Wednesday, September 15, 2010

An inconvenient truth

The pro-abortions get really cranky when the truth about abortion is shown out there in the world for all to see.

In particular, they don't like that the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform (CCBR) uses photos that show pictures of dead fetuses. These photos make it kind of hard to deny that fetuses exist. You see, if we just pretend that fetuses don't exist, then it follows that nothing actually dies during an abortion. But pictures of dead fetuses blows that pretense out of the water.

The solution for the pro-abortions is to come up with a new imaginary notion--that pictures of these dead fetuses in all its graphic horror somehow constitutes hate speech:
"If anti-choice activities, like those undertaken by the CCBR in co-operation with anti-choice campus clubs, are deemed to be hateful, this justifies a restriction in civil liberties. Establishing that the activities of such extreme anti-choice activities are hateful has thus been one of the primary goals of student pro-choice advocates."

How does the truth equal hate speech? Well of course, it doesn't. No matter--because the pro-abortions are on a roll. They've got a brand new bandwagon to jump on, that runs alongside their "reproductive health" and "reproductive rights" and "reproductive choice" they have invented "reproductive justice."

So tell me, do the pro-abortions also want "reproductive justice" for the women who want to KEEP their babies? Nope. At the end of this new abortion manifesto, they clearly come out against the Unborn Victims of Crime Act. Why? Well, Joyce Arthur let slip the real motivation behind opposition to that bill when she told Charles Lewis of the National Post:
“If the fetuses are recognized in this bill, it could bleed into people’s consciousness and make people change their minds about abortion.” (“Fetal rights stir debate on abortion,” by Charles Lewis, National Post, March 1, 2008).

We cannot under any circumstances protect those choices. As long as the choice is abortion--it's a go. Just don't let the truth of dead fetuses get in the way of "reproductive justice".


  1. What a sad and depressing way to go through life: continually denying the humanity of children yet to be born. What goes through the minds of the pro abortions when they look at their own children? And what goes through a child’s mind knowing that his or her mother feels this way?
    I just don’t get the way the pro abortions think. It makes no sense. They talk about choice as if they invented the word and every decision they make revolves around their “ right to chose.” Right to chose what? To heartlessly dismember an unborn child ( possibly their own) from limb to limb and have the body pieces disposed of in a garbage pail and thrown out with the trash? And then they have the gall to complain when images of what they believe to be just fine and dandy are made public.
    They say that that pictures of these dead fetuses in all its graphic horror constitutes hate speech? But doing this horrible act of abortion constitutes a woman’s “right to choose? Like I said, what a sad, depressing and distorted way to live.

  2. "These photos make it kind of hard to deny that fetuses exist."

    Seriously? You honestly ?think people don't believe fetuses exist

  3. Of course people know the fetus exists, they can't not know. What has happened to pro aborts is they have elected to look the other way as society allows the abortions to take place. The pictures only make visible and present that which is done is secret. There have been many historical precedents set condoning the use of graphic images. Pol Pots killing fields,
    the war in Vietnam, WWI & WWII, most recently the Tsunami in Thailand and the Katrina disaster. Each time we saw the devastation, the bloated bodies, the human loss up close and personal. The images are used to move us into action and work to change the conditions. The images are used to change the hearts and minds of the viewers. Showing the truth and using images is why the child sex trade is under scrutiny, it is what moved people to stop buying fur, to buy from companies with good human rights records, and buy products that don't use animals in the testing of those products.
    What the image does for us in this information age is nothing short of revolutionary. For without the image, they could have all sat comfortably in their seats while the truckloads of Jews went to their deaths. Without the images of children with coal covered faces, coughing up blood, we would never have put an end to the use of child labour in dangerous jobs. Without images of what went on at Kent State, freedom of speech on campus would never have become enshrined. Images are the single most compelling vehicle for conveying truth. The lens does not lie. Furthermore, photographers know the camera imbues the subject with dignity. If it did not, who would know what dark thing happened? Who would care? Those who advocate for abortion on demand are perpetuating the classic thought of "out of sight- out of mind". Again, every human being knows the unborn exists....but they are doing their utmost to hide that truth. So when people get angry about the CCBR's tactics, it is simply because they are threatened by the truth.

  4. Christine, the thing is the vast majority of abortions occur long before the fetus reaches the later stages shown in these supposed abortion photos. But that's not used because people really don't care in the same way. Similarly for when The Pill interferes with implantation.

  5. Ginny. Size or level of development does not change the reality that the fetus ( Latin for little one) is human. You are wrong about at what stage most abortions take place. 10 to 12 weeks is the point at which the vast majority of abortions take place. The baby has, among other body parts, his fingers and toes, and is visibly a member of the human family. Sadly, you are correct in stating that people do not respond the same to an abortion induced at the earliest stage of human development as they do to the 10 & 12 week ( and later) abortions pictured in the graphic images. I am not sure why that is, since the unborn child has all its genetic coding in place that will make her short or tall, or blonde or a red head, thin or stocky. The idea of a general acceptance of early gestational abortion might have something to do with the objectification of the unborn. If we can minimize the value of the fetus based on some subjective criteria ( ie size, wantedness, abnormalities), then it is easier to accept abortion. Again, we have a long history of using language to marginalize others whom we do not value. All the efforts have one common purpose....masking the truth. We cleverly use euphemisms to hide what we do as we use the courts and the media to justify all types of abortions. That's why the graphic images are so contentious and important. It reminds all with eyes to see that they are looking at an unborn human being. It reminds them they were once at that stage of human development. But it must make them wonder by what kind finger of fate did their own mother elect to bring them to term. As the daughter of a woman who aborted two babies before me, I had to ask why not me? In truth we could all ask ourselves that same question. The fact of the matter is that since we all can ask that question, we should be a little more humble about our existence and a little more grateful that we draw breath, 'cuz it could just as easily gone the other way.

  6. The vast majority of our images are actually of fetuses aborted between 8 to 12 weeks precisely because most abortions happen at that stage of development. We are keenly aware that most people oppose late-term abortions so we want to focus our evidence at early-term abortions.

    Abortion advocates use the tired argument that we only use late-term abortion images because they actually have never spent time learning about what we actually do and say.

  7. Ginny, you seem to be drawing a distinction between abortions in the latter stages of pregnancy and those in the earlier stages, saying that "people don't really care in the same way" about the early abortions. Is this an admission by you that you do think abortion in the latter stages of pregnancy is wrong? (And I'm not talking about the case where the woman's life is in danger.) As you probably know, abortions are legal in Canada, for any reason, throughout the entire 9 months of pregnancy.