Why the selective outrage over showing abortion victim images?
by Kelli
Before the release of footage of one football player slugging his wife, he received a two game suspension. Later, when the footage revealing the actual strike was released to the public… people became disgusted. The slugger was punished twice for the same offense… [and is] no longer allowed to be a part of the NFL.
Imagine if the footage in those cases was not revealed. It would not have the same impact….
Animal rights and groups which feel compassion for abused, starved, tortured animals are allowed to show imagery on television and elsewhere. Where is the outrage over that?
Slaughtering a tiny new human being who is defenseless, innocent, and depends on mother for her life, is the worse of all the aforementioned, combined, yet, for some reason, people become all sensitive, outraged, and offended when defenders of innocent babies reveal the truth of abortion…. People become more upset if an animal in utero is abused or killed than a human baby suffering a worse fate….
Millions of people watch movies which depict women being assaulted, stripped naked, tortured, raped, dismembered, burned alive, screaming in agony and terror, pleading for mercy, pleading to be released, pleading for their lives….
Why is it so many have the stomach for such vile imagery… but demand that imagery of the real effects of elective, induced abortion are adamantly blocked, fought, and touted as unfit for public scrutiny?
It makes no sense.
Let people see what abortion really is and then let them defend the disgusting, truly offensive, violent, blood slaughter of innocent babies pushed by a society which raises abortion up to some sacred, wonderful experience and a badge of honor making a woman a conqueror, a victor over some weird concept of “power,” and “autonomy.”
Yes, high schoolers SHOULD see abortion victims. They might already be rather jaded from ingesting the imagery from all the abusive athletes, suffering animals, torture and abuse in movies, and so forth, but they should see and become educated in the truth and counter the whitewashed imagery of abortion as some wonderful, sacred, women liberating rite of passage.
~ Commenter William, remarking on why images of abortion victims should be seen by the public, in response to “Pro-life vid of day: Should high schoolers see abortion victims?” at JillStanek.com, September 17
[Photo via usforacle.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Amen William!
Once was explaining to a 13-14 year old girl that HPV causes cervical cancer. She stopped me and asked, “What is cancer?”
We all say things that the other may not really understand. A picture shows what we mean just like in kindergarten when teaching a child to read one shows a picture of a cat and says, “C-A-T, cat.”
We speak English in this country. Fetus is Latin. In English that developing human in the womb is a B-A-B-Y, baby! This is a picture of an abortion that happened to a baby. Do you understand or do I have to say it in Latin to make it acceptable?
If abortion is about health and freedom, why are people offended at the images of abortion?
“We speak English in this country. Fetus is Latin.”
To be fair, English is a language that is heavily based on Latin.
I am I suppose rare in our culture in that I do not watch TV or violent movies. We do watch documentaries at times. I avoid graphic pictures and descriptions of any type as I have a very sensitive soul and I feel crushed under the weight of it. I had to repeatedly request removal from voice of the martyrs which describes the persecuted church as they also feel something needs to be seen as a call to action.
I know what happens in abortion vividly. I also trained as a midwife and have assisted in many births and in the stillbirth of a very much loved baby. Death itself is not what is too hard for me to handle, it is the evil that man can perpetrate on one another. A hard slap and angry eyes will give me nightmares. When I was a baby and toddler I witnessed a lot of domestic violence.
I do not oppose the graphic images, but I certainly can’t look at them. I have had to harden myself a bit to be able to come to this site.
For me something that made HUGE impact was the sound of the bb’s hiting the can for deaths in each war and then for abortion. It just wouldn’t ever stop! Dear God, make it stop!
If abortion is about health and freedom, why are people offended at the images of abortion?
It’s not too different from foot binding. Men liked the idea of it, and seeing women traipse around in their tiny shoes was a kinky fetish for them. But they didn’t want to look at the distrubing reality of the grisly procedure, so they made sure the women kept their feet covered up at all times.
“In English that developing human in the womb is a B-A-B-Y, baby!” – so are infants, children, adolescents, teenagers and even adults. ‘Baby’ is more of a colloquialism.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/baby
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/baby
Real-stupid-ity,
.
A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.
.
There are some folks who would justify your elimination by identifying you as an infidel.
.
There are some folks who would justify your elimination by identifying you as a counter revolutionary.
.
There are some folks who would justify your elimination by identifying you as female. [see gendercide in your dictionary] Interestingly enough many of these folks are females themselves.
.
But no matter how much these folks try, they cannot change reality.
.
These folk’s bigotry only changes them. The objects of their disaffection are no more no less human.
.
Being stupid does not make you any less human. It just makes you more dangerous to yourself and others.
.
The ‘theory’ of natural selection should ensure that the gene for your particular kind of stupidity will gradually be eradicated from the human gene pool.
.
Unfortunately that ‘theory’ is just a superstition based on the wishful thinking of stupid people.
.
Humans have the ability to make themselves ‘stupid’. Superior intelligence or higher education is no immunization against the affliction. In fact experience demonstrates that combining the two often predisposes some folk to increased stupidity. [see eugenics in your dictionary.]
.
My two year old grand daughter closes her eyes and naively believes because she can’t see others, no one else can see her.
.
I am confident that she will outgrow her child hood fantasy.
.
The question is, will you outgrow yours?
kentheburper
“A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet” – pretty much.
“There are some folks who would justify your elimination by identifying you as an infidel” – well then they’d be operating under a delusion wouldn’t they. Anyone can make any sort of claim about someone if they wish to target them.
“There are some folks who would justify your elimination by identifying you as a counter revolutionary” – if anyone falls into the realm of ‘counter-revolutionary’ it would be you.
“There are some folks who would justify your elimination by identifying you as female” – now who would be that stupid.
“But no matter how much these folks try, they cannot change reality” – and yet they persist in trying.
“These folk’s bigotry only changes them. The objects of their disaffection are no more no less human” – ?
“Being stupid does not make you any less human. It just makes you more dangerous to yourself and others” – that’s why I endeavour to help you rather than just write you off as a lost cause.
“The ‘theory’ of natural selection should ensure that the gene for your particular kind of stupidity will gradually be eradicated from the human gene pool” – so you still can’t get to grips with evolutionary processes. It’s ‘survival of the fittest’, remember.
“Unfortunately that ‘theory’ is just a superstition based on the wishful thinking of stupid people” – ha ha, that’s funny.
“Humans have the ability to make themselves ‘stupid’.” – so I see.
“Superior intelligence or higher education is no immunization against the affliction” – a few gop’s are evidence of that yes.
“In fact experience demonstrates that combining the two often predisposes some folk to increased stupidity” – no need to be so defensive ken.
“My two year old grand daughter closes her eyes and naively believes because she can’t see others, no one else can see her” – sounds relatively normal. Takes after her maternal line obviously.
“I am confident that she will outgrow her child hood fantasy” – and how about you?
“The question is, will you outgrow yours?” – ah, you haven’t. Oh well.
Merriam-Webster’s definition of child
Full Definition of CHILD
1
a : an unborn or recently born person
b dial : a female infant
2
a : a young person especially between infancy and youth
b : a childlike or childish person
c : a person not yet of age
3
usually childe archaic : a youth of noble birth
4
a : a son or daughter of human parents
b : descendant
5
: one strongly influenced by another or by a place or state of affairs
6
: product, result
— child·less adjective
— child·less·ness noun
— with child
: pregnant
Also, Mayo Clinic’s online guide to prenatal development refers to a 5 week old human embryo as a baby. If Mayo Clinic can call a five week old embryo a baby, so can we. The reality is, baby is a emotional term, not a scientific one. The scientific term for the unborn is fetus or embryo. The scientific term for a newborn is neonate or infant. If we should stop referring to fetuses or embryos as babies because that’s not the proper scientific term, then we also must stop referring to newborns as babies, because that’s not the proper scientific term for them either.
Rebecca: then we also must stop referring to newborns as babies, because that’s not the proper scientific term for them either.
No, because the argument is not really over where it would be a scientific term. As an “emotional term,” as you mentioned, do you see anybody saying it should not apply after birth? Of course not.
A far different thing from the silly insistence that the “emotional” usage *before birth* (where there is no such agreement on usage – especially earlier in gestation versus later) means anything in the context of the abortion debate.
Whoever controls the meanings of things controls things. If you meet someone in life who refuses to accept the true definition of something, they are running a bluff on you. Depending on the social standing of that person, the bluff can have some authority behind it to back up his lies. If you back down from his bluff, and accept the lie as truth by accepting his definition of things as something they aren’t, that makes it a happy day for that bluffer. It makes it very easy for him to run another bluff on you and before you know it, pretty soon there are no places left where truth can be spoken. The Educational Establishment is shot through and through with bluffers/liars. Plenty more exist in the Ruling Elites in Government.
Bluffer/liars don’t like the pictures of abortion victims to be exposed to the general public. It exposes them as bluffer/liars, and jeopardizes their entire power base. Power-tripping is a big deal with bluffer/liars. It’s really the most important commodity they have; it becomes their meaning for existence. They are like actors who are playing a role. The only difference between an actor and a power-tripping bluffer/liar is most people don’t risk anything by believing the actor on the stage or screen is really the person playing the role. Not believing the power-tripping bluffer/liar, and calling their bluff, can cost you quite a lot in a society that has believed power-tripping bluffer/liars are really the people who define the meanings of things.
See Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave.”