The truth of the phrase “a picture tells a thousand words” holds much persuasive power. The media has long used a variety of images to convey the truth and reality of situations far removed from the every day viewer; we use images to provoke, to emotionally stir and to captivate people’s attention. We are, by and large, a visually stimulated people. The success of the movie industry and of TV programming is testament to that. Yet can we intentionally use graphically disturbing pictures to promote a cause or to bring awareness of an issue to the uninitiated? Can we use images to sway our opponents on the abortion issue? If they’re used appropriately, then the answer is an emphatic, “yes”.

The use of pictures does have its place; the use of factual pictures entomb the truths of an event for future generations. One man who understood this in totality was General Eisenhower who, on visiting the Nazi concentration camp at Ohrdruf on April 12th, 1945, ordered that every citizen of the nearby town of Gotha visit the camp; that media personnel make full documentation; and that military cameras be sure to capture the horrific scene, immortalizing in photographs the barbarity and cruelty.

Said Eisenhower, “I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to ‘propaganda.’”[1] Eisenhower envisaged that the documentation was necessary because, at point in the future, he believed there would be people who would deny that such astrocities ever took place, perhaps thinking them some elaborate conspiracy to stir the hearts and cloud the minds of a gullible people. Yet there are groups who deny the holocaust; I’m sure Eisenhower would not be surprised.

Consequently, are graphic pictures permissible when arguing one’s case against abortion? If they’re factual, accurate and true, then there can be no reason why not. Former Planned Parenthood Director Abby Johnson found an ultrasound of an abortion procedure to be compelling enough to quit her job of sevens years[2]. And even ardent pro-choice feminist Noami Wolf concedes that those who champion abortion must not shy away from factual depictions of abortion:

The pro‐choice movement often treats with contempt the pro‐lifer’s practice of holding up to our faces their disturbing graphics … How can we charge that it is vile and repulsive for pro‐lifers to brandish vile and repulsive images if the images are real? To insist that truth is in poor taste is the very height of hypocrisy. Besides, if these images are often the facts of the matter, and if we then claim that it is offensive for pro‐choice women to be confronted with them, then we are making the judgment that women are too inherently weak to face a truth about which they have to make a grave decision. This view is unworthy of feminism.[3]

Apologist and Christian thinker Greg Koukl, of Stand to Reason, writing in his article titled Why Abortion is a Yawner for Biola magazine, says:

To halt the yawns and revitalize interest, pro-lifers must visually awaken moral sensibilities. We must move the debate from the abstract question of “choice” to the concrete issue of dead babies. We must show what abortion does … [Effectively using abortion images will injure the pro-abortion cause] precisely because [they do not] not focus on what abortion does for the mother, but rather on what abortion does to the child. Pro-lifers had forced abortion backers to do the one thing they don’t want to do: defend killing babies. Pro-choice advocate Katherine Kohlbert admitted that if the debate is on what happens to the unborn, her side will “get creamed.”[4]

In my dealings (limited as that may be) with pro-choice advocates, they resort to all sorts of rhetoric and red herrings to avoid having to defend the position of killing babies. Yet this is precisely what they must be burdened to do as abortion does exactly that: kill unborn human beings.

If you’re pro-choice, Ms Wolf would want you to view this video and to accept the harsh reality of your position. If you’re pro-life, this video will compel you to speak out against abortion even more. If you’re undecided, this video is likely to stir up some strong emotions – hopefully strong enough to make you think twice about advocating for abortion and perhaps powerful enough to make you want to do something for the pro-life cause (even if it’s just sharing the video with others).

(Warning: the video is graphic.)

[Hat Tip to Live Action via Facebook for the link to the video. If the video did not display correctly for you, you'll find the original at herestheblood.com]

Given the brutal reality of abortion, it is a fair enough question to ask what are the real motivations behind the multi-million dollar abortion mill industry and what are the real reasons why people advocate for such a “choice”. Mother Theresa seemed to hit the nail on the head – social vanity:

The greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion, which is war against the child. The mother doesn’t learn to love, but kills to solve her own problems. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want.[5]

Is selfishness really reason enough to justify the act of killing innocent human beings, in utero? Is there any reason at all?

References:
[1] Former PP Director Describes Watching Unborn Child Struggle Before Being Aborted
[2] Eisenhower Memorial
[3] Naomi Wolf, ʺOur Bodies, Our Souls,ʺ New Republic, October 16, 1995 (p. 32)
[4] Why Abortion is a Yawner by Greg Koukl
[5] Prolife Quotes from prolife.com

Other related Aristophrenium articles: