The Ugly Face of Abortion

Paul J. Shlichta
A recent article in the American Thinker, included the sentence:

"...moral issues aside, abortion is so ugly a process that even its advocates cannot bear to look at it. In public debates, pro-choice speakers generally insist on banning any pictures of fetuses or abortions."

In case anyone thought I was exaggerating, the following letter, printed in The Olympian on June 23,  should settle the matter:

"I was outraged by the horrific pictures displayed by anti-abortion protestors [sic] outside Planned Parenthood's clinic recently. The images were so graphic as to be traumatizing to anyone, especially to people who have served in the military or those who have experienced a physical or sexual assault.

My thoughts went especially to children who might be exposed to such images inadvertently as their parents drove by. The display was an irresponsible act on multiple levels.

I was more disturbed when I visited this group's Web site, where they describe themselves as peaceful, and discovered that they take this violent display into schools. While this group's intention may originate in an ethical concern, in my opinion they have forfeited all claim to morality by choosing these tactics. To display human beings in this manner demeans both those pictured and protest participants, as well as providing an opportunity for harm to others through traumatization.

I'm certain that some individuals will offer justifications for using such tactics just as this group does on its Web site. However, I hope group members will re- examine their hearts and reconsider their use of these pictures for the sake of all vulnerable beings. There are better ways of promoting their cause. Caring for life is important to all people of spiritual faith. Opening the heart of compassion to all victims of unwanted pregnancy, both mothers and children, might be a more productive approach."
I wonder if the author of the letter (C.J. Wolfer) has written similar complaints to network TV executives about the vivid close-up displays of autopsies and operations on prime time shows such as CSI, NCIS, Gray's Anatomy, ER, House-or to educators about the textbooks and videos used in most high school biology classes. What really upsets Wolfer, and all other advocates of abortion, is that such graphic displays will reveal to the public the ugly secret that abortion is, purely and simply, homicide.

Update: Dean Douthat writes:

Mr. Wolfer is quoted as follows:
To display human beings in this manner demeans both those pictured and protest participants, as well as providing an opportunity for harm to others through traumatization.
Strange that Mr Wolfer regards the pictured victims as "human beings" yet condems the pictures, the protesters -- in short -- just about everybody in sight except the abortionists whose acts on these human beings are the prime movers in this drama.

A recent article in the American Thinker, included the sentence:

"...moral issues aside, abortion is so ugly a process that even its advocates cannot bear to look at it. In public debates, pro-choice speakers generally insist on banning any pictures of fetuses or abortions."

In case anyone thought I was exaggerating, the following letter, printed in The Olympian on June 23,  should settle the matter:

"I was outraged by the horrific pictures displayed by anti-abortion protestors [sic] outside Planned Parenthood's clinic recently. The images were so graphic as to be traumatizing to anyone, especially to people who have served in the military or those who have experienced a physical or sexual assault.

My thoughts went especially to children who might be exposed to such images inadvertently as their parents drove by. The display was an irresponsible act on multiple levels.

I was more disturbed when I visited this group's Web site, where they describe themselves as peaceful, and discovered that they take this violent display into schools. While this group's intention may originate in an ethical concern, in my opinion they have forfeited all claim to morality by choosing these tactics. To display human beings in this manner demeans both those pictured and protest participants, as well as providing an opportunity for harm to others through traumatization.

I'm certain that some individuals will offer justifications for using such tactics just as this group does on its Web site. However, I hope group members will re- examine their hearts and reconsider their use of these pictures for the sake of all vulnerable beings. There are better ways of promoting their cause. Caring for life is important to all people of spiritual faith. Opening the heart of compassion to all victims of unwanted pregnancy, both mothers and children, might be a more productive approach."
I wonder if the author of the letter (C.J. Wolfer) has written similar complaints to network TV executives about the vivid close-up displays of autopsies and operations on prime time shows such as CSI, NCIS, Gray's Anatomy, ER, House-or to educators about the textbooks and videos used in most high school biology classes. What really upsets Wolfer, and all other advocates of abortion, is that such graphic displays will reveal to the public the ugly secret that abortion is, purely and simply, homicide.

Update: Dean Douthat writes:

Mr. Wolfer is quoted as follows:
To display human beings in this manner demeans both those pictured and protest participants, as well as providing an opportunity for harm to others through traumatization.
Strange that Mr Wolfer regards the pictured victims as "human beings" yet condems the pictures, the protesters -- in short -- just about everybody in sight except the abortionists whose acts on these human beings are the prime movers in this drama.