Abortion
I admit, looking at the bloody fragments that it produces isn't what many would call pleasant, but to expose people to it often introduces surprising feelings... among which may be compassion for a fellow human being.
Other people react in other ways.
I'm not sure exactly where I stand on exposing people without their consent to images of the frank reality of the consequences (physical) of abortion. You can recall recently that I had that picture of an aborted 8-week-old baby with the caption under it saying, "This is what choice looks like at 8 weeks." But... what of it? It's not like that's something I made up. Not many people understand that a child looks like that after only 8-weeks, and that since many people (mistakenly, I believe) judge that the unborn people don't qualify as people "since they don't look like us, grown up humans" I think it serves a purpose to demonstrate how early that line of thinking breaks down, although it's real flaw lies elsewhere.
There are trucks that drive around cities with giant pictures of aborted people on them. That gets a bit murky - there could be children riding in cars next to it. Whether or not an elementary school child should see that on their way home from school is doubtful. They don't need to be exposed to horrifying things.
But then, the common denominator again - horror. Innocent kiddos are horrified by looking at it, mothers driving with their kid's cover their eyes - why? - it's obviously a person who's been chopped up and sucked out of the uterus. That's it.
I feel like some people want to deny that that happens. Destroy the signs, cover the signs - but why? Because they feel that people will see it for the horror that it is? Well, that's hiding what you're doing for fear that people will reject it if they see what it actually involves.
Others say that such signs and pictures are wrong because they play only to the psychology of people. To which one may point out that all the arguments used to justify partial-birth abortion, especially in the case of former President Bill Clinton vetoing the two bills the House of Representatives and Senate (those two houses being the peoples' representatives) passed during his presidency, hinged solely on anecdotal evidency and personal stories on women who benefitted from the procedure. Sure. They benefitted. They were poor, out of school, out of a job, whatever - it would have been a hardship to have a child (or another child), so it was killed. Concentrate on the women who are able to live without the financial burden of motherhood and your message is positive, embracing of women and their real needs. But concentrate on the corpse that's in the biohazard bag and you're... misleading people? Spreading lies? Hating women? So that argument is seen to be fit to be thrown in the garbage. (Yes, right next to the aborted babies.)
Nobody wants to think about the fact that that baby that is being partially birthed, then pithed and thrown into the garbage could have instead been birthed, taken a breath, have the umbo-cord cut and taken home with love and celebration. It's an arbitrary fork in the road that people choose to take differently based on what they want, or what they don't want. It is not a physiological difference, a difference in the humanity or personhood of that which is being discussed. The same child can be pithed or loved.
Okay, I'm just rambling now and the boss is telling me I should work instead of update my blog... Have a great day everyone!
Other people react in other ways.
I'm not sure exactly where I stand on exposing people without their consent to images of the frank reality of the consequences (physical) of abortion. You can recall recently that I had that picture of an aborted 8-week-old baby with the caption under it saying, "This is what choice looks like at 8 weeks." But... what of it? It's not like that's something I made up. Not many people understand that a child looks like that after only 8-weeks, and that since many people (mistakenly, I believe) judge that the unborn people don't qualify as people "since they don't look like us, grown up humans" I think it serves a purpose to demonstrate how early that line of thinking breaks down, although it's real flaw lies elsewhere.
There are trucks that drive around cities with giant pictures of aborted people on them. That gets a bit murky - there could be children riding in cars next to it. Whether or not an elementary school child should see that on their way home from school is doubtful. They don't need to be exposed to horrifying things.
But then, the common denominator again - horror. Innocent kiddos are horrified by looking at it, mothers driving with their kid's cover their eyes - why? - it's obviously a person who's been chopped up and sucked out of the uterus. That's it.
I feel like some people want to deny that that happens. Destroy the signs, cover the signs - but why? Because they feel that people will see it for the horror that it is? Well, that's hiding what you're doing for fear that people will reject it if they see what it actually involves.
Others say that such signs and pictures are wrong because they play only to the psychology of people. To which one may point out that all the arguments used to justify partial-birth abortion, especially in the case of former President Bill Clinton vetoing the two bills the House of Representatives and Senate (those two houses being the peoples' representatives) passed during his presidency, hinged solely on anecdotal evidency and personal stories on women who benefitted from the procedure. Sure. They benefitted. They were poor, out of school, out of a job, whatever - it would have been a hardship to have a child (or another child), so it was killed. Concentrate on the women who are able to live without the financial burden of motherhood and your message is positive, embracing of women and their real needs. But concentrate on the corpse that's in the biohazard bag and you're... misleading people? Spreading lies? Hating women? So that argument is seen to be fit to be thrown in the garbage. (Yes, right next to the aborted babies.)
Nobody wants to think about the fact that that baby that is being partially birthed, then pithed and thrown into the garbage could have instead been birthed, taken a breath, have the umbo-cord cut and taken home with love and celebration. It's an arbitrary fork in the road that people choose to take differently based on what they want, or what they don't want. It is not a physiological difference, a difference in the humanity or personhood of that which is being discussed. The same child can be pithed or loved.
Okay, I'm just rambling now and the boss is telling me I should work instead of update my blog... Have a great day everyone!
Comments
It is an attempt to "humanize" the issue I suppose, to give people a better idea of what's going on. But I think that misses the mark. As you mention, one of the arguments given previously was hardship of the mother. The people who believe in that are not going to be convinced by that image because it isn't first and foremost about the child itself to them.
(Blah, wish I could end this better or even submit alternatives but I don't know where to go with it. I've encountered people holding signs while running the Turkey Trot and I've seen those damn trucks while at A&M and I really hold nothing but contempt for the folks that force that upon others. I understand wanting to educate the masses but you don't see me educate the youth on safe sex by doing it in public view on a park bench. Sometimes there are more respectable ways to do things, ya know.)