« The Blasphemy Challenge | Main | A Magisterium by Any Other Name »

October 10, 2007


“...I saw the [Justice For All]
exhibit at the University of North
Texas, one month before I got
pregnant with Nicholas.
Nick could have easily been an
abortion photo on your exhibit. [if
I had not seen it first].

"have easily been" is a long way from convincing in Nick's case, as his mother wasn't even pregnant at the time she saw the pics, so she (and we) has no way of knowing what her choice would have been had she not seen them. Just a quibble.

Glad that she CHOSE to give this beautiful boy life instead of allowing him to be slaughtered.

Hm, I am not sure. I read that article and am somewhat sympathetic to Mike Adams' position on this.

I have no problem with showing 'offensive' photos like this to people. Abortion IS offensive, and people don't want to face what it actually is. Chopped up babies is revolting, and that's exactly what abortion does. People absolutely refuse to deal with that fact.

But I've seen these types of photos displayed on the street by various pro-life organizations and the reaction is that people don't want to look at them. Oftentimes it devolves into a screaming match, which benefits no one.

But then, you're showing here an example of a woman who did have a change of heart when she chose to look at the facts. The result is that her beautiful little boy received life and not death. So it could be that maybe you're right and Adams and I are wrong.

It's just that oftentimes Christians are looked at as only shouting at people. His point of perhaps showing live babies as a result of the choice to NOT kill them seems a unique approach.

Facts hurt?

>>“They said they did not want us bringing the pro-life message to campus because they did not want to see dead babies on the way to the cafeteria or the library.”

This makes me think the projects work.

>>“Maybe the key to not hurting those who have had abortions is stopping to remember that they are someone else’s children, too.”

This is very emotional; I don’t dispute that, but it’s hardly a reason to stop showing pictures. Show pictures of both, healthy and aborted babies. Mike Adams surprises me here, he’s usually an opponent of the so-called ‘right’ not to be offended - But not here.

This being said; I’m definitely sympathetic to his points.

Ten years ago when the anti-smoking movement was getting hot, it was popular to display images of lungs belonging to someone who had smoked for 50 years. While I agree that this is in no way as revolting as pictures of murdered babies, the reasoning was similar. That is that people can't actually SEE what smoking is doing to them while they are doing it. I think most people have no idea what it looks like to have an abortion. Even when you are the one laying on the table having it done to you. People need to SEE what abortion actually is. It makes it much harder to go through with it.
Other things that come to mind are : holocost pictures , images of poverty stricken children dying of starvation on the television commercials for Christian Children's Fund, pictures of drunk driving victims on similar commercials. All of these are necessary IMHO or you wouldn't have the positive responses that we have had to these issues.
As a side note I am struck by the fact that the college students referred to the pictures as "of children" At least they admit that the aborted are actually children.

I believe there is a place for the use of graphic pictures in pro-life ministry.

I do think that it is important to be careful in how they are presented and that groudwork has been laid as much as possible to prepare people for what they will see. These pictures are, after all, horrific!

I used to read Mike Adam's commentary regularly but have left off this year. I am a little surprised at his take on the issue, but I think he is really saying that we should approach pro-life issues as a loving ministry with concern for our demeanor and concern for how our message will affect those we wish to reach and particularly those women who have already had an abortion. Perhaps in the spirit of 2 Timothy 2: 24-26

"And the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose him, if God will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will."

I don't think this necessaily means that just because a student doesn't want to see an image that it is inappropriate to display it. Just realize that in some situations it may not be the best way to open the conversation.

So, would the public dispaly of a graphic picture of Christ dying on the cross be excluded because it "offends" people? That is one way to share the good news of Jesus Christ.

I've been confronted with bloody abortion photos in a Manhattan park and while driving next to one of those mobile billboards on Pacific Coast Highway. I'm already opposed to abortion, and I would have hated to have a child along with me when I couldn't avoid those pictures. I choose to donate to a pro-life organization that doesn't confront unsuspecting people, including kids, with bloody pictures. If showing photos of murdered gang members kept one person from joining a gang, should we force photos like that on everyone, too?

"If showing photos of murdered gang members kept one person from joining a gang, should we force photos like that on everyone, too?"


You ask that question as though you are assuming its rhetorical force--i.e., you seem to assume the answer should be no.


Tim, I suppose I was just raising the question. Mike Adams is not the most eloquent columnist, but I basically agree with his position here. I think that Feminists for Life's outreach program to college-age women may save more lives than shock tactics. Just my two cents.

>> If a graphic picture exhibit saved the life of one child, would it be worth offending thousands?

Let us suppose that the Nike company has agreed to pay for a very expensive medical procedure to save a particularly sick child. They only ask that they be granted the right to place a 50’ x 50’ Nike advertisement featuring a very large naked vagina - in the middle of Times Square.

If a graphic picture exhibit saved the life of one child, would it be worth offending thousands?


That last post was from Tony Montano.

of course.

While your analogy is illogical because "showing a vagina" is totally unrelated to the child's life or death, the answer should ALWAYS be YES!! Save the child!! The greater good should ALWAYS prevail!! All throughout the Bible God allows wicked people to advance their intentions and He uses their wicked acts so that ultimately His good and providential purposes prevail.

The comments to this entry are closed.