What follows is an exchange of ideas that took place on Facebook between ACP Co-director Tom Herring and a Catholic woman named Rachel.
“I fundamentally don’t agree with the position that including the picture of a murdered baby on a poster “humanizes” that baby. It isn’t a power struggle in which one side has destroyed the humanity of a child and the other is restoring it. That’s not our job and we can’t do it–God grants human dignity, we either honor it, or we don’t. We can’t destroy the God-given dignity of another human being, no matter what we do. We can’t destroy the image of God in them.” -Rachel
It sounds like you are confusing two separate issues. The issue you are speaking to here is whether or not unborn children possess intrinsic human dignity, and of course we would agree that they do, and that there is nothing anyone could ever do to strip it away from them.
The issue I was speaking to in a post above was in response to your argument that “these images objectify the babies they portray.” I pointed out that, on the contrary, these children were objectified during the rationalization of their slaughter, and that exposing the truth about what happened to them forces all of us to recognize these were more than clumps of cells — these were human beings. And in that sense, the pictures of victims humanize a baby that was aborted, often for the first time, in the minds of those with a functioning conscience.
“So when I ask what using images of these babies in this way says about us, I’m asking whether we are treating them as objects for our use, or subjects, persons, with names and unique lives.”
I’m not sure how holding up a photograph of an abortion victim could ever be characterized as an “object for our use.” What possible gain could there ever be in that for me? I am under no threat of being aborted, so that can’t be it. And anyone who has held up such a picture knows it’s no way to win a popularity contest. So how is the object of an aborted baby photo any use to me?
Answer: It isn’t.
The picture is used to make abortion impossible to ignore or trivialize. It is used to change minds and stop the killing. Stephanie Gray, the founder of the Canadian Centre for Bio-ethical Reform, was spot-on when she said, “[W]e must show the public who we’re gathering for and what we’re gathering against— these pictures do that. Are the images disturbing? Yes. But it’s not the aborted children’s fault that their deaths were so gruesome.”
“I don’t care about strategies of other social reform movements.”
And you aren’t alone. The reason Americans continue to kill over a million babies a year, every year, decades after Roe is precisely for this reason. The history and success of other movements is rarely studied by the average pro-lifer.
“I care about how we are doing this today, and I don’t accept a “save lives at any [ethical] cost” strategy.”
Right. Which necessarily means that [ethically] savable babies are going to be tortured to death in the womb. You might be able to sleep well at night knowing that. But I cannot.
Again, as Stephanie Gray has said, “Pictures of abortion prevent society from having perverted peace about abortion, and force a debate into the open so there can be peace in the womb. Pictures are also the evidence to convict people in a way slogans alone do not. When we tell the culture to “Defend Life,” but do not give evidence for how the pre-born are lives worthy of defense, the public easily ignores the message. When we tell the culture “Abortion Kills Children,” but do not give evidence of that reality, the public easily ignores the message.
And the problem with the public ignoring the message is it’s not we who pay the price. It’s the babies.”
“Context is important, and I am not only referring to the context in which the image is used (there’s that lurking utilitarianism again). I’m talking about the context that helps us recognize personhood: which community was this child a part of? Did he have brothers and sisters? When should he have been born? Who were his parents?”
Does your standard for victim imagery apply universally, or is it restricted to abortion victims only?
For instance, are you equally outraged by this disturbing picture, printed in history texts everywhere:
We don’t know their brothers and sisters. We don’t know their parents.
What about this one, published in Life Magazine, 1943:
What about this one:
What about this one of children from the Holocaust:
“When we turn people into images, images without context or explanation, and sum up their life’s purpose as being an example of a victim of terrible violence, I don’t think we are honoring that person. We aren’t showing who they were, but what they were. I think we are turning them into bloody objects.”
So you are against showing people the inhumanity captured in all the above photos as well? Have we turned all of those people into images; have we just turned them into “bloody objects”?
“On a practical level, I don’t see how these images serve the intended purpose.”
On a practical level, you should see for yourself how they do.
“Again, a good number of abortions today do not look like this. They are are medical abortions, done very early by taking a simple series of pills. Even surgical abortion late in pregnancy looks more like stillbirth than partial-birth abortion. Or abortions look like periods, and a woman doesn’t know she’s had one because of the pill or plan b.”
I sometimes hear this argument from pro-aborts, but I’ve never heard it made by a pro-lifer. It is true that in a first trimester surgical abortion the baby’s body is torn apart so violently that tissue often becomes indiscernible. But so what? Every one of these pictures is authentic and real.
“I think that using these images all too often can make it seem like we believe that abortion is wrong because it looks terrible”
No. Using these images proves to the skeptic that abortion is an act of violence which tortures a helpless baby to death. It focuses our attention away from “choice” and onto what is being chosen. It makes every pro-choice argument seem like a pathetic rationalization of baby killing.
Rachel, don’t take my word for how effective and necessary it is to expose these images. Listen to those in our pro-life movement who have dedicated their entire lives to this work. People with names like Pavone, Scheidler, Cunningham, Newman, Klussendorf, King, Rose, Miller, Boquet, Stanek, Alcorn.
“Seeing the reality of abortion for the first time changes a person, especially considering that this form of murder is protected in law in so many places.” -Fr. Boquet, President Human Life International
“Don’t be afraid to [show these abortion victim images]. Many people are grateful. As a woman who has had two abortions, I am grateful that the truth is being shown, so that others can avoid this pain in the first place.” -Dr. Alveda King (niece of MLK)
“Horrifying pictures always offend but historically, they are the key to social reform.” -Gregg Cunningham, Executive Director of the Center for Bio-ethical Reform
“Photos of these aborted children rip off the mask of ‘choice.’ The truth hurts, but the lie hurts so much more. Once people have faced the truth, they are less likely to become involved in abortion.” -Joe Scheidler, Father of the Pro-life Movement and founder of Pro-Life Action League
“There is no activity in the pro-life movement more important and effective than to stand on the streets of America and expose the graphic reality of abortion. Many activities communicate to people the conclusion that abortion kills children. What you have done during this tour [Face the Truth, Pro-Life Action League], however, conveys to people the facts that compel that conclusion.…there is no statistical evidence to support the assertion that graphic imagery turns people away from the pro-life cause. The experience of those who use these images corresponds with the lessons that we learn from other social reform movements: only when enough people see the injustice is there enough momentum created in the nation to eliminate it.” -Fr. Frank Pavone