Are some photos of abortion victims too gory?
Monica Miller, PhD, Director of Citizens for a Pro-life Society, has sparked conversation recently within pro-life activist circles, asking us to reevaluate which photos of abortion victims we display in their necessary role of helping end legalized abortion.
Miller is one of the few pro-lifers who has actually retrieved aborted babies from the trash and photographed their remains.
Many of Miller’s thoughts on this subject are taken from her September 2013 New Oxford Review article, available for $1.50 or by going CPL’s homepage. This post highlights some of Miller’s points with the goal to prompt discussion and new thinking on this important topic.
Be sure to take the poll at the end of this post.
1) “Graphic Images” or “Abortion Victim Photos”? (Actual Pictures of Abortion Victims)
You may or may not have noticed that I’ve taken this first recommendation of Miller’s to heart. I now always use the term “abortion victim photos” or “photos of abortion victims.” I’ve abandoned “graphic abortion photos.”
Per Miller:
No longer should pictures of aborted babies be referred to as “graphic images.” The movement should drop that term entirely. These images should be called “abortion victim photos” (AVPs for short) because that is what they are really all about and, moreover, not all photos of abortion victims, while disturbing, are necessarily graphic in nature.
The term “abortion victim photos” is terminology that also advocates for the subject of the photos – as these are abortion victims - and not merely graphic images – words that give the instant impression that the subject matter is simply gruesome or repulsive which is not the point of the photos. Using the term AVPs aids the cause for the unborn, as the subjects of the photos are victims of injustice and the language we use should be aimed at helping others make that connection.
2) Life is Short – Use Better Abortion Photos
Per Miller:
While every photo of an abortion victim may be a true depiction of the abortion procedure and what happened to the unborn child, this does not mean that every photo is equal in terms of its effectiveness in raising awareness of the injustice of abortion. Pro-lifers need to begin to think more critically about the kinds of abortion victim photos they choose to display. Pro-lifers often tend to think that the bloodier photos are the more effective photos. This is not necessarily true.
Whatever photos are selected, the subject of the photo, namely the abortion victim, should be easily recognized, the humanity of the unborn baby the central and immediate focus.
Thus, photos in which the blood and guts, visceral matter overwhelms, even submerges the abortion victim should be set aside in favor of photos in which the abused victim is easily recognized with whom the viewer can immediately identify – as opposed to emphasis on gruesome factors that are more likely to repel the viewer.
We really want the viewer to see the abortion victim and not just a “graphic image” of an abortion. It should be realized that all that blood featured in some abortion victim photos is not the blood of the baby – it is the blood of the mother that attends the abortion procedure. Even for this reason the visceral material in the photo should be secondary to the actual abortion victim.
The three photos below are examples of AVPs in which the subject of the photo is overwhelmed by, immersed in blood matter and uterine tissue.
While the next four photos are graphic, the aborted baby is clearly the focus of the image. Blood and other matter are secondary to the subject.
3) Not All Abortion Victim Photos are Graphic Images
Per Miller:
This is a distinction that is not in any way sufficiently appreciated especially by those in the Pro-Life Movement who oppose the use of AVPs – and who certainly reject their public display. We need to begin to appreciate that AVPs represent a spectrum from very graphic to much less graphic images. Given that such a distinction exists, those who oppose their use have very little foundation upon which to do so.
Some images certainly and rightly demonstrate the violence of abortion in all its graphic horror – the shattered remnants of bodies torn apart. Other images however, while still obviously depicting abortion victims, are truly less graphic in nature.
Thus, perhaps we can begin to move these arguments along that 1) AVPs, whether graphic or less so, are necessary to the success of the pro-life cause, and 2) Choosing less graphic images is an option, and 3) The use of AVPs is central to the pro-life cause and thus those who use AVPs are not the fringe element of the Movement but mainstream pro-lifers.
The photos below, while disturbing, are not overtly graphic – indeed, some may not be graphic at all.
4) Responses to the most common objections to displaying AVPs
Per Miller:
a) Children will see the AVPs
The crisis of legalized abortion that has claimed the lives of 56 million innocent human beings requires that the truth be publicly exposed. The magnitude of the injustice overrides the possibility that children will see the pictures. It simply makes no sense to forego the public exposure of a national slaughter that has sent tens of millions of children to their deaths for the sake of sparing children who might see the photos and be affected by them. There is absolutely no proof that children who see such images suffer any lasting negative effects.
b) Women who have had abortions will be disturbed by the AVPs
The primary victims of abortion are the millions of unborn children who perish under the law in a violent death, in a nation that at least tolerates, and at worst advocates, such killing. Again the enormity of the injustice requires that the public be awakened to the slaughter.
Furthermore, there simply is no one-size-fits-all response of post-abortive women to such images. In addition, we should consider how AVPs actually prevent women from getting abortions in the first place thus sparing them a life of grief and regret.
c) AVPs dishonor the abortion victims
For a pro-lifer to photograph an abortion victim and expose the injustice done to him is the highest possible respect, short of a humane burial, that can be shown to that aborted child. When a graphic image is displayed it is that child who speaks. The abortion photo is the definitive way that unwanted, discarded unborn children can prove that they lived, that their lives matter, that their all-too-brief lives can impact this world and change it.
The photos of abortion victims are the only tangible guarantee they have that their lives and even their murders were not in vain. Concentration camp survivor Elie Wiesel stated: “To forget murder victims is to kill them twice.” The photos of abortion victims and their display ensure that this will not be done to them.
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.
Okay wow.
Well first of all I agree with the fact that the pictures used (if they are used) need to be more humanizing and do NOT need to be all about the gore. I quickly scrolled past the first examples of the gory photos because I personally can’t look at them. It’s not that I’m denying the humanity of the preborn but rather that because I’m really a sensitive person, that level of graphic death and dismemberment really gets to me and makes me physically sick and give me panic attacks. I’ve never watched a video of an abortion for that reason. And I usually don’t look at images of the Holocaust if I can help it at all. I don’t agree with just shoving these gory photos in people’s faces. I’m glad they exist, but I’d rather they not be shoved at me (and can we add a graphic content warning at the top of this post please?)
However I do think there *is* some place for using images. It is indeed sobering. It can be a sobering reality check for people who don’t realize what really goes on. And I’d love to see people using AVPs that are more like the latter ones, just picture of the tiny feet, etc. Just as visceral and impacting but without the gore. I’d be a fan of seeing images like then used when it’s appropriate for images to be used. I don’t always think that images are appropriate in all circumstances.
I think too the context in which they are shown matters greatly. As a student, we did the “pro-choice challenge,” where we set up a table with binder and challenged students who would say they are pro-choice to look through the entire binder, which included many of the victims Dr. Miller has photographed. It sparked a lot of deep conversations!
The dispute over AVPs is like the dispute over absolute legislation v. incremental legislation.
In my opinion, the pro-life movement needs people in all areas.
I do not have the heart to look at the AVPs, and I won’t use them. But I respect the people who do. I urge prudence is how and where those images are used.
As to legislation, we need incremental laws because they are effective in reducing abortions. And we also need efforts toward absolute protection of all human life, because that is our goal. The debate keeps the heart of the movement alive in the public, even if the proposed laws have little chance of passing under Roe. We need both.
Depends on time and place. Sometimes people seem to think that if you don’t like/don’t use aborted baby photos you’re failing, which is ridiculous. Everyone has their own opinions on what’s effective.
I don’t think there’s such a thing as “too gory”, there’s a place for some of the particularly awful photos somewhere… but some photos are certainly too gory for certain venues especially where kids are.
Right, the gory ones do have a place. It is visceral and stands out and is an actual representation of what happens. But I don’t think they need to be used in all circumstances and I think it’s perfectly okay to swap out less gory AVPs in most instances. But like I said, I am glad that the gory ones exist because it depicts the truth.
Pro-lifers need to depict the truth and not worry about hiding or partially hiding the true horrors of what an abortion really is. If you want the truth out, you have to be ALL IN which includes depicting exactly what an aborted baby looks like. Yes, it is very disturbing as it should be, why? Because it is a human being that got denied the right to live. The media doesn’t try to hide the gore of people being shot, killed, stabbed, drowned in the world via picture or descriptive words, but to level the field, these poor souls need as much the attention if not even more because they don’t have a voice and their mothers were not well-informed. It is a visual reminder of the truth of what abortion really is. Truth is hard to face and these picture are definitely hard to face. Makes you wonder how well an abortion doctor sleeps at night murdering these little humans daily as they see this first hand.
Also makes me wonder if these pictures were handed out in a pamphlet at abortion clinics…how many of those would-be mothers would go through with their abortion.
“Pro-lifers need to depict the truth and not worry about hiding or partially hiding the true horrors of what an abortion really is. If you want the truth out, you have to be ALL IN which includes depicting exactly what an aborted baby looks like.”
See, I don’t think statements like this are helpful. In your activism you believe using aborted baby photos is necessary. That’s your call and your right. I believe in a different approach in many situations. Doesn’t mean that I feel less fervently about abortion, just that I don’t think the aborted baby photos are helpful in some venues.
Sometimes people need a Mr Rogers approach and sometimes a more in your face approach. It’s up to the pro-lifer in the situation to discern what they think will work best. And I do think that children don’t in general need to have the aborted baby photos shown to them until they are older (unless their parent feels otherwise, then it’s not my business), I feel the same way about Holocaust photos and such.
The problem is Susan that people have an amazing capacity to ignore sheer injustice in front of them if it suits them. If everyone loved the truth we wouldn’t have abortion in the first place. People are different and all respond to different things. AVPs are essential to the prolife movement, no doubt, but AVPs alone won’t end abortion. Most sidewalk counselors I know do not use AVPs because it won’t in most cases get the woman (or man or family) to talk to you, which is the critical first step if a life is to be saved.
This is a bit off topic but there is a very good article on “The Week” entitled “Why I’m A Pro Life Liberal” It’s written by a young woman whose name escapes me. The comments are full of the usual vitriol, including “if you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.” That is so 1973!
I like the responses here.
I think that what ought to be effective at an abortion clinic is hand-outs and signs informing people that the fetus is a person.
[This is scientific consensus, and religions vary on whether a 4-week-old fetus is a human, so let’s take the “Taliban” arguments out of this.]
Any genuine fetus picture to be shown at an abortion clinic ought to be nice and calm, with the baby peacefully gestating. Plus, a clear note about 4-week-old, 8-wk-old, etc.
Then women and their families can see what is going on in side the womb.
Other than that, at clinics, messages should be about support services – Medicaid coverage for pregnancy and delivery which nearly every state has, noting that local crisis pregnancy centers provide diapers and new-mom parenting lessons, and so on.
On college campuses when trying to influence the young adults, or when lobbying/demonstrating for legislation, then showing the dismembered, gory pictures sounds like an option – it shows the reality and breaks the silence of ignoring a tragedy.
For fund-raising purposes for pro-life advocacy/legislative groups, I think that data and numbers would work better than gory photos – the ppl that are on mailing lists don’t need the reality of the gore to be motivated – potential funders and participants want to be effective – that takes data, not emotional pictures.
For CPCs – I don’t think it would ever be wise to show the gore. Just success stories, or a medical-illustration style picture of a fetus to show who it is that is being saved – plus data.
For medical professional training, I am not sure. Seeing these pictures can be desensitizing. Medical doctor students eventually see all kinds of blood and guts.
Will these pictures traumatize children, if shown in some public forum? We liberals are happy pushing every other kind of graphic and illustrative propaganda on children. Baby seals getting clubbed and so on. I don’t see much wrong with kids seeing a real, genuine thing.
We parents have to be ready to inform our children sometimes that they are not old enough for answers to some of their questions.
If one of my young children saw graphic abortion pics and asked what were they, I might say, ‘that is information for big people, on big people medical issues. I will explain it to you when you are older.’
People seem to not be able to say this to kids. About where babies come from, or mommy, did you ever do drugs, etc.
Once you give this type of answer once or twice, plus otherwise talk with and treat your child in a mature manner, they will accept the answer.
There are some photos of abortion victims that are gory.
Because aborting children is gory business.
They are hideous.
Because aborting children is hideous business.
The only ones I’ve ever seen who opposed Abortion Victim Photos are the ones who caused the death of the victims & you can tell that they are abortion victims themselves because, one, they are complaining that “Children are seeing them” even when the children aren’t complaining & actually getting inquisitive about it. Now, that is what they really don’t want. BTW, an even better response to “The children will see it” Is, “Great children like my sign” I’ve never met one yet who didn’t. It works better for me than, ”The magnitude of the injustice overrides the possibility that children will see the pictures”
I really do urge caution with each parent in knowing if their child is ready to see abortion photos. Each child is different and you can’t just assume all kids can handle seeing visceral images of dismembered babies. If my kids ask, I’ll tell them in age appropriate terms but I’d like to save the graphic images until later.
Fetal development photos are okay obviously.
I say this as a former child with a hyperactive imagination. ;)
I think all those Pro-Abort celebrities that do fund raisers for PP need to see these images..ALL of these images. I also think they need to see footage of an abortion taking place. I think these need to be on a big screen right across from any Pro- “Choice” venue ( No- not any where they can be viewed by small children). It’s easy (For them..I guess) to throw around words/phrases like “choice”, “women’s reproductive issues”, and (the ridiculous) “Reproductive Justice”, because they’re just WORDS. But SHOW them what these words REALLY represent…little, helpless,, innocent HUMAN BEINGS. Maybe- just maybe- that would open some eyes when images are put to their words. Just a thought.
Just a reminder.
If you are showing abortion victim photos please always have post abortive recovery materials available for grieving mothers. Some really do come to the truth through these photos. Some finally see the truth of what “safe” abortion did to our babies.
I know I did.
No child or adult will ever be “ready” to see these. So if you are waiting for the “right” time someone else will be telling your child that abortion is legal and safe and their right.
I really do want to know WHEN do you plan on showing your child these photos? What age? How will you present it?
The sooner the better because the world has a very different message for them about abortion.
I look at each photo. I look at each one. THAT child was made in the image of God and has her own DNA. Each little hand has little fingers and fingerprints that will NEVER be replicated. A perfect individual that God made unique and beautiful and special and ONE OF A KIND.
And yes they speak. This is the only “baby” picture we will have of them.
God help us as we grieve their lives and mourn their deaths and pray for the day when He will end the evil of abortion.
That’s why I said give age appropriate information first and then show them the pictures when they are older. I do want them to know that this exists and it’s horrible, I just am not sure that I want to show them photos like that. less gory AVPs sure.
And I think it’s up to the parent with each child. thankfully my kid is currently a wee one still so I have some time! I’m praying about it and want to make the right decision.
But just because a parent doesn’t show graphic images to small children doesn’t mean that they’re not having discussions or know what it is.
I started with fetal models, heartbeats of their siblings and ultrasounds and fetal development.
And moved onto photos of abortion victims.
Children already know. Every single one of mine knew right away what they were seeing. They all asked the same questions, “What happened to the baby? Who did this to the baby?” They know that something AWFUL happened.
God has put the truth in their hearts. :)
I am grateful to Him that we as prolife parents are passing the torch. That we are passing the torch to the generation that will help end it.
Thank you LB.
My child is seven. She has seen pictures of late-term aborted babies, and that was by accident. She happened to be behind me when I was on a Pro-Life website. She knows already what abortion is/does. When I mentioned that here one day, one of our “regular trolls” lambasted me about it. Oh, well.
Right, good point. starting with fetal development. i mean i’m definitely going to be teaching my kid science and if/when he has siblings and other little cousins (my son already has four cousins under the age of two!), he’ll be seeing ultrasound pics and know about babies growing.
i’m just personally a little more cautious and try to be sensitive to each kid because i would get nightmares from news stories that i saw for like five minutes. so if my son and future kids are like that, i am not planning to give them more fuel for fear.
but thank you, carla! glad we are teaching the next generation the truth.
sorry abou the lack of capitalization and grammar – my hand is bandaged and offspring recently discovered the joys of tapping computer keys and he may have vigorously jammed the shift key lol
I’m perfectly capable of talking to my kids about abortion without making them look at ripped apart bodies thankyouverymuch. Why is it “all or nothing” with this group here? People can teach fetal development and everything else without having to show five year olds pictures of murdered babies, some parents think that stuff isn’t appropriate until middle school and beyond. It really is the parent’s choice. Anyway, I’m pretty sure my son’s personality is similar to mine and I can’t even walk down the meat aisle in supermarkets without getting upset about the dead animals, so I’m certainly not going to make him (or my daughter though she’s quite a bit tougher lol) look at real dead babies.
I don’t judge those who choose to show aborted baby photos to their kids, but it seems as everyone knows better than those of us who don’t want our kids to see them until later in life.
And not everyone is “helped” in their pro-life efforts by looking at these type of photos. Some people are oversensitive to gore and can’t handle it. They certainly don’t have to look at them or use them to be effective in the pro-life movement.
Who is saying what you HAVE to do as a parent?
That you MUST do this when we say?
That you don’t have a choice?
I am praying that ALL of our children see the injustice of abortion one day and fight against it. And that it be a loving parent that shows them the truth.
Well, it’s fairly well implied in the “it’s fine for kids to see these photos” and “the only people who oppose their usage are people who are pro-abortion” type of comments. I find those irritating.
I can teach the injustice of abortion without the photos. I can teach the injustice of child abuse without photos of abused children, etc. I think it’s okay for my kids to retain innocence to the best of my ability until they are older.
The truth is ugly but needs to be shown. Having made this choice in my past and suffered the consequences I believe this gore is necessary for the sad reality.
Of course these photos are upsetting. Abortion is upsetting. If people are advocating for abortion, they should know what they are advocating for. Too many people call themselves “Pro Choice” because they don’t really know the truth about what abortion is. They are so stuck on the right of the woman to choose, that they don’t see what she is choosing. I think these AVPs need to be more widely seen.
Um Jack?
Do whatever you think is best. Do whatever you think is right by your children. Do whatever you feel is what they want or need. Do what you would like to do.
Carla I wasn’t trying to imply that you specifically were judging anyone for not showing the photos to their kids. I’m just talking in general.
I know you will do whatever you are comfortable with. And I am glad you are that kind of Daddy.
For me? It’s personal. My children have a sibling that died in mommy’s abortion.
It sounds like everyone here agrees that the Abortion Victim Photos(AVP) are a valuable asset to the pro-life movement. Esp. since they are completely blocked out by the 1-sided media. There is a million examples of how the mainstream news love abortion & hate anything against it. That is why anytime anyone anywhere holds an AVP sign we should all be encouraging them. As long as 1 person goes around saying they are “prochoice to torture babies” nobody is justified to complain about those signs. Who would be backwards enough to complain about the Jewish holocaust pics being shown to a holocaust denier? Yet AVP are complained about repeatedly by abortion deniers. Any pro-lifer who complains about those signs are doing more good for pro-abortion lobby than the abortion employees themselves & it is completely fabricated that they cause damage to children. Dr Monica Miller is right when she says, in this article, that there is no evidence what so ever that they cause harm to children. I know from experience when children see my signs, (NOTE:My signs are a medical diagram of the procedure w/out blood) they actually like the education. Kids like my signs so anyone who makes up, out of the blue, that children don’t like it is just repeating hearsay & rumors & I doubt very much that most of them interviewed children over it. Conclusion: If they say “children are traumatized by AVP” They are being fraudulent.
I was traumatized by those signs as a child, DoW. Granted, there was a lot more going into the trauma they caused than just the signs, but they left enough damage that I’ll go a mile out of my way to avoid seeing them and I’ll have panic attacks if I can’t avoid being around them. In general most children won’t be harmed by them, though it does tarnish their innocence in my opinion, but you never know which one has stuff going on at home that will harm the child to see the photos. Now, from prior experience in these conversations I figure you’ll brush off my trauma, but I’m not the only one who has issues like that because of these signs. If you are willing to risk traumatizing a small minority of the children that see them, that’s okay, we all weigh the pros and cons of different things we do, but saying that there’s no harm caused by the signs is not accurate. A medical diagram isn’t the same thing as a small child seeing a real baby ripped apart (I was like three or four the first time I remember seeing an aborted baby photo, I was probably younger than that I just can’t remember earlier than that). I am not being “fraudulent” when I state that some children (a small minority, as far as I can tell) are traumatized by the signs. Some kids are sensitive to blood and violence. I know my son would be horrified and have nightmares about them, and I know I’m a grown man and STILL have panic attacks if I see them. They CAN be traumatizing whether you believe it or not.
And wanting the signs to be used in appropriate areas or believing they cause more harm than good in some situations does not mean a pro-lifer is supporting the abortion lobby. This is why I feel people are “all or nothing” about this issue. I think the signs could be great at political rallies to protest bills about abortion being passed. I also think that brochures or websites that have the images are great tools for referring pro-choicers you are debating with. There are other areas I believe the signs are useful tools. What I don’t agree with are bringing them to clinic protests, or bringing them around schools.
Thanks Carla. I know you make the best decisions for your children, and I try to make the best decisions for mine.
I actually think my daughter will probably be fine to see them once she’s eight or nine, maybe a little older. She’s a tough little thing, she’ll probably just get mad and want to protect the babies. My son is way too sensitive though, he’s already tried to become a vegetarian like me lol because he’s so worried about animals. He cried when we found a dead worm on the sidewalk, while my daughter poked it, lol. I would never let him see an aborted baby photo, not until he’s MUCH older. I am not willing to risk him being traumatized and having nightmares. I can teach him abortion is wrong without causing him harm.
kathryn, my heart goes out to you. So very sorry. From your perspective, if you were shown these pictures before the choice was made, would you have changed your mind or would it have not made a difference? Or what would have possibly helped change your mind. It was many many years ago in college that I actually went to an unplanned pregnancy center (it was not planned parenthood) determined to get an abortion, but while I waited for a pregnancy test, they had me view a film about abortion and how the baby develops. I was VERY scared. My test came negative and I was so very grateful (late menses due to stress!). My overwhelming need to – at the time “was to get rid of the problem”. Very crappy to say, but when you’re a teen, you never see the whole picture of your consequences. I already had a 5 month old, was going to college and the thought of overwhelming my parents with another one, gave me the drive to seek an abortion, beyond my religious beliefs. I did not want to be a disappointment to my parents and appear irresponsible again. I was very ignorant of what the possibilities/options were. Every day I am grateful. Now if I was indeed pregnant, based on the video they had me watch, I could not have gone through with it anyways. Just couldn’t. I’m not saying this to make you feel bad or to judge, but just wanting a perspective to see if the aborted pictures would’ve made a difference to someone else.
1-Definitely agree with ditching the “graphic images” phrasing in favor of something like “abortion victim photos” (or I’ve used “photos of babies’ remains” before based on the same rationale: use words that reflect our recognition that these are photos of people, people who are now deceased.
2-I absolutely don’t see why anyone would intentionally subject their small children to any images (photos, drawings, videos) depicting abortion. Maybe around jr high. Much before that and children are just robbed of their innocence and are forced to start worrying about adult problems (horrors in the world) when they should just be able to enjoy a relatively sheltered, carefree, joyful childhood. (Remember that terrific bumper sticker: “A Happy Childhood Lasts A Lifetime”!)
Sure there are all sorts of stresses on children depending on their particular homes, parents’ relationship, sibling rivalry, job/$ issues, etc. – but what can’t be helped, can’t be helped. Electively showing to ypung children images of defenseless babies who’ve been deliberately killed seems at best ridiculous (they don’t vote, they generally can’t contribute money, they’re not at risk of getting an abortion themselves) and at worst unnecessarily very, very disturbing with potential negative consequences. (The quote from Dr. M. Miller that there’s no evidence – did she say studies even? – that children seeing the images causes problems sees specious and where, by the way, is the evidence that it helps?)
I agree there’s a time and a place for use of some of the more recognizably human, less gory pictures – just NOT to young children.
I agree with Monica Miller. Society needs to see abortion in order to be jolted into caring about it and taking a stand against it. But the photos showing the humanity of the baby are as Monica says, more effective in provoking a strong emotional response in the viewer than those depicting too much blood etc. And those of us with pro life views must be prepared to do more for the cause of ending abortion. Saving babies’ lives is fantastic but while abortion is legal, the lives saved are a drop in the ocean so it’s essential that we all become much more politically active in this area and look at these images frequently to remind ourselves why we’re doing this work. Abortion is not a solution to anything – that’s the lie that’s generated by the Abortion industry and backed up with massive financial donations to politicians. So getting to politicians and presenting these images to them must be a priority. They will be disturbed by them and their consciences pricked. We must weaken the political stranglehold the abortion industry has over virtually every political system in the entire world.
Was going to slightly edit above for clarity and typo but Click to Edit function doesn’t seem to work via old ipad.
What I think would be a great approach with young children – and people of all ages in fact – is to educate them on how they, their sibling, all their little friends, mommy, daddy, aunts, uncles, grandparents – everybody! – grew and developed before they were born. That’ll help insulate kids against ever ignorantly supporting abortion, but in a kinder, gentler way than showing them dead babies. [Consider getting the ok from your priest/pastor plus kids’ grade school to display in the church vestibule/school display case for 9 months the monthlyimages of a growing baby. We’ve used both versions available from Heritage House hh.76.com or .org Just search under prenatal development or posters. The “Little One Sweet” posters are probably best initially since they’re so sweet and are a watercolor representation – very accurate and informative – and the other ones are photos of the baby actually inside the womb! Very well-received:)]
Carla, I may seem off base here and maybe I don’t know enough about your situation (beyond that you had an abortion which over time you came to deeply regret – think you originally came to this site as a self-described “pro-choicer”), but…. I hope you’re not feeling like you have some moral obligation – to your child who died from abortion – to make sure that his or her living siblings know, in harrowing detail, what he or she went through with mom’s consent.
In other words, I hope you’re not trying to punish yourself by laying bear to your other children what you submitted yourself and their sibling to. You have great remorse for the abortion and I’ll bet didn’t fully comprehend what you were submitting to until it was done. It’s not necessary to beat yourself indefinitely about this. Regret it always and continue to try to spare others from abortion, but I – a complete stranger:) – respectfully encourage you to reconsider burdening your children at a young age with much (anything?) about the abortion death of their sibling.
Liz, one of the key things PP et al do for the more local politicians like state legislators is to convince people to donate to their campaign directly – and to volunteer for their campaign (eg make phone calls to prospective voters, go doorbelling, go to their campaign kick-offs and other public events to make the candidate look like he has a lot of supporters.) PP et al (via their political action committees) will often pay people to do some of this work too.
Pro-life laws have gotten passed in record numbers at the state level during the past few years since pro-lifers and the relatively pro-life R party have focused on getting pro-life (generally = Republican) majorities in the STATE legislatures. That and 40 Days for Life successes have been largely due to the shift to LOCAL activism. (Having President Abortion in office and sure to veto anything pro-life if it managed to get out of the Senate obviously helped turn pro-lifers’ eyes to more local laws and local prayer vigils that started right before Obama’s election have continued to flourish.)
So every pro-lifer should find a good local legislator or candidate or two who’s genuinely pro-life and has a reasonable chance of being (re-)elected – with a bit of help – and go help him/her!
Yes Ellie you are a little off base. :) More like way off base. You assumed quite a bit about me. Not sure why.
My children are now 17, 13, 10 and 8 and have the fire in their bellies for justice just like their mom. They know injustice when they see it and long to do what they can in speaking truth. They are prolife warriors.
They knew about their siblings in heaven. They knew they had brothers and a sister waiting for them. Aubrey died in my abortion. Jamie I delivered into my hand after miscarriage and Lee died in a miscarriage as well. My abortion was 23 years ago.
I told them HOW Aubrey died when I began speaking and traveling and holding Rachel’s Vineyard retreats, Forgiven and Set Free Bible Studies, board meetings for our local PRC and being a moderator here for 7 years etc etc.
My abortion was 23 years ago. Click on my name and you will find out more. :)
Tell your children. Do not tell your children. Parents get to make that call. Whatever you decide. Whatever works for you.
Telling family members and others involved in our abortion decisions can be another step in the healing journey for post abortive mothers. We break our silence and tell others.
I shared what I did and I am grateful that God has allowed healing and forgiveness in my family after abortion.
btw I did not “steal my children’s innocence.”
Children know injustice when they see it.
I prayed for years and told them about abortion and fetal development LONG before they saw any images. I was leaving for the March for LIfe in D.C. one year and they wanted to know where Mommy was going. Why was she going there?
Their innocence had been assaulted by half naked women at the beach and Cosmopolitan magazines at Walmart and bullies at school who flipped them off at recess. They had seen enough killing in video games and friends who assaulted their ears with disgusting music lyrics.
Pass the torch when you are ready.
You know your children.
And I know mine.
Jack,
Your daughter sounds like mine. :)
Tough as nails. Don’t mess with her. LOL She always wants to go with me when I speak or to prayer vigils or 40 Days for Life.
And I have 3 sensitive boys who want to help women and protect the babies.
I grew up in a very pro-life family and remain so as an adult. However, I do feel that children should be shielded from graphic photographs. I clearly remember seeing a photo of an aborted baby’s head held over a glass jar… this was about age 4. I proceeded to go home and draw crayon pictures of doctors giving women abortions and had nightmares for years about the poor baby’s head that I had seen. Adults can handle it, but children should not be subjected to the evil. Shelter their innocence while they still have it. There are plenty of years of adulthood for them to learn about the horror in its entirety.
Thx Carla for your reply. I drop in and out of this site periodically and didn’t recall that your abortion was so many years ago and more to the point, that your children are mostly adults. Was thinking they were little kids barely out of diapers.
While it’s true that parents typically know their children and should decide, I stand by my view that it’s in no small child’s interest to burden them with a lot of info, much less photos, of abortion/abortion victims. There are likely exceptions like when it becomes a matter of downright hiding the truth. But that’s different than bringing it up and in great detail, unprompted.
S, directly above, makes my point better and more concisely than I did:)
I would liken this to the whole sex ed issue. Parents should decide what’s appropriate for their kids at various ages but certain sex ed is just so absurd and disturbing that there’s never an age at which it’s appropriate. I think that’s true of some of these images.
Carla, thank you for all you do to help promote post-abortion healing and pre-abortion knowledge not to go there (avoid abortion at all costs).
Couple other thoughts I have.
My children knew of evil at an early age. They knew what evil was because they knew what good was. God is good. satan is evil. And satan has this world. For a time.
Evil on this earth is real. We all know this. The Holocaust, slavery, sex trafficking, child abuse, murder and rape. And lying, stealing and fighting. SIN is real.
So my children put abortion where it is supposed to be in this life. In the evil category. And they also have the hope of Jesus Christ. HE WILL END ALL EVIL!!
So…..my children trust me to tell them the truth and as a loving parent that is what I do.
Other parents may shove these photos in their children’s faces with no explanations and no context.
THAT has never been my relationship with my children. Never. They get the truth from a loving parent who instructs them on the nature of good and evil in this sin sick world.
And this weekend especially we are overcome and overwhelmed by the love that Jesus has for us by enduring a great evil. Death. By enduring death on a cross and being raised on the third day!!! AMEN! Jesus is alive and has conquered death and THAT is the hope in the face of evil.
There is hope in the face of abortion and we fight on in hope. Not despair.
God bless you all this Resurrection Weekend.
I think we do need to use images, and I like the term AVP. I would just suggest that wherever images are shown, a post-abortion helpline number is also given. If we give people the truth we also need to give them a means of coping with it.
Babies are not the only victims of abortion. The mothers, fathers, and grandparents will never know the Joy that child would have brought them. displaying photos, or AVPs, is not the only way to bring about change.
The attitude that some people have lesser “value” than others, that is what needs to change.
Even Hollywood agrees that some images should not be seen by children. That is why we have a movie rating system. Just because a thing is true and evil and needs to be exposed does not mean that it needs to be exposed indiscriminately. I would no sooner want a 6 year-old to see these photographs than I would want him to see photos of gay men engaging in a sexual act or an Al-Qaeda beheading. Yes, I will protect the innocence of my children and others until they have the life experience and cognitive ability to give some appropriate context and meaning to these images. The only reason that there is “absolutely no proof that children who see such images suffer any lasting negative effects” is because there is no research on that specific correlation. My husband does not use a hammer when a screwdriver is called for. Like any tool, use the photos of the victims of abortion prayerfully, at the appropriate time and place, where they will have the greatest impact and where no better tool suits the job.