Weekend question: What do you think of Time magazine’s graphic cover photo?
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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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/
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.
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.
The graphic nature of the photo makes a point.
Too bad the fact that this happened while we are in Afghanistan will be overlooked.
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.
“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.
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?
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.
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: Ex-GOP Voter at July 31, 2010 12:03 PM
——
Your suggestion to improve the aesthetics of killing an innocent human being is vile.
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?
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?
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.
(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”.
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.
Would love to chat more but I’ve got chores to do.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I say: Good for you! People need to realize the horrible things that go on in other countries.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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. :(
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…
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.
:-)
surprisingly courageous. Way to go!
Knowledge is power.
It’s what we do with the knowledge that is the mark of our character.
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.
I would much rather my children see these images than half naked women exploiting their bodies. That creates disillusionment not photos like this.
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.
I completely and totally agree that these images should be shown to the world.
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.
“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.
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.
It is right to expose this.
If time were to do a story on the atrocities of abortion can you imagine the public response.
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
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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:
then you make this statement about the graphic reality of abortion:
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.
(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.
I hate to be the cause of what might be one of the warning signs of the Apocalypse, but… on one particular point, I’m actually going to agree with EGV. (Mark your calendars.)
As John McDonell mentions, above, there are some people who’re so twisted and hardened in their culture-of-death position (and activities) that they’ll be glad to change the “cosmetics” of the procedure (for example, sedatives for aborted babies) in question. What EGV may not have made clear (and correct me if I’m portraying your position wrongly, EGV) is that such people would not make these “cosmetic cover-ups” for their own sakes; rather, they’d “tidy things up” for the sake of throwing off their OPPONENTS, and/or taking away some of the more powerful “rhetorical ammo” that we on the pro-life side have in our current arsenal. Even in this era where critical thought is extremely scarce (especially while people slurp up what the MSM dishes out to them), bloody carnage still has a visceral impact on those who aren’t yet impossibly jaded. If abortion-tolerant people could promote “early” abortions to the extent that most of the abortions were even more “out of sight, out of mind” (and without evidence which pro-lifers could find and show a horrified–or what should be a horrified–public), I’m sure they’d be quite pleased. (I also think that wouldn’t change their support of all abortions, even a jot.)
Okay… I’m done, and I’ll be watching for those four funny-coloured horses to come galloping by, soon… :)
well if we do leave you can be sure that the Taliban will not legalize abortion. Islam hares bortion while Israel has a higher rate than the USA
more than half the women in the Kabul jail are in prison for running away from their husbands. This is the government that we now support, one whrre the starving of wives is legal. There ain’t a dimes worth of diffference between the Taliban and Kabul