Are there other ways? As I thought about how I was disgusted by the picture, it occurred to me, it was not the image itself that bothered me so much. Rather, it was the reality of what happened that the image displayed that was so horrible. If a picture of murdered child bothers you, it’s only because the murder of the child bothers you. If its just a medical procedure, then what’s the big deal. Aren’t we just studying science? But it’s not. It’s not a patient. It’s not a specimen. It’s not research. It’s not a lump of tissue. It’s a human – or at least it was a human until the mother decided that this little tiny human was not worth the “inconvenience” of birth. She’d rather have him burnt by saline or have his brain sucked out with a tube – all pretty standard “medical procedures.” Abortion mills crank out murders and wear them like badges. The ending of the life of the unborn is celebrated like the removal of a tumor. It’s thought to be a clean, neat, medical procedure. This “neatness” comforts so many. Pro-abortion advocates will actually use this as a reason why child-killing should be allowed. “Hey, people would be doing these ‘procedures’ with a coat-hanger in the back ally. We’re just standardizing abortion with up-to-date medicine and technology to ensure a safe and unthreatening abortion.” Somehow that doesn’t put me at ease. The least it can do is distract the attention from what’s really happening by avoiding “procedure” itself. The core issue is not how it is done, but what is done. This logic is the same as saying, “People are going to use heroin any way, we just offer them clean needles,” or “People are going to commit suicide anyway, we just offer them the ability to do it in a clean and professional environment.” Is that the issue? Messiness? I’m concerned with the ending of a life. Is it somehow more humane to kill in this way rather than that way?
Period.

If a friend or family member was murdered and did not get justice and people thought it was no big deal, I would want images of their death portrayed to wake people up to the reality of the horrible thing that had happened, no matter how terrible the photos were. The purpose of showing the photos would be to make others realize the grave injustice that had take place.

I would especially challenge Christians who claim that Christ should not be displayed on the crucifix because it’s unnecessarily offensive. Is not a crucifix what actually happened?

After the holocaust, many critized those who wished to show images of the death camps. “These are too obscene and offensive,” many insisted. Even when the holocaust museum opened in DC, many sharply disagreed with the persistence of showing the horrible images. Why show them? We must show them because it is the only way to accurately convey the horridness of what happened in the Nazi death camps. For the sake of those who suffered and died and for the sake of preventing ignorance, these must be shown.

If you are for abortion, the only reason you can be upset about such images, is because you don’t want people to know the truth of what goes on inside abortion mills. If you are against abortion, the only reason these images make you upset is because it shows the naked reality of child killing.