Weekend question: What do you think of Time magazine's graphic cover photo?

time cover photo afghanistan 2.png

When I read about this, of course I thought of the graphic images pro-life activists use to show the reality of abortion. Consider our rationale to Time magazine's rationale for posting its cover photo this week:

Our cover image this week is powerful, shocking and disturbing. It is a portrait of Aisha, a shy 18-year-old Afghan woman who was sentenced by a Taliban commander to have her nose and ears cut off for fleeing her abusive in-laws. Aisha posed for the picture and says she wants the world to see the effect a Taliban resurgence would have on the women of Afghanistan...

I thought long and hard about whether to put this image on the cover of Time....

I'm acutely aware that this image will be seen by children, who will undoubtedly find it distressing. We have consulted with a number of child psychologists about its potential impact. Some think children are so used to seeing violence in the media that the image will have little effect, but others believe that children will find it very scary and distressing - that they will see it, as Dr. Michael Rich, director of the Center on Media and Child Health at Children's Hospital Boston, said, as "a symbol of bad things that can happen to people." I showed it to my 2 young sons, 9 and 12, who both immediately felt sorry for Aisha and asked why anyone would have done such harm to her. I apologize to readers who find the image too strong, and I invite you to comment on the image's impact.

But bad things do happen to people, and it is part of our job to confront and explain them. In the end, I felt that the image is a window into the reality of what is happening - and what can happen - in a war that affects and involves all of us. I would rather confront readers with the Taliban's treatment of women than ignore it. I would rather people know that reality as they make up their minds about what the U.S. and its allies should do in Afghanistan.

Our story and the haunting cover image... are meant to contribute to that debate. We do not run this story or show this image either in support of the U.S. war effort or in opposition to it. We do it to illuminate what is actually happening on the ground. As lawmakers and citizens begin to sort through the information about the war and make up their minds, our job is to provide context and perspective on one of the most difficult foreign policy issues of our time. What you see in these pictures and our story is something that you cannot find in those 91,000 documents: a combination of emotional truth and insight into the way life is lived in that difficult land and the consequences of the important decisions that lie ahead.

Do you agree or disagree that Time should have shown so publicly displayed that distressing photo on its cover? Does Time's rationale for publishing its photo hold for pro-life use of graphic photos of aborted babies?


Comments:

Great question - one I've struggled with and argued about on this very board. My two cents:

- I'm not a fan of graphic images because I think, as used AS an argument, it is sloppy arguing/logic. Now, I do think there's value in them if they capture attention to start a discussion, but in and of themselves, I think they are often illogical and missing the point of what the person wants to say.

Let me explain this. With this picture, people will be shocked. So an anti-war protester could then bring out graphic pictures of dead American soldiers. Now we've just got a war of graphic images. Furthermore, what's the answer? Sure it is terrible - but should we nuke the country? Send more troops? Send missionaries? Shock draws us in, but it makes no point.

When I see graphic abortion photos, my first thought it "build a better abortion" - and while they phrase is a bit offensive, what I'm saying is - on the surface, it appears that the person holding the sign would be very much in favor of the morning after pill or very early abortions. In fact, a graphic abortion image would be a great advertisement FOR the morning after pill. But we all know that isn't the point with the pro-life movement.

So, to draw attention and get on with a further argument - sure - but as the argument itself, I think it is sloppy and as I think about it more, can be a bit deceiving and untruthful.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 31, 2010 12:03 PM


In mind it gives a reality to what sometimes goes on over there and the girl wants her story told...to me, that's a cry for help. If the USA can help, then we need to, because they're people, too.

My eldest nephew is a Marine. In January he will be sent to the Middle East. While this has caused a great deal of distress for me and my family (in particular one of my sisters who is his mother), we still know he has an opportunity to defend his country and others against things just like this.

I think most kids who are compassionate will be concerned for Aisha. To me, there are far worse things on the cover of magazines that kids potentially see than this. I've also been known to complain to managers about some of the images and magazines. I believe in protecting kids' innocence, but I don't think this is anywhere near as bad as some of the other things out there. You can't see her ears, so it's not as jarring as if you could see the whole extent on the cover of what happened to her.

(Some kids might even assume she was born that way).

Posted by: Mother In Texas at July 31, 2010 12:07 PM


The Time Magazine is powerful. Was it also Time that ran the photo of the naked boy fleeing an attack in Vietnam?

A picture such as this is disturbing, but it is real. The same with the attrocity of abortion.

If only the German people had the ability to show the world the horrors of the concentration camps, perhaps things would have been different.

Also, one cannot help but notice that the idea of "ownership" played a role in the Taliban's decision to disfigure the woman. In their estimation the family "owned" the woman and her trying to escape was the reason for the punishment. Here many pro-aborts claim that the woman "owns" her body and the result is much the same: a justification for dismembering the tiny baby inside of her. And yet pro-lifers are the ones they claim are unenlightened.

Posted by: Jerry at July 31, 2010 12:08 PM


I applaud Time Magazine for this honest eye opener on the
brutal treatment of women by Islam, entirely ignored by
American "feminists".

Time should be so honest about the brutal treatment of
babies in the womb!

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/the_barbarity_of_the_treatment_of_women_under_islam_is_ignored_by_well_almo/

Posted by: Leslie Hanks at July 31, 2010 12:47 PM


I think Time made the right call. Women suffer horrific abuses under Islamic rule and their stories need to be told.It's one thing to hear about someone getting her nose cut off, and another thing to actually see the victim.

There is real evil in the world, and the best way to fight it is to expose it.

Posted by: Lauren at July 31, 2010 1:03 PM


Was it also Time that ran the photo of the naked boy fleeing an attack in Vietnam?

Posted by: Jerry at July 31, 2010 12:08 PM

I thought it was LIFE but it was a girl, not a boy.


I am not at all disturbed by this picture. I mean I am disturbed at what and why this happened but I dont think people should be shielded from reality. This is what the Taliban does.

I remember Mavis Leno was on her husbands show only one time and it was specifically to talk about how horrible the Taliban was and what they did to women. She was a die-hard feminist and wanted the Taliban brought down, and wanted the USA to intervene. I have to say that I totally agreed with her. (This was before 9/11.) It should not have taken 9/11 for us to go to Afghanistan. In the name of humanity we should have gone there much earlier.

Posted by: Kristen at July 31, 2010 1:08 PM


The graphic nature of the photo makes a point.

Too bad the fact that this happened while we are in Afghanistan will be overlooked.

Posted by: Jeff Stone at July 31, 2010 1:21 PM


I am so so so angry with Time for publishing this photo!

NOT REALLY. My anger is rightly focused on the Taliban who committed this atrocity. Time did not cut this girl's nose off. The taliban did. Therefore, I support ending the Taliban.

I cannot understand people that misplace their anger over abortion photos on us who are trying to END the barbaric practice rather than those ACTUALLY COMMITTING the barbaric practice! To these insane people they would rather babies still have their arms and legs ripped off and not have to see the photos of it rather than protecting babies from having their arms and legs ripped off by ending the practice.

Posted by: Sydney M. at July 31, 2010 1:47 PM


"So, to draw attention and get on with a further argument - sure - but as the argument itself, I think it is sloppy and as I think about it more, can be a bit deceiving and untruthful."

Ok EGV, how is poor Aisha lying to us about the cruelty of the Taliban?

"build a better abortion"

I thought you called yourself a Christian EGV? You support child killing now???

Sometimes I cannot believe what comes from your keyboard...

You sound like a very confused person.

Posted by: Ed at July 31, 2010 1:48 PM


Ed -

I said that pictures are often used to draw people in for a further discussion, which is exactly what a magazine does. In regards to being untruthful, I'd say for a group like PETA - their goal is no animal consumption, but they videos deal with a massively small percentage trying to make it appear that the minority is the majority. Know what I mean?

On your second question - I don't think you either read or understood my whole post. Or maybe you don't debate much. I said that is a logical reaction to graphic abortion photos - are you saying that it is not?

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 31, 2010 1:59 PM


I have no problem with the photo, or others showing the abuse imposed on others that lead to this or even death. Shows what goes in the real world, nor our idea of what a real world is. My heart goes out to her, and all the others that are tortured, abused and murdered by any group or their own family.

Posted by: A Mother at July 31, 2010 2:37 PM


I am not surprised or shocked by this picture. It is reality that needs exposure. Aisha is a brave, beautiful girl (even with her disfigurement). What a travesty that the reason for this happening was fleeing abusive in-laws. I pray that she and others like her will be able to get reconstructive surgery (perhaps donated free by a generous soul) because I would think her condition would be quite dangerous to her health. God bless Aisha!

We should be proud to live in a country where we respect an individual's freedom and rights. Now if we could only change the way the least of us, the unborn, are mistreated and abused.

Posted by: Janet at July 31, 2010 3:17 PM


Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 31, 2010 12:03 PM
------

Your suggestion to improve the aesthetics of killing an innocent human being is vile.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at July 31, 2010 3:19 PM


No EGV, the graphic pictures are not supposed to promote further discussion, they're supposed to promote action, to put a stop to the abuse, the injustice.

I have no idea what PETA's claims are and frankly don't see what the attempts of a minority to deceive others has to do with innocent people being victimized by the Taliban, or innocent children being killed by abortionists. Like I said EGV, you seem to get off track easily.

You didn't answer my question, how is Aisha trying to deceive us?

About your "better abortion" statement, I must say that no, that was not my first reaction the first time I saw the procedure executed in the movie "Silent Scream". No, I didn't think to myself, "There just must be a better way we can kill these babies instead of watching them futiley try to escape the grasp of the probing forceps before their limbs are ripped off and their skull is crushed. If we can only kill them a few weeks earlier..."

What are you, nuts???

Anyone else out there like EGV, we just need a better way to kill these children?

Posted by: Ed at July 31, 2010 3:23 PM


I'm guessing that Oprah will devote a program to Aisha's story which would be great, BUT I doubt she will make a public statement about the case of abortionist Andrew Rutland who actually wrote a letter to Oprah, M. Shriver, E. Holder, D. Feinstein, B. Boxer, pleading his innocence for an alleged murder. (See quote of the day 7-31-10.)

Why, oh why, does Oprah evade the abortion issue when children are dying every day?

Posted by: Janet at July 31, 2010 3:28 PM


Chris/Ed -

It pains me that you don't understand my point - this is not that difficult.

I AM NOT ARGUING THAT WE SHOULD BUILD A BETTER ABORTION.

I AM ARGUING THAT A VALID RESPONSE TO A GRIZZLY ABORTION PICTURE IS TO HAVE A FORM OF ABORTION THAT DOESN'T MAKE GRIZZLY ABORTION PICTURES.

That is why I feel these pictures can be, to a degree, misleading.

Ed - reread my post at 1:59 - I explained EXACTLY why she's not lying - that the picture is meant to promote further discussion.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 31, 2010 3:32 PM


(Sorry to sidetrack this thread with my Oprah comment.)

Back to EGV,

I also did not think "let's build a better abortion" and one has to be a warped pro-abort to think so.

Aborted fetal pictures are not "used as an argument" (as you wrote in your first comment) but are evidence of an abortion. Evidence is proof, and as Ed said, "they're supposed to promote action, to put a stop to the abuse, the injustice".

Posted by: Janet at July 31, 2010 3:41 PM


Ok, so you're correcting your earlier statement:

"So, to draw attention and get on with a further argument - sure - but as the argument itself, I think it is sloppy and as I think about it more, can be a bit deceiving and untruthful."

Her picture is not just an attention getter, but it's a valid argument, standing alone. Ok, you stand corrected.

As far as abortion is concerned, you're still spewing trash.

THE ONLY VALID RESPONSE TO ABORTION IS THAT IT IS WRONG, EVIL, DETESTABLE, DESPICABLE AND VILE.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GOOD OR BETTER ABORTION.

ANY SUCH LOGIC IS DEPRAVED.

Posted by: Ed at July 31, 2010 3:42 PM


Would love to chat more but I've got chores to do.

Posted by: Ed at July 31, 2010 3:45 PM


Okay Ed - you are on the cusp of understanding this - you can do it.

You state that the only response is that it is wrong and evil. I agree.

Lets go back to PETA for example though - lets say that you see a video of a cow killing gone wrong. Do you automatically say "oh, I guess we should outlaw killing cows".

No, a valid response would be - they need to not kill cows that way.

I AGREE WITH YOU - you shouldn't kill babies.

But when the ONLY argument is a graphic picture of an abortion - then a good counter argument would be that they shouldn't kill babies that way. IF THE ISSUE IS THAT IT CREATES A MESS, do it another way.

You stated the CORRECT issue - that it is evil - but that's not the point the signs are making.

Okay - take a deep breath - get my point?

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 31, 2010 3:48 PM


I get your point, totally.

I just think you're nuts.

Here's what you said:

"When I see graphic abortion photos, my first thought it "build a better abortion" - and while they phrase is a bit offensive, what I'm saying is - on the surface, it appears that the person holding the sign would be very much in favor of the morning after pill or very early abortions. In fact, a graphic abortion image would be a great advertisement FOR the morning after pill."

You have no respect for human life. You need counseling, prayer, God. You need help.

Posted by: Ed at July 31, 2010 4:02 PM


It would do American 'feminists' a world of good to view images such as these-maybe they'd stop whining about how put upon they are and how hard they have it. Most of them wouldn't last a day in this girl's shoes. I'm sure they'll find a way to put her down for speaking out, all in the name of 'women first.' Hypocrites to the last.

Posted by: Jill Guidry at July 31, 2010 4:03 PM


I AM ARGUING THAT A VALID RESPONSE TO A GRIZZLY ABORTION PICTURE IS TO HAVE A FORM OF ABORTION THAT DOESN'T MAKE GRIZZLY ABORTION PICTURES.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 31, 2010 3:32 PM
------

I understood exactly what you were saying - which is why I'm saying it's utterly vile.

Blowing people up is disgusting and leaves bloody, gory body parts all over the place - however one can make it look more peaceful and serene if you were to give them poisoned kool-aid and have them lie down with flowers in their hands.

Masking evil - by converting what is horrid into a seemingly palatable form, is despicable.

You really don't understand why people are holding those signs - do you?


Posted by: Chris Arsenault at July 31, 2010 4:24 PM


I must agree with EGV. There are folks that were concerned about fetal pain during the abortion procedure. Solution: give enough narcotics to the fetus first. Then proceed to kill him/her.

Posted by: John McDonell at July 31, 2010 4:30 PM


They're missing the point of this post, Chris-this girl was disfigured due to the choice of another. If those who promote dismemberment as a choice don't like the ugly results and truth in photographic evidence, then maybe they need to rethink their morally bankrupt idealogy. They are all about choice-as long as the choice is theirs. Nevermind what effect it has on the one they are choosing against-this picture is a perfect representation of the consequences one person's decision have on another. If they don't the truth of their actions presented for the world to see, too bad. Graphic images work because they are evidence of the end result of abortion, just as this photgraph is evidence of the compassionless ideology of the Taliban. They force their views onto others via violence against the weak, same as proaborts do. All in the name of choice.

Posted by: Jill Guidry at July 31, 2010 4:34 PM


Chris - I know exactly why they hold up the signs - they want to shock people into believing abortion is bad, and thus turning to the pro-life side.

I'm just saying that logically, there are two responses to a picture like that.

On the flip side, when a person makes a logical argument against abortion - and there are plenty, it isn't something that can be as easily dismissed.

Ed - thanks for your thoughts - you don't get it and that's okay.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 31, 2010 4:37 PM


X-GOP I read all the comments and I don't get what your point is either. Maybe you're just not explaining it clearly??? If many people are not grasping what you're saying then maybe you're not saying it well.

So don't get hysterical (take deep breaths as you hysterically admonished us) and maybe rethink the way you're saying things.

Posted by: Sydney M. at July 31, 2010 4:52 PM


I say: Good for you! People need to realize the horrible things that go on in other countries.

Posted by: Chrissy at July 31, 2010 4:56 PM


Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 31, 2010 4:37 PM
----

Go Google and read about Emmett Till.

As for logical arguments and people being unable to dismiss them - they do it all the time. In fact, you even do it.

To be intellectually honest - to actually seek truth on an issue, usually takes the courage to set aside self-interest. In my experience this is extremely rare. I would even say, that's a gift of God's grace, because you have to overcome the inner deceptions and false assumptions.

I'll agree with you that the later term pictures are more often used than earlier ones, but development is irrelevant to our point: that all human beings - at every single stage of development, have the right to life. So even when I make this point rationally and validly, you're unlikely to accept it.

There's no reason to assume others will be able to understand without providing them some basis to open the discussion - even if it means using graphic photos.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at July 31, 2010 5:15 PM


Sydney - I'll try again.

My thoughts on graphic abortion photos.

I don't mind them in a larger context of an argument.

I do not like them on signs out in public for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons though is that is is an incomplete argument.

If a person has a bunch of graphic abortion signs, somebody walking by would have to say "wow, that is gross, abortion is an ugly thing".

They have two logical responses to that thought:

1) Abortion is an ugly thing and should be outlawed.
2) The way or timing of abortion should be changed so that we don't have such graphic images.

So I'm just saying that I think the argument, by itself, is both a bit sloppy and misleading.

That is my only point.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 31, 2010 5:16 PM


Chris - why would you assume that I couldn't logically accept that? I said, numerous times, graphic photos by themselves. I said they are an issue AS the argument, not part of the argument. So then you take them into the context of an argument - exactly what I said was okay - and then said I wouldn't be able to understand it.

So you essentially took my exact argument and then said I wouldn't understand it.

Very odd Chris, but thanks.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 31, 2010 5:19 PM


The sad truth is that this young woman would be more likely to receive assistance from the US/UNFPA in the form of birth control, not reconstructive surgery. :( We give war-ravaged countries things they don't need in order to promote the liberal ideology instead of giving them things they DO need. It happens often, and it's really sad. This poor girl needs help and she needs protection from this brutal regime.

Chris - I know exactly why they hold up the signs - they want to shock people into believing abortion is bad, and thus turning to the pro-life side.

Guess those darn museums are just trying to shock us into thinking the Nazis were "bad." They show us all those pesky Holocaust photos of corpses and such. Sometimes people need to be shocked. The world woke up in horror when they saw the inhumanity of the Nazis in black and white. That is the goal of showing photos of abortion - to reveal the truth so that the injustice will stop.

On the flip side, when a person makes a logical argument against abortion - and there are plenty, it isn't something that can be as easily dismissed.

We hear logical arguments dismissed all the time, despite ALLLL the evidence pointing to the fact that preborn humans are indeed HUMAN and alive. I'm sure I've read at least twice just this past week on these boards from people (Max Kamin-Cross being one of them) who think unborn humans are neither human nor alive. Logic be damned, we want our sex to be consequence-free.

And then, there are those who, despite the fact that they've seen 4-D ultrasounds and they've even seen graphic abortion photos, continue to claim that they're "fake." They claim the unborn are blobs of tissue, despite the testimonials of abortionists themselves!

Perhaps those who seek to remain blissfully ignorant *need* to see abortion photos. Maybe pompous, spoiled American feminists *need* to see photos like this magazine cover. Not for the sake of discussion, but for the sake of waking us from our apathy regarding those in need in the world around us.

Posted by: Kel at July 31, 2010 5:26 PM


"They have two logical responses to that thought:

1) Abortion is an ugly thing and should be outlawed.
2) The way or timing of abortion should be changed so that we don't have such graphic images.

So I'm just saying that I think the argument, by itself, is both a bit sloppy and misleading.

That is my only point."

OK EGV, tell us how many people you know (beside yourself) who would be led by these pictures to actually think or say no. 2. Have you ever heard anyone say it or argue this way? Otherwise, this argument doesn't have a whole lot of validity.

My suspicion is that no one in the world would think this way but you -- and you're only doing it to get a rise of of people.

Posted by: Lori Pieper at July 31, 2010 5:37 PM


This picture is tragic AND sad. Tragic because of what was done to her, and SAD because in spite of her horrific injuries.....she's still a beautiful girl. You can tell how beautiful she was before The Taliban (evil incarnate) got a hold of her. :(

Posted by: Pamela at July 31, 2010 5:47 PM


This is a very strong photo because IT MAKES A POINT. The similarities of this photo to graphic abortion photos are many. I don't feel "offended" by this photo, but it does make me cringe. It also makes me take a second look to grasp the seriousness of this issue. I'm curious to see how many people are outraged by this photo, especially those who HATE images of aborted children. I'm sure they won't say anything...

Posted by: Patrick Ptomey at July 31, 2010 5:49 PM


Lori - I suppose I've never done a poll on it.

When I don't answer questions directly (and usually four times) though, I get yelled at for it - so my answer is 72. I know 72 other people who would answer 2.

:-)

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 31, 2010 5:51 PM


surprisingly courageous. Way to go!

Posted by: boe at July 31, 2010 5:53 PM


Knowledge is power.

It's what we do with the knowledge that is the mark of our character.

Posted by: Jennifer at July 31, 2010 6:01 PM


it was a brave thing to do.

The world needs to know that the Taliban and militant Muslims the world over want this for all of us.

They are committed to world Islam.

Posted by: angel at July 31, 2010 6:16 PM


I would much rather my children see these images than half naked women exploiting their bodies. That creates disillusionment not photos like this.

Posted by: christa at July 31, 2010 6:21 PM


I think Time does an excellent job at covering stories. I see this as just another example of their committment to keeping their readers informed.

Posted by: myrtle miller at July 31, 2010 6:32 PM


I completely and totally agree that these images should be shown to the world.

Posted by: Joe at July 31, 2010 7:29 PM


Children, in days past, had reality - as in "wakes" in the front room of their homes; knowing what life and death were in truth. The fact that we have sanitized everything & made media violence & perverted sex the substitute has ruined reality, and people are not processing truth rightly.

The picture Time magazine published is a reality. So are aborted babies.

Posted by: Cheryl at July 31, 2010 7:33 PM


"When I don't answer questions directly (and usually four times) though, I get yelled at for it - so my answer is 72. I know 72 other people who would answer 2."

Sure you do.

Posted by: Lori Pieper at July 31, 2010 8:09 PM


What I think is interesting about the Time magazine article is the obvious angst the author went through in making the decision to display the photo.

I suspect he really did not want to because somewhere deep in his brain resides the same question that Jill poses in her post, "does Time's rationale for publishing its photo hold for pro-life use of graphic photos of aborted babies?"

A person with a clear conscience, and one who knows the truth about a situation, would not hesitate to show the truth about an injustice.

The fact that this author anguishes over this with regards to Taliban nut-cases and the destruction they inflict on helpless women is pretty revealing, and probably indicates that he struggles with understanding the nature of injustice to begin with.

This is not a surprise though. Relativism is rampant and takes its toll on our culture, of which Time magazine is a reflection of.

I'm glad they put the picture on the cover, but let's see if they can carry the logic to other areas of injustice. My guess is they won't.

Posted by: Andrew at July 31, 2010 8:30 PM


It is right to expose this.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 31, 2010 8:42 PM


If time were to do a story on the atrocities of abortion can you imagine the public response.

Posted by: myrtle miller at July 31, 2010 8:48 PM


Ex-GOP,

I understand what you are saying. I understand you are Pro-Life.

I also believe that there are plenty of sick, depraved humans who would think something so base as your no. 2 response. There are plenty of Planned Parenthood employees who dismiss graphic abortion photos every day as fake or misleading.

Correct me if I am wrong, but, what I think (at least some of) your point is: if one wants to argue why abortion is evil and should be outlawed, there are plenty of arguments that are very convincing - whether one chooses to supplement their argument with the photos or not, making the photos sometimes unnecessary.

I say "sometimes" because there are many, many people who are visual learners, if you will. Hence, this Time Magazine article. As someone said, it is one thing to hear a girl got her nose cut off and quite another to see it. Unfortunately for our side, the very term "abortion" has lost its impact on people. Very few people outside the PL movement shutter at the sound of that word.

Perhaps, this is the strongest argument for using the photos. While I believe there are many, many depraved people who would at least agree with your theoretical no. 2 response, if not come up with it on their own...I believe there are many, many more who would have your no. 1 response. This is why the pictures are effective. As Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life says, "America will not end abortion until America sees abortion."

God bless you all!
MTBF

Posted by: MTBF at July 31, 2010 8:53 PM


EX GOP,

I don't think the abortion photos are meant to be an argument standing alone. They are used to combat a very specific and common belief (or willful ignorance) among abortion supporters that abortion does not take a life. Here is evidence of what an abortion looks like. What do you see? Now, is it a rational response to say, "earlier abortions don't look like that"? Of course. And thus begins the discussion. The signs aren't meant to stand on their own (no picture or sign can make an argument in it's entirety). But it forces people to look at what abortion is. If their response is "well, I'm sure we can make it look neater", then we have another discussion. The picture isn't the whole argument, but there's nothing wrong with addressing one part of the problem which is without doubt people's ignorance of what abortion is. You seem to be saying that you don't mind the Time picture b/c it's coupled with a full discussion within the magazine, so I assume you would also have no problem with the abortion photos on the cover of Time. I think these kinds of photos have a place in starting discussions (in public places etc), not just when coupled with written articles.

Posted by: CT at July 31, 2010 9:02 PM


I applaud Time for getting this one right. Until people are so bothered by the ugly truth of reality, many (and I daresay most) just won't really care about what is going on. As in the case of slavery, things did not really begin to change until society had the ugly truth put right in front of their faces.
In the same way, until enough people are bothered by the ugly truth that is the way those in authority in many of the countries in the middle east, routinely treat women, and by what abortion actually is, things are unlikely to change. I applaud those who are overseas fighting for the liberty of others (mainly the American Military) and those who are fighting for the liberty of the smallest and most innocent of us everywhere else!
With regards to "hurting" children with graphic images, this kind of imagery (this and abortion images) is not what robs children of their innocence. The graphic sexuality of our culture does!! As I understand it the vast majority of children can handle seeing this type of thing pretty well, especially if a parent can give even a basic explanation and an assurance of their protection and love for the child(ren).

Posted by: Matt at July 31, 2010 9:11 PM


Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. These atrocities are easy to deny or forget until we come face to face with them. I applaud this courageous woman who is trying to help other women and inform the world of these injustices.

Posted by: Bedbug Books at July 31, 2010 11:03 PM


MTBF - Exactly - thank you.

Pictures do work with some people. I'm not a fan of them (mostly because I have two small children who don't need to see anything like that - I once saw a truth truck ahead of me on the interstate and my first split second thought was to run the thing off the road!)- but again, they do make sense as a part of a larger argument.

Quite frankly, it is a spiritual war more than anything (at least in my mind) - I don't think legislation, graphic photos, anything like that will make as big of a dent as prayer and loving people. Showing love and bringing people towards Christ (again, in my opinion) works best. A person who doesn't care about a maker and a larger purpose isn't going to care about a graphic photo. Again, my two cents.

Thanks also CT -you are right (kinda - see my earlier statement) - but what's the follow-up conversation? "Yes, if you've had an abortion, you did this! Now let's have coffee and talk about love and how you can be better."

I don't know - it reminds me a bit of those odd halloween shock houses run by some odd Christian groups. Thoughts?

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 31, 2010 11:27 PM


These aren't "bad things that happen to people" these are HORRIBLE and TRUE things that happen when dealing with TERRORISTS. I'd like to emphasize that this is what our troops are fighting for...to get Al Queda out of the picture so that these innocent families can go about like we can everyday. We take America for granted....and apparently so do the people in the majority lead in Congress and...elsewhere...specifically the Executive branch. We have NO CLUE how good we have it until a photo like this is posted on Time. And Time magazine has it's very liberal ideas...but they got this photo right. But the context said here is so placid it almost makes me sick. We should be passionate about why the war is going on...even if I don't agree with the general idea of a war on terror (because this will be a neverending war...thanks to villains the brew from the shadows every night and day)...but at least heart was in the right place. I want these people to live fat and happy like us Americans. That's why I'm in the war. I'm in the Navy. I've spent 5 damned years out to sea and just got my 3 yr break. But if I could be on the frontlines with General Patraes(sp!?) I'd volunteer in a heartbeat--and even moreso now so women could keep their appendages and so on. And kids wouldn't be blown up.

FYI, the MEDIA and HOLLYWOOD make our younger generations conditioned to violence. Even I look at blood and think its cool. ...I, in itself, think that's a conspiracy...so we don't take heart into the matters of reality that are not within our national border.

Posted by: Brianne at August 1, 2010 12:16 AM


Here's the cusp of it: Did Time use some of their income to pay for reconstructive surgery for this girl? If so, then I support the picture. If not, they are cynical bastards who should be ashamed of themselves as they sip their lattes in their trendy houses.

Posted by: Don Cicchetti at August 1, 2010 12:29 AM


The photo is the face of radical Islam. People who support the building of a Mosque at Ground Zero in NYC should look long and hard at this photo before approving the building of a monument to the destruction of the WTC.

This is the face of our enemy, and it's a fight to the death. These are the people B.O. coddles and gives comfort to by announcing withdrawal dates for our military.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at August 1, 2010 6:15 AM


What will the Taliban do to Aisha now that she is on the cover of Time magazine???!!

What a brave and beautiful girl and I have no problem with her on the cover!

The darkness of evil cannot stand the light of truth.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at August 1, 2010 8:16 AM


Gerard -

There are over 100 Mosques in NYC right now - do you think that the government should do anything about those?

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at August 1, 2010 8:23 AM


Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 31, 2010 5:19 PM
Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 31, 2010 11:27 PM
------

CT is right - the pictures merely provide a prompt towards a deeper inquiry - but that inquiry and discussion must be honest.

If you go back and read my comment very carefully, what I'm pointing out is your refusal to delve deeper into the humanity of the pre-born. While graphic photos depict a more fully developed human (killed), but that's not an issue when it comes to their humanity. This point is completely lost on you, who indicated earlier pregnant women should get cleaner, less gory forms of abortion.

Unless I'm mistaken, and you've come to believe human life (and defense of that right) begins at conception/creation then your own statement about logical arguments being more convincing appears hypocritical when it comes to your belief.

You don't think it strange that within your same comment you state:

Showing love and bringing people towards Christ (again, in my opinion) works best.

then you make this statement about the graphic reality of abortion:

I don't know - it reminds me a bit of those odd halloween shock houses run by some odd Christian groups.

Wouldn't the very realistic depiction of Christ on the cross be utterly offensive - and yet doesn't it stand as a testimony to His love for us? Wasn't that part of the uproar over the Passion of the Christ?

You really don't want to go anywhere near the reality of abortion - and you mock attempts ("let's go have a coffee..") to have a solid serious discussion on the issue. I'd say that's a pretty good indicator something is hidden.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at August 1, 2010 8:25 AM


(Deep sigh)

Chris -

For the 8th time, I said that a cleaner form of abortion is ONE logical response if the only message is graphic sign. It is why I said that it should be part of a larger argument/discussion - though one I think is tougher after leading with a sign like that...

I'll take your example of the passion of the Christ. Imagine if you just stood in front of a bunch of non-Christians with pictures of Jesus from the cross - didn't say much else - just held up pictures. Would this be effective witnessing?

Chris - you suggest something is hidden. What are you thinking? Maybe that I'm an abortion doctor?

Actually, I'm Obama himself - I get bored from time to time so I come on this board.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at August 1, 2010 8:34 AM


This is the face of our enemy, and it's a fight to the death. These are the people B.O. coddles and gives comfort to by announcing withdrawal dates for our military.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at August 1, 2010 6:15 AM
--------

It might be more accurate to state that this is what the enemy intends at the very least. However, I also think that Time is making the statement, by putting this on the cover, that BO is wrong about pulling out of Afghanistan without victory or at least true security.

At the very least, it may be attempt to sway the Nutroots to understand the implications of war.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at August 1, 2010 9:12 AM


Is anyone here opposed to the image?

I had difficulty parsing your feelings on this picture in particular, EGV - I fully understand that you don't really like the idea of using pictures AS argument, but this picture in particular is the cover story for an article that no doubt presents an argument, so it seems to me that it would be precisely the RIGHT use of graphic imagery in your mind?

I have to admit I struggle with the idea of seeing this image all over my walk to work, my trip to the bank, my own building lobby, all week. I live in a city where the week's magazines are displayed on countless newsstands on the street, not just in private mailboxes and product-targeted stores that you have to choose to enter. When one publication has an image that makes me shudder (or a racy image that makes me roll my eyes) I get pretty accustomed to seeing it by the time it's finally replaced. I am permanently, though mildly, scarred by another person's attempts to harm me, and I am quite sensitive to the emotions brought on by seeing things like this. That stupid torture-porn movie some years ago that had the billboards so offensive they actually took them down - that was something I felt very strongly about.

But this is a human being. She is real. If she were here in NYC, would I think that she should stay home rather than walk on the streets I walk on, just because the knowledge of what happened to her is upsetting to people out for a quick lunch at an outdoor cafe? Of course not. I would look down on anyone who wished that she would just stay inside, stay hidden. This is something that was done to her, to mark her and make the world recoil from her, so that she in turn would perpetuate the cycle of silence and violence. I am not and will not be part of that world. She is not the one we should recoil from.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 1, 2010 9:55 AM


"Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured."

Martin Luther King Jr.

Now if only all pro-life people understood the need to expose injustice, even in its ugliest forms...

Posted by: Canbuhay at August 1, 2010 10:46 AM


An empowering moment for this young woman. What some here may find too upsetting is her daily reality. What some may categorize as grisly is the face she and those around her (those who see her unveiled face) will always be exposed to.

The image itself is not violent or gory. It is, however, a visual reminder of violence and gore.

This is equivalent to a woman sharing the scars she still bares after undergoing an abortion. This is equivalent to any illustration which shows how a child is missing from this world for every abortion that is performed.

Had the cover of Time been a photograph of her blodied face and anguished expression, we would be fairly holding it up against graphic images of aborted children.

This neither supposes that I am for or against graphic abortion images, but I hardly find the comparison fair.

Posted by: Tanya at August 1, 2010 11:21 AM


This is something that was done to her, to mark her and make the world recoil from her, so that she in turn would perpetuate the cycle of silence and violence. I am not and will not be part of that world. She is not the one we should recoil from.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 1, 2010 9:55 AM
------

Thanks Alexandra - you're absolutely right. There's two things that came to mind when I saw her picture and read the blurb:

1. Jonny Diaz song - More Beautiful You. This girl has one heck of a spirit.
2. The Taliban have given her a walking talking testimony. She will pour a heaping pile of coals on their heads. They have empowered her more than they can imagine. There are several other women she will eventually meet that are speaking out against such injustice.

The strange part - if her missing nose or ears were the result of a botched abortion, Time would steer way clear of the story.

We need to pray for Aisha's protection, and ultimately, redemption with a loving Savior.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at August 1, 2010 1:53 PM


Posted by Ex-Gop Voter on July 31, 2010 @ 11:27 p.m.

I think the pictures would be a help to those who are contemplating abortion and if those who have already had abortions find it offensive they can blame those who lied to them in the first place. And while I do believe in being very considerate and respectful to people who have had abortions the primary goal should be in educating people to the realities of abortions so that the primary victims, babies, can be protected from further violence.

Posted by: myrtle miller at August 1, 2010 2:03 PM


The photo is the face of radical Islam. People who support the building of a Mosque at Ground Zero in NYC should look long and hard at this photo before approving the building of a monument to the destruction of the WTC.

This is the face of our enemy, and it's a fight to the death. These are the people B.O. coddles and gives comfort to by announcing withdrawal dates for our military.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at August 1, 2010 6:15 AM

Gerry: Thanks for your insights. The girl in the picture, the twin towers, and now the proposed mosque are all part of the same mentality that trumpets "the end justifies the means" when it comes to praising Allah.

Of course there is actually very little difference between someone who promotes the destruction of innocent human life for any reason, and those who perpetrated these attrocities. It has been remarked that with each passing day we experience yet another "9/11" with another 3000 innocents dying in our country via "choice". Those perpetrating this modern day holocaust must try to hide the truth, all the more reason that the graphic signs are a necessity.

Posted by: Jerry at August 1, 2010 2:17 PM


In the words of Richard Stengel, Managing Editor, Time Magazine:
(Excerpt)

I thought long and hard about whether to put this image on the cover of TIME. First, I wanted to make sure of Aisha's safety and that she understood what it would mean to be on the cover. She knows that she will become a symbol of the price Afghan women have had to pay for the repressive ideology of the Taliban. We also confirmed that she is in a secret location protected by armed guards and sponsored by the NGO Women for Afghan Women. Aisha will head to the U.S. for reconstructive surgery sponsored by the Grossman Burn Foundation, a humanitarian organization in California. We are supporting that effort.

There are photos of other women whose lives have been tormented by the Taliban at
www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,2007161,00.html


Posted by: Janet at August 1, 2010 2:38 PM


This is not pretty nor is any of the ugliness you see with little innocent babies being torn apart, but it is factual. Today's children see much uglier and play games provided by the same parents who will decry this photo , that is nothing like a game for children , unless you call it a game to see body parts being blown up and blood being spilled like water. Most of our games now in homes are those kind and people see nothing wrong with it. Kind of makes one wonder why people are so shocked by what our children do to each other , when all their games are about killing . Yes this picture and all truthful pictures should be shown fully and forget the shock value for we have nothing left in this world that would shock anyone , child or adult. She is a courageous girl and so is the person who dared show us the horror that is going on in those countries. But , never forget it happens here as well and is called a woman's right to choose. Not pretty but so true.

Posted by: valerie edwards at August 1, 2010 3:08 PM


Thanks for the update Janet - that's good to know.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at August 1, 2010 3:15 PM


The rationale that the Time editor makes for using the image is compelling. It's what journalists in countries with a free press have said for decades. During tsunami coverage, they justified photos as the only medium that depicted the enormity of the event. It's not meant to be an "action item" as though some would hope every journalistic effort would direct people specifically toward. Photojournalism has its own place in propelling social reform. The fact that major publications and broadcasters do not show abortion photos and footage to a national audience in the same way is the height of hypocrisy. Furthermore, when individuals create a delivery system where the mainstream fails in this regard, attempts are made to hold them to different First Amendment standards. Does the First Amendment apply to EVERYONE, or just to the elite and those licensed as "professionals?"

Posted by: groovsmyth at August 1, 2010 4:11 PM


My take on the images is this confirms the left bias against the crime of murdering pre-born humans and refusing to show the images because they are "too graphic" when, in fact, if it's on their agenda, they are more than happy to show the graphic images that impact the concience!! It's pathetic politics and maddening!

Also, as unpopular as it is to say, it's even more maddening for good people to play the "blind man" because the injustice is disturbing to look at. Injustice happens every day because we are so aware of our own discomfort we are not allowing ourselves to feel the discomfort of our neighbor to fall into action. WAKE UP!! without action, these injustices will continue and DO continue because no one wants to be uncomfortable.

If my house was burning down, I would rather my neighbor pray WHILE she's running in to save my family than to pray in her own home and hope for the best.

Posted by: Rosalinda at August 1, 2010 4:15 PM


My take on the images is this confirms the left bias against the crime of murdering pre-born humans and refusing to show the images because they are "too graphic" when, in fact, if it's on their agenda, they are more than happy to show the graphic images that impact the concience!!

Actually, most of the left-leaning commentary I have read Time's use of this picture expresses discomfort, because while they recognize the importance of exposing this kind of injustice to the world, they worry that the picture is being used to stir up pro-military-intervention support. Emotional manipulation, etc. There is a lot of hand-wringing about women's bodies and problems being used as a call to war.

(To which I say, good. I'll scan in my circa-1998 high school paper supporting anti-Taliban action by the US, to prove it. The tragedy, in my opinion, is that "women's bodies and problems" weren't ENOUGH to call us to action. Had to become OUR problems and our bodies, before it was important enough to care.)

Posted by: Alexandra at August 1, 2010 4:46 PM


Wow!

I am relieved that the NASA administrator Charles Bolden's primary focus (as ordered by bo) is to reach out to muslim nations and remind them of the 'significant contribution' they have made to math, science and engineering.

[The main problem with this assignment is that the arab nations 'significant contributions' to math, science and engineering were BEFORE the advent of Islam. Not so much since.]

Does the relatively recent converting 4 fully loaded civilian airliners into weapons of manmade mass destruction qualify as a 'significant contribution'?

Surely it would qualify solely on the basis of 'creativity'.

After viewing the photo from the cover of Time magazine I believe a nomination for some sort of Nobel prize for cosmetic surgery would be in order.

bo was nominated for the Nobel 'peace' prize before he had even taken the oathe of office.

That is setting the bar for a 'nomination' for a Nobel prize waaaaaaaaay low.

Surely even the barbarians that disfigured this woman's face would not fail to achieve the same threshold reached by bo.

Posted by: yor bro ken at August 1, 2010 5:22 PM


RINO,

Your 'point' is so subtle, so nuanced as to be essentially non-existent.

Your response to the grizzly nature of this photo and the the qrizzly photos of dismembered human embryos/fetuses is odd.

Both are irrefutable proof of the violence done to fellow human beings by elitists who believe they know better than any of the less than equals.

But your proposed solution, like the Taliban bigots, is to hide the violence behind a burqa of willfull ignorance.

Posted by: yor bro ken at August 1, 2010 5:42 PM


We need to stop ignoring these sorts of atrocities. I'm impressed that someone is willing to take a stand and publish controversial photos like this one.

Posted by: Jess at August 1, 2010 6:09 PM


I am disgusted that U.S. mainstream feminists don't care about women in Afganistan, and utter barely a peep about the abuse such women suffer. They show no concern for women and children enslaved by sex trafficking, either here or abroad.
The only thing they care about is promoting and expanding abortion. They don't even care about a woman's right to choose, because if they did, they wouldn't resist the efforts to support women who choose life. Nor would they fight laws to protect women from forced and coerced abortion; nor would they fight special laws to protect pregnant women from violence.
If Aisha "needed" an abortion, they would be trying to get it for her. Or if they couldn't do that, they'd be screaming to get abortion rights in her country.
But the right to leave an abusive relationship in a Moslem country, without being mutilated for it? That's they couldn't care less about. Since Aisha isn't seeking an abortion, she's on her own as far as American meaistream feminists are concerned.

Posted by: ex-Dem voting woman at August 1, 2010 7:35 PM


Thanks ex-Dem voting woman, I agree "Since Aisha isn't seeking an abortion, she's on her own as far as American mainstream feminist are concerned."

They are busy spreading poison about pro-lifers and hating Sarah Palin but totally ignore the abuse, mutilation, stoning and murder of women being done by radical Islamic shirea (sp?) laws, totally ignore the mutilation of pre-born females due to sex-selection abortion, totally ignore that 64% if women are coercered into abortion and totally ignore that sexual predators are free to commit serial rape of underage girls by hiding their crimes by aborting the evidence at abortuaries like PP. Where is their outrage? That is why I know they are sick and suffer from PADS Pro-Abortion Derangement Syndrome, they will only cry out for the "right to choose" to have a dead baby nothing else matters to them. The are Pro-Aborts and Pro-Death, nothing else matters.

God's word says "I set before you this day blessings and curses, life or death. Choose LIFE, that you and your seed may LIVE."

Posted by: Prolifer L at August 1, 2010 8:59 PM


I meant to write "totally ignore that 64% OF women are coerced into abortion". Sorry for the typo and incorrect spelling.

Posted by: Prolifer L at August 1, 2010 9:04 PM


Posted by: Alexandra at August 1, 2010 4:46 PM
------

Alexandra - I never would have guessed you were a "hawk"! ;-)

It's self-interest that drives markets and shapes politics. When creating our form of government, the founders had the wisdom to pit these various sets of interests against each other so none dominate.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at August 2, 2010 5:32 AM


EX GOP, the follow up would depend on the statement. If someone had had an abortion, then yes, the answer is, "this is what you did" and yes, they need to face that. Doesn't mean there can't be healing. If the response is, as you suggested, "I'm sure the morning after pill could solve this - then we'd never get to this stage." That begins the discussion of the continuity of life, etc. But either way the pictures aren't meant to say, "look at this now be pro-life." They are meant to say, "Look at these and, in light of them, defend being in favor of this choice." Because that gets the discussion to an honest place where you can get down to the basis of what you're talking about.

Posted by: CT at August 2, 2010 10:35 AM


Time is right on the Afghan question and wrong on the abortion question, where the same rules should apply.

Posted by: Albion at August 2, 2010 10:48 AM


Time is right on the Afghan question and wrong on the abortion question, where the same rules should apply.

Posted by: Albion at August 2, 2010 10:49 AM


Poor girl. She could probably get a prosthetic nose, but it's a shame something like this happened to her.

Posted by: phillymiss at August 2, 2010 11:02 AM


Where are the feminazi activists, those 'noble' defenders of the rights of women? Not one voice raised in outrage here. Why? Because they can't find any way to make themselves the victim here. If the focus isn't on how longsuffering they are, they're not interested. Add this to the list of reasons I laugh out loud every time they crow about caring for "all" women.
Don't miss this article that illustrates their many shortcomings far better than I could

http://tinyurl.com/24vv62u

Maybe if these self proclaimed defenders of women's rights actually championed women's rights for people like Aisha instead of sowing death for the unborn, they'd have something to talk about. As it is now, they are a cancer in our society.

Posted by: Jill Guidry at August 2, 2010 11:11 AM


Ha, Chris, I am most certainly not a hawk!

I agree that self-interest shapes politics; I disagree that that's acceptable or should somehow be accepted as "the way things are." Ignoring the reality of abortion is as "easy," self-interest-wise, as ignoring the reality of the oppression of Afghan women - but that does not make it okay, or justifiable, or somehow acceptable that that's what our society does.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 2, 2010 12:51 PM


I am a heavily armed dove.

Shrewd as a serpent, innocent as a dove.

If you strike me on one cheek, I may offer you the other.

If you touch my wife or children, you won't get a second chance.

The shrewdness of the serpent may restrain me til a more oportune time, but when I do respond I will be as innocent as a dove.

Posted by: yor bro ken at August 2, 2010 10:54 PM


Ken, you're a good man.

Posted by: ycw at August 3, 2010 5:14 AM


I agree, ycw. Ken, I got your back.

Posted by: groovsmyth at August 3, 2010 12:30 PM


Truth needs to be shown - if there is pain even in one person it is our moral duty to try to stop it ! childrenare used ot seeign the face of evil why not Truth !

God Bless
INDNJC
Sandra

Posted by: Sandra Mathias at August 3, 2010 2:45 PM


Truth needs to be shown - if there is pain even in one person it is our moral duty to try to stop it ! children are used to seeing the face of evil why not Truth !

God Bless
INDNJC
Sandra

Posted by: Sandra Mathias at August 3, 2010 2:46 PM


http://www.dougbrittonbooks.com/onlinebiblestudies-cultureandsocietyinfluences/abortionoflifeinthewomb-sinandgodsforgiveness.php

abortion photos should be on the cover of every magazine until the horrible killing stops.

Posted by: Tricia at August 5, 2010 4:35 PM



Post a comment:




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Please enter the letter "f" in the field below: