Images

PRO-CHOICE ARGUMENT: Part III
"Anti-abortionists are so cruel that they insist on showing hideous pictures of dead babies.
"



PRO-LIFE ANSWER:
Nothing could be more relevant to the discussion of something than that which shows what it really is.


I was watching a television program where pro-choice and prolife advocates were discussing abortion. After they have been talking a few minutes, one of the prolifers tried to illustrate his point by showing a picture of an aborted baby. As soon as he did, there were audible gasps, people started waving their arms, and the prochoice activists cried out, "God, don't let them show that." The cameras turned away quickly, and there was panic and confusion.

Had the issue not been so serious, the response would have been humerous. The picture was no more gruesome than pictures of holocaust victims that appear in countless documentaries. And it was just as authentic. It simply showed what abortion is, and what is left of the unborn baby afterward.
What could be more relevant piece of evidence when discussing abortion than a picture of an abortion?

Anyone who has participated in debates about abortion knows that the prochoice side typically insists that the prolife side not be allowed the choice of showing pictures of aborted babies. This attempt at censorship is never reciprocated---prolife advocates invite their opponents to present their best case, and only ask that they be allowed to do the same.
When one side in a debate insists on not allowing the other side to present critical evidence, what does it suggest about their interest in the truth, or in letting the audience choose for themselves? What does it suggest about the weakness of their position?

Banning such pictures from the abortion debate is like banning x-rays of smoke-damaged lungs from the smoking debate, or saying we cannot show pictures of harpooned whales when discussing animal rights. If the fetus is simply a lump of tissue, then fine--let the public see the pictures of the lump of tissue. Let them be treated like adults and allowed to choose for themselves what they believe. If this is not a baby, what could be the harm in looking at the pictures? The truth will surely serve the position that is true.


The success of the prochoice position is dependent on the public's denial that abortion kills children. The pictures are a devastating challenge to this denial. Yet the denial itself has become an accepted part of not just public opinion, but medical practice.
Consider this advice in a national publication for obstatricians and gynecologists:

Sonography in connection with induced abortion may have psychological hazards. Seeing a blown-up, moving image of the embryo she is carrying can be distressing to a woman who is about to undergo an abortion, Dr. Dorfman noted. She stressed that the screen should be turned away from the patient.


The doctor's job is not to allow the woman to see the truth, thereby perpetuating the mental fiction that this is not a baby. This is the extent of our social commitment to denial. This denial is so extreme and widespread that the prolife movement has no choice but to continue to point to the pictures of the unborn babies, both dead and alive, even though those in deepest denial will be outraged.