UK bishop: Abortion photos like those of other human atrocities

As other commentators have observed, such images should not be suppressed from the public consciousness any more than pictures of famine or the reality of war.

If we cannot face the pictures, how can we conceive of endorsing the reality?

I have no doubt that the publication of the photographs of the victims of Auschwitz and the Burma railway brought home the horrors of such evil catastrophes far more effectively than a million pleading words.

200,000 abortions take place in Britain each year. Why is the pro-choice lobby so desperate to hide the truth about abortion from the public?

~ The UK’s Rev. Joseph Devine, Bishop of Motherwell, commenting on the arrest (and subsequent acquittal) of two Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform members for displaying graphic abortion images on a public sidewalk in front of a Brighton abortion clinic, as quoted by The Scotsman, September 24

[Photo via Havel’s House of History]

25 thoughts on “UK bishop: Abortion photos like those of other human atrocities”

  1. Good luck on getting an argument that logical accepted by the public.  The pro-aborts do not want facts or logic getting in their way.

       8 likes

  2. That is probably one of the most stupid, lame things you have said on here ex. His diocese congregations are his children and as the pastor/overseer to all of his churches he has the responsibility of “fathering” lots of “kids”. I am not Catholic but I respect and laud him for speaking out against the slaughter of innocent babies and he doesn’t have to have “kids” to get my respect for loving and caring for everyone born and unborn. ex, I don’t think anyone who is really prolife cares if you’d respect his opinion more if he had kids, it is a pretty lame thing to say and that’s the opinion of a prolife non-Catholic.

       10 likes

  3. “Great opinion – maybe if he had kids, I’d respect his opinion a bit more.”

    Comments like this are why I don’t respect you at all.

       10 likes

  4. Prolifer – didn’t say his opinion wasn’t valid – I even said it was great.

    But having children is a component of the whole argument.  He doesn’t have kids – he’s never been driving down the interstate with a 4 year old catching up to one of the trucks.  He’s never had kids walking with him, walking down a sidewalk, coming up towards a protest.

    I’m sorry – I just don’t let my kids watch movies like Pulp Fiction, listen to any music they want, and at their ages, I try to control what they are exposed to.  

    So that’s great – he’s got an opinion, and while it has some validity, I don’t agree with it.  This isn’t an issue that 100% of pro-lifers need to agree on.  

       1 likes

  5. Yeah, well he’s had a lot of adult kids confide in him about the terrible affects of abortion on themselves and others.  He’s also heard from people who state that these photos changed their hearts, as a child or otherwise.

    I’m guessing he was probably once a kid himself too but who knows? 

       8 likes

  6. 100% agree that as a priest, he’s cared about children.

    I simply think it is a completely legitimate view that a parent might not want their small child to see certain type of issues.  If you believe that various protester rights are greater than the rights of individual parents, that is your decision.   

       1 likes

  7. Ex, if you can, find and read Jean Garton’s “Who Broke the Baby”. In case you can’t, here’s the gist: Mrs. Garton was sitting up late one night viewing slides of aborted preborn children. One of her sons, who was about 3 at the time and whom she supposed to be asleep, walked into the room and saw one of these slides. He asked her, with sadness in his voice, “Mom, who broke the baby?”

    It’s human to ask, upon discovering evidence of a violent crime, especially murder, who done it, why, and how. And other questions follow; has the perp been found or is (s)he still at large and if not, what is being done…am I safe from this, etc. and it’s in everyone’s best interest to simply answer these questions/address these issues, whether the person discovering the evidence is a three year old child, a 90 year old elder, a 35 year old detective, a 20 year old coed, etc.

    Also, I am quite sure of two other things: One is that if abortion was not legal and rampant, nobody would be showing these images except perhaps in a holocaust memorial museum, medical literature, etc. There would be no need to display them publicly. The other is that if induced abortion and other forms of killing the vulnerable under the guise of “healthcare” are criminalized, it won’t be thanks to your votes. Cheers.

       5 likes

  8. jtm – and I completely believe it was the choice of Mrs. Garton to expose her kids to those images.

    I just believe in a parent’s right to parenting – I don’t believe for instance, that we should allow public intoxication or swearing in public just because it does happen and it is a reality.  I don’t think certain TV shows should be able to be shown during the day, and I don’t believe certain content should be allowable on TV.  Maybe I’m old fashioned that way.  When my oldest two turned five though, I didn’t consider a “horror’s of life day” where I showed them all the bad images in life.  

    That’s just me.   

       1 likes

  9. And public intoxication or swearing are on a par with mass genocide of innocent children how?

    Never mind. And no, of course it’s not just you. Hitler also forbade the public display of graphic exposure of his holocaust, appealing to “basic human decency/taste/sensibilities” – of which, of course, he was completely bereft himself, or there would have been no holocaust to expose. He really just didn’t want it challenged or stopped; typical bullying, cowardly, narcissist. So they weren’t exposed until after the war; then the allies paraded the actual bodies, not photos of them, through the streets of Germany and made all the Germans – including children- view the reality that Hitler had perpetrated through his orders, and that they had been “shielded from” through their silent cooperation.

    I realize of course that your precious right to use your kids as human shields against truth that has set countless captives (to ignorance) free from atrocity trumps the right of free speech to prolifers, lifesaving truth to women in crisis and their children; I am making these comments nonetheless to fortify those who actually give a merry damn against tripe like yours. We hear it all the time, and it’s never from people who are seriously trying to end this holocaust.

       5 likes

  10. The parents I have met who have trouble diverting a young child’s attention from a risque picture, people arguing, a candy or toy isle, a drunk individual, a car accident or a photo of an abortion are those parents who have not spent either quality or quantity time around their children.

    It’s really not that hard. 

    That’s just me. 

       4 likes

  11. Prax – 

    You should get a job in Bloomberg’s office – seems like you agree with the general sentiment that parents don’t know what is best for their kids.   

       1 likes

  12. jtm – 

    Thanks for the comments.  I also, personally, am not showing my children pictures of current genocides, real photos of the wars around the world, or all sorts of images of massively relevant current events.  They are kids.  They’ll grow up fast enough.  

    It isn’t about shielding from truth – it is about letting them be kids and letting them get exposed to things when I want them to be exposed.  You sound just like those people who think they should give sex ed to six year olds.  Let kids be kids for a while.  

    While I personally am not a fan of the graphic photos, I feel it is completely your right in appropriate places – college campuses – things like that.  Driving down the interstate or in ads during the super bowl, I simply don’t agree with. 

       1 likes

  13. Ex-GOP, you should spend more time with your kids – seems like you have a problem diverting their attention from issues you don’t think they are ready for.  Anyone who has spent considerable time with little ones knows how easy it really is.  Carry a puppet in your pocket for crying in the rain.

    LOL.  Little kids are allowed on college campuses.  For most parents, it’s not hard to divert their attention on campus either.

       2 likes

  14. Prax – 

    You seem to fashion yourself an expert here.

    How old are my kids?
    How much time do I spend with them each day?
    What are our relationships like?

    You really seem to have fully embraced the term “preachy” here – maybe you are just being flippent in your comments – but you sound a bit like an old lady that believes there is one specific way to raise kids, it is the way of the old lady, and she’s going to tell every young mother in the world about it.

     

       1 likes

  15. One of the things I dig about this site is that I feel like I’m stepping into some weird, alternative universe.  Really, it is the only place in the world where you’ll find a conversation like this:

    Father of three kids: I don’t think these types of graphic signs should be in public.
    Overly judgmental board member: You aren’t pro-life unless you 100% agree with us – they should be everywhere and you should parent better.
    Father of three kids: I think I know my kids well, and I simply don’t make a habit of showing them pictures of mutilated bodies of any kind.
    Overly judgmental board member: You are quite clearly a deadbeat dad because you don’t show them graphic images.

    Wow.  Just wow.   

       1 likes

  16. Ex-GOP says: Really, it is the only place in the world where you’ll find a conversation like this:

    Haha.  You haven’t been around the internet much if you think that convo is unique to this blog.

       3 likes

  17. Nerve done struck. Maybe you should stop reading my opinions if they lather you so.

    Great post jtm @11:54.

       3 likes

Comments are closed.