Battle against abortion: Should large-format pics be used?

(Tim) Earlier this morning, I received this E-mail from a young man in our church who's here in Bloomington pursuing a graduate degree at Indiana University. Among the many excellent things the souls of CGS are known for in this community--things such as hard work, respect for authority, academic accomplishment in their disciplines, adopting special needs children--we are also known for publicly protesting the slaughter of more than six hundred little babies each year here in our downtown area by Planned Parenthood and the ghoulish executioners they've hired. We call out to those going into the executioners' chambers pleading with them not to kill their babies. We offer them love and help, particularly financial help, so they can carry their baby to term. (And we have a young man growing up in our church whose mother took us up on that offer.)

Another form of protest used is the display of large-format color pics of murdered babies, typically held at the most public entrance to IU at the foot of Kirkwood Street known as Sample Gates. Below you will find questions our brother is asking about this display. I asked him if he would be willing for me to put his questions up publicly on the blog for the response of our readers, and he was happy for me to do so.

One request: It's very difficult to discuss any aspect of the slaughter of the unborn without the discussion becoming quite emotional. Let's do our best to assume the best about one another in this discussion. But whatever the tone of the debate, my friend and I do think the debate will be helpful to many. So have at it, brothers and sisters!

* * *

A friend of mine brought it to my attention that some folks from CGS sometimes display images of aborted babies when they protest on the streets. I had seen these protests near campus before, but didn't know who was doing them.

If these are indeed people from CGS, I'd like to let you know about a misgiving I have about this manner of protest...

There are few, if any, among us who would allow our children to watch highly violent movies (I'm speaking as if I had children, which I of course do not). Well, that analogy doesn't quite hold up, because that kind of violence might be gratuitous, without the moral imperative of these abortion images. But what if there was an unjust war going on -- as some of us believe there is? But let's keep it entirely hypothetical: What if there was a blatantly unjust war, and the Church was protesting it? Would we display pictures of mutilated soldiers to our children in order to convince them of the truth? I would argue that when we display images of abortions on the street, we are exposing, without discrimination, men, women, and children alike to them -- both those guilty of approving abortion, and those innocent of it. I myself avert my eyes when I see these images -- I already know that abortion is an abomination, and I do not want the images in my mind, torturing my spirit. Much less do I want them in the minds of children, regardless of their parents' views. True, we as a society cover up death, deny its existence. Yet, we do not want to afflict children or others whose hearts might be harmed by seeing such graphic representations of this atrocity, do we?

Can we perhaps, instead, trust the truth of God's message itself without resorting to shock tactics? I would exhort the brothers and sisters of CGS to faith in the work of the Spirit through the simple proclamation of truth -- that unborn children are fully human, possessing souls and being created in the image of God.

Jesus said to Pilate, "For this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me" (John 18:37). Is it not as simple as that?

I don't doubt the good intentions and pure consciences of those participating in these protests, but I do feel burdened to bring this issue to you, brother. These images offend some people, and I'm afraid it may not be the offense of the gospel.

Comments

[Mark]

I have often been troubled by this issue, though I have held signs. I think I mentioned here that I once was confronted by an angry man who wanted to know, "what's wrong with you people?" I asked him why he was troubled by pictures that were, after all, just tissue. Given his pro-death position he has no basis for objecting so strongly. But I think it is problematic that we put these images before innocent eyes. I also don't think that having warning signs prior to the actual pictures properly mitigates the issue.

[Lisa]

While I am opposed to abortion I do not think the way to go is by showing graphic pictures of aborted babies. Quite a few years back my husband and I were attending something at church where there were pictures of aborted babies shown. We had recently lost our firstborn, a little boy, to a heart defect and I had to leave. Just the thought of a dead baby was to much to see. Graphic pictures cause pain not only to those who have aborted children and now realize it was wrong but to those of us who lost children by other means as well.
Lisa

[Amanda Ewer]

This is a question I have struggled with for some time and have failed to come to any conclusive convictions on. I struggle with the idea of taking images of murdered children, made in the image of God, and displaying their brutal deaths for all to see. Seeing the pictures makes me want to cover their nakedness, and give them the dignity that their parents failed to do.

On the other hand, I absolutely do want my children to see the horrific reality of what takes place each week as mothers and fathers put their hope in things other than Christ, whether wealth, or comfort, or "freedom". I want the images of that truth to be burned in their minds, so that they are repulsed by it. My daughters will know that what goes on at Planned Parenthood is not just the removal of some tissue, but the destruction of human life.

I just don't know how to reconcile these things. I'll look forward to the discussion. Thanks for bringing it up, Tim!

[Wendy]

Years ago I had the privilege of serving on the board of a crisis pregnancy center. They were raising funds for an ultrasound machine in order to show expectant moms that they truly had a live baby developing inside of them, not just a mass of tissue. Recently in a WORLD magazine article, it suggested that ultrasound technology has been a possible help in shifting our culture towards a more pro-life bent (cover story Jan. 12/19). If I were in the shoes of a woman considering abortion, I would be more impacted by seeing life than seeing pictures of death. We can become very desensitized to pictures of death, unfortunately. I saw an ultrasound image of my second son at 8 weeks gestation--I had only just found out I was even pregnant. For someone who is on the fence about getting an abortion, this may be a powerful approach that could be available as soon as a woman reads the "positive sign".

[Laura Moore]

I know that these pictures are horrible to look at and I (being a mother of 3) have struggled with the thought of my children seeing them, but isn't the point of all of it to show, without doubt, that these beautiful babies are not lumps of flesh that should be tossed aside? If people are being offended by these images why is it that they are not being offended by the actions that caused them?

We want to protest unjust wars being waged against peoples of other nations. We want to be heard when we cry out for the of those poor children who are being killed by people against whom they have done nothing, but we are perfectly comfortable ignoring the wars being waged against defenseless babies in the wombs of their mothers.

Yes, the pictures are gruesome, they are awful, but the "choice" that caused there existence is what we as a community should be offended by.

Isn't the real gripe here the fact that these pictures bring the gruesome reality of this abomination into the comforts of our cars, living room, lives and consciousness? Right where we have tried to keep them away from. There, on the street, it gets to be shown for what it is and people recoil. See, it is so much easier to have it be out of sight, clinical, nice and clean. That is how we like our of the . Away from the sight and away of the conscience.

[Tim Bayly]

Tonight I asked everyone at our dinner table what they thought about this. There were five of us: Lizzie Wegener, Taylor Bayly, Mary Lee Bayly (my wife), and Margaret Taylor (Mary Lee's mother).

All of them thought the pictures should be shown. And Mary Lee's mother was uncharacteristically firm on this, pointing out that it would be hard to object to these images with any consistency since the other images children are subjected to (particularly sexual ones) are so pervasive.

Anyhow, I didn't express any opinion myself, but among the others it was unanimous. My wife thought that the images are actually much more offensive to adults than they are to children. Everyone thought that people should see pics of what is actually done to these children.

[Dave Sarafolean]

Over the holidays our family watched "Amazing Grace" on DVD at home. Wilberforce used all sorts of things to communicate to the English public about the evils of the slave trade: eyewitness testimony, diagrams of ships, sketches of slave holds, and putting on exhibit the actual shackles that slaves wore (in the movie Wilberforce even used an otherwise pleasant tour of the harbor to illustrate the stench of death emanating from a slave vessel). If photography had been available in his day he would've taken photos and shown them to make his case.

How much sooner might the US and its allies acted to end the Holocaust had photos of Auschwitz, Buchenwald, etc. been available and shown at large? As it turned out the world was aghast when those camps were liberated and photos of the dead and dying were circulated. Indeed those photos still have an affect upon our generation.

I share the concern mentioned by many about the affect such photos may have upon the innocent. I don't have a great answer for how to avoid that if billboards or truck panels are used. Maybe smaller, more discreet displays are a better way to go.

[Benjamin Curell]

Ultra sounds ARE amazing tools that can take your breath away when you are able to see that 8, 10, or 20 week old baby dancing around inside of your belly. However, someone contemplating abortion is not likely to WANT to see the possibility of life in her womb. Ultra sounds could be highly effective if the woman was already unsure of the issue and was somehow brought to CPC, but this is a very small percentage of the people we want to reach by showing these signs. To reach the mainstream of men and women who don't want their babies, something large, graphic and in a very public place needs to be used. I want children to see them. If a young person is haunted and repulsed by the truth of abortion, I'll bet they think twice when they find themselves or a close friend pregnant in a few years.

As for exposing "both those guilty of approving abortion, and those innocent of it", here's where I stand: Those guilty of approving it most definitely need to be shown their errors. The mothers on their way into the clinic, people who don't feel they have a right to judge another couple's situation and therefore are completely apathetic on the issue, hardened and crusty feminist activists who take pride in giving these women another "choice".... I want each and every one of these people to be so incredibly terrified by what they see that they question and change their views. I want their children to see them and to have a chance at forming their own convictions rather than being indoctrinated by their godless parents and society. As for those of us who are opposed - I think we should be forced to see them regularly. We get so lazy! When these pictures are fresh in our minds, we will be much more apt to actually go protesting on Thursday mornings, to pray for these babies and their parents, to make ourselves uncomfortable in order to testify against this horrific act that is so common, accepted, and widely expected in our culture. I want my children to know... to grieve over these babies and be moved to action. I wish we could by a billboard on Hwy. 37 and keep them up all year long!

-Kyla

[Alex Costa]

I took Bob Kaplowitz to one of these protests once, and I didn't really like the whole picture thing, but this exact issue came to us where a woman parked her car, and she had a child inside of the car. As she exited her vehicle, she looked at my picture, and said pretty angrily "could you please turn that picture around? I don't want my son to see it."

I felt like she wanted some sort of "victory" over all of us who were protesting, which was her true motivation behind making the request. It didn't matter to me though, I turned the picture around anyway. While I turned my picture around, the guy protesting next to me said something like "we have the legal right to hold these pictures wherever we want maam," or something like that. I thought it was very unloving of him to say such a thing. If I saw such a picture at that age, I would have been both scared and scarred, and if we're really doing this out of love for the millions of children who are being killed, then such thoughtless comments shouldn't be coming out of our mouths, considering the fact that we could have really hurt the precious child who was about to exit his mother's car.

Fortunately, the woman ignored what he said, and with an expression of relief on her face, she thanked me. She was almost surprised that we weren't all mindless drones.

I don't know why I shared that story, but it seems to relate.

[Becky Pryor]

When I was just a few weeks pregnant with our child (who is now due in 3 weeks!) I remember driving through our city - it was rush hour and I was stuck in traffic. Along the street, a few per block, were protesters holding up huge images of aborted babies. I remember the feeling being the closest thing to a panic attack I have ever experienced - I was completely surrounded by pictures of what I could legally do to my wonderful little baby. It hit me that in our country, I was permitted by law to do THAT - the thought made me sick.

I am conflicted on this issue. In the experience I described, the pictures were used by the Lord to open up my heart to a new perspective on this issue (although I have always been pro-life.) However, that drive was incredibly intense, and whether I would want my child to see that or not I'm not sure about making that decision for other parents.

[Keith LaMothe]

I wasn't at the forefront, but I've helped out at a Genocide Awareness Project demonstration on my campus (which used the big scary pictures, among other things), and it certainly was good for my soul to stand against the Molech-ite abomination.

But were the tactics biblically wise? Biblically acceptable? Good question.

For me the question boils down to:

What normally-sinful acts does the Bible teach are not sinful when used as a "shock tactic" for a good purpose?

This is assuming that it would be "normally sinful" to, for example, put up these big scary pictures in a public plaza of a society which unanimously and resolutely opposes child sacrifice (abortion being one kind of that)?

[Craig French]

I have been on the fence (sorta) on this til about 2-3 years ago...that was the time I learned a former OPC pastor had been put to death for "murdering" an abortionist (if what he had done was viewed as a military action, I think we would have called it "pre-emptive")...and my church (an OPC) talked about it during the Sunday school time and each spoke words of condemnation about the man...I think that was the point I began to wake up about this. I couldn't believe I said this out loud when my turn came, and I'm sure it surprised my church: "I can't judge that man for what he did, though I'm not sure I can justify what he did."

On the one hand, I wonder if these graphic images hamper the cause of true justice (what we call "pro life") or if they electro-shock our dwindling consciences back into sensation.

Having participated in Forty Days for Life recently, I am convinced there is a greater problem than "innocents" seeing these pictures: Apathy and disingenuous platitudes.

In downtown Toledo, there is an abortuary with a disturbing backdrop of a smoke stack...I'm not sure how many observed the similarity between the abortuary and images from the Holocaust, but I certainly noticed. Hardly anybody participated at night (granted, this was in a bad part of town). But it seemed that NOBODY cared except for a few.

Americans are ready to spread "justice" with the sword around the world, many of them Christians, and the holocaust of little ones continues in our towns.

I saw images of abortions in my Christian school growing up...and I thank God that I did. For all the impure images we are bombarded with, these display the horror of what happens. Sin should make us want to vomit.

Too many are more offended at the sight of a mutilated child than they are at the mutilation of a child.

Lord have mercy.

[Michael Foster]

I have been told, by my Jewish grandmother, that many people didn't believe the Holocaust happen until the proof rolled in via pictures of living skeletons and piles of not-so living skeletons.

[Josh Congrove]

Dear Brother,

Speaking as one of those who are regularly involved in the protests you mention, I think it's safe to say that few things have led to more criticism of us than our use of graphic signs. Since I do not have any statistics onhand, I can't address the practical benefits or drawbacks from using graphic signs in addition to innocuous ("happy") signs. I do, however, want to weigh in on the moral/theological issues that have been brought up here, as I have often mulled them over myself.

First, I want to clarify how CGS protesters handle these signs and the controversy they inevitably bring. We recognize how incendiary these signs can be, and so we always try to use them with great care and discretion. For this reason, we only show the "graphic signs" at the local abortuary on the very days that children are being murdered concurrently. We do not employ them on days when pre-abortion counseling is being done, nor even on every day when abortions are being performed. When graphic signs are present, we almost always have a positive sign (i.e., of a healthy unborn child) to serve as a counterpart. Whether our protest is at the abortuary, the courthouse, or the campus, our goal is never merely to shock or repulse, but rather to show the radical difference being these two options, and that no middle ground exists between life & death.

As for the question of children seeing these signs, I must stress that we always strive to protect children from seeing the graphic signs. We share your concern about the desensitization of our society to violence of all sorts, and so our goal is never to graphically expose children to this monstrous evil. Having said that, we sometimes fail at this, despite our best efforts to the contrary. Nevertheless (and here I'm speaking for myself only), I must say that I find ever less persuasive the argument that condemns graphic signs because of the possibility of children being exposed. Indeed, among those I have spoken to at the abortuary, it has sometimes been the case that their ostensible concern for their own children's psyche is in fact a quite convenient cloak for their apathy toward the children of others, murdered every week while they safeguard their own children's well-being. I don't wish to expose children to the sin of this world, but I also recognize that whatever harm is in the pictures is, as it were, a derived harm: the true and far greater affliction stems from the sin that indwells men and whose manifestations are ever more blatant in our society, even as men strive more and more to hide its bloody consequences.

Indeed, one of the most insidious aspects of abortion is its latency. It lies hidden from view, covered by euphemistic language such as "abortion" and "pro-choice," relegated to the political and judicial realms where it can be detached from the gruesome reality it creates. As Christians we are called to expose the works of darkness (Eph. 5:11), and graphic signs do this in a way that "positive signs," no matter their virtues, cannot accomplish. They portray the dirty reality that men have papered over, and in so doing they show the true consequences of abortion rather than allowing men to tacitly approve of this evil and thereby suppress the truth in unrighteousness. As a student myself, I have found that a town such as Bloomington, which is so capable of sophistication and subtlety, also boasts an equal capacity for self-delusion. Academia is well-acquainted with training its devotees to live in a world of abstractions, and so in a town so accustomed to intellectual detachment, the great virtue of these signs is that they bring those who see them face to face with the blood they would prefer to banish from their thoughts.

Though I believe I understand your meaning, I also must quibble with some of your language: the images on the signs are not simply "graphic representations of this atrocity," as if they were an artistic expansion of some vague evil, but rather they are the atrocity itself brought home to its individual victims. Such images are not, to be sure, the totality of what might be said, but they are powerful symbols of what must be said. As the Holy Spirit uses "the lake of fire" to point to a reality more horrendous than the image communicates, so the images on these signs substitute for a sin that is more terrible, not less, than what they depict.

Finally (yes, this is long), I speak as one who shares the desire to avert my eyes from signs such as these. But when all is said and done, this is itself one more reason why I must not cover the horror they show. Throughout the prophets God repeatedly condemns Israel not only for committing injustice toward the helpless, but also for willingly turning their eyes from the reality of their plight. I cannot, of course, infallibly know your motives and thoughts, nor am I at all accusing, but I would encourage you to consider carefully why you wish to turn your eyes. Our hearts are "deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked," and I know that at times I cannot even know the depth of my own corruption. The sad truth is that by showing in flesh and blood the reality of sin's consequences these signs point to my own apathy in these matters. They show that I would prefer to engage this issue in a safe, abstract, completely intellectual manner rather than being thought a careless, insensitive rustic. They show that I sometimes hate images of this evil more than the evil itself. But in the end, they are as the voice of Abel's blood crying out from the grave, and as much as they offend me, I dare not put out the light of truth they give.

In Christ,

--Josh

[Craig French]

Josh said:
"Indeed, among those I have spoken to at the abortuary, it has sometimes been the case that their ostensible concern for their own children's psyche is in fact a quite convenient cloak for their apathy toward the children of others, murdered every week while they safeguard their own children's well-being."

You hit the nail on the head. God bless you in what you do. God bless Church of the Good Shepherd for its faithful witness as well.

[Erik Braun]

Interestingly enough, I just posted on this issue last week on my blog. I am generally unsuppotive of confronting unwitting folks (especially young children) to such graphic images as the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform does with their truck campaign. That being said, I was very impressed with their Genocide Awareness Project carried out on campuses throughout the country. In my post I point you to several excellent apologies for the use of graphic imagery in the abortion war. http://kerux4oaks.blogspot.com/2008/01/genocide-awareness.html

[Natalie Jost]

I see various statistics of pro-life success rates when it comes to fending off abortionists, but having been on the other side of the picket line, I have a very different perspective. In all honesty I believe it's arrogant for people to bully women into having unwanted children when they haven't been in their shoes and ANY tactic, graphic or not, becomes (in their eyes) a vile attempt to convert them to our way of thinking. No matter how much we say we care, they can't hear it.

Today I am a pro-life Christian and a blessed mother to a 5 year old and newborn twins, but 13 years ago I was a scared kid, pregnant, and lost. There were people who badgered me about a child's right to life, and these I largely ignored. But there was one (my college roommate) who only loved me, told me gently her position but supported mine as deeply as it hurt her to do so. It meant more to her to care for me first, knowing the decision had to be mine and couldn't be coerced. God bless her because though I went through with my abortion then, I found Christ because of her non-judgmental friendship in a dire time in my life. Where others only made me feel guilty and sink into a depression that almost took my life, she raised me up, told me I could make it as a single mom if I chose to, but that it had to be up to me. Ultimately, I believe my salvation was at stake and isn't that equally as important? A question I ask myself often is this: What good do we do in saving a child if we lose his mother through our blind religious condemnation? And what if that child grows up not knowing Christ because we haven't been Christ to his mother? Then two souls are lost for the sake of one earthly life. This is a lose-lose for me and I can't justify going down that route.

[David Talcott]

Natalie--I'm sorry for the tough circumstances you found yourself in in your youth--it sounds like it was really a difficult time for you. But, when a Christian tells a woman that she shouldn't have an abortion, it's not bullying or coercing her into doing something. I also don't think you're right that we can just support a woman's decision, even if it hurts us to do it--we can't just support her in doing something terribly wrong. We love her, show compassion for her, cry with her, talk to her, and everything else we can do with and for her, but we can't tell her that it's ok whatever she decides--no matter what the cost of telling her. Think of an analogous situation--suppose a man is having an affair and he tells us this information. He knows it's wrong, but he doesn't think he can stop and plans to continue having the affair--he's scared of the consequences of being found out and of what the lover will do if he cuts it off. In this case, I don't think we can just say "well, I really think you should cut it off, but I want you to know I'll support you either way." Doing that wouldn't be telling him the honest truth, loving the wife, or honoring to God. Of course, the two cases aren't exactly the same--but they are similar in the key point: Love the sinner? Yes, absolutely. Condone the sin? Never.

I know you feel like you were badgered when you were younger--and maybe the people talking with you have bad motives, I don't know. But, for some of them, they were probably just honestly telling you what God's Word says about how we should treat human life.

[Sam Steinmann]

I'm on the "opposed" side, basically for two reasons.

First, the dignity argument; we should try to protect others' dignity, as Shem and Japheth did to Noah. The fact that others--wilful and arrogant sinners--are willing to destroy lives in brutal fashion does not mean we can rightly contribute by showing everyone pictures of what they did. (Similarly, we don't show pictures of Abu Ghraib in public.)

Second, the children/struggling others (mothers who have miscarried, for example) argument. This has been covered above. Again, the fact that our surrounding culture is brutal, sexual, etc doesn't mean we get to contribute.

Thirdly, the "it's our job to change hearts, not laws" argument. Paul never agitates for ending prostitution; he consistently argues for not enjoying or participating in it.

Also, no ones real goal is to stop abortion. If there were 10 people committed to that goal above all else, it would be impossible to get a public abortion in America next month.

My preferred signage is ultra-sound pictures of a baby with same-angle newborn pictures next to them--it makes the continuity very obvious, and the denial that the unborn baby is a baby much harder.

And as churches--how consistent are we? If an unmarried young woman comes to us who had an abortion 5 years ago, and one comes who has a 4-year-old--who is more likely to be an elder's wife in 10 years?

[David Talcott]

In general, regarding using graphic signs in abortion protesting, I think there are a few more things to say.

First, I don't think using graphic signs is engaging in "shock tactics." Yes, they are indeed shocking, but that is not the sole point of them. Bringing pictures of dead soldiers to a war protest is closer to shock tactics--everyone knows that in war human beings die so the signs are just there for the effect. But, not everyone in the abortion debate agrees that human beings die in abortion. So, the signs have additional information. This information is directly relevant to the central argument used pro-abortion abortion advocates, namely, that the unborn child really isn't a human being, isn't a person, and nobody dies in abortion. The pictures show otherwise--nobody can see that picture and not instantly understand the evil of abortion. The pictures rebut the argument that the human fetus is just a mass of tissue or clump of cells. In my experience, young males (college-aged, 18-25ish) are particularly likely to have bought into this idea. In fact, most of the young males I have talked with around Indiana University are very ignorant of the basics of human reproduction and human fetal development. So the signs serve a function beyond just "shock tactics."

But, it is of course true that the signs are offensive. The question is whether or not this offense is one that should be given. If I tell a dad that he needs to stop eating boxes of twinkies and start exercising or else he's not going to be around to see his grandkids, he may very well find that offensive. There may be no way to say that to him without offending him--nevertheless, we should say it. So, there are times when we must offend and times when we need not. Six hundred babies were killed in our city last year and no one (other than us) lifted a finger or said a word against it. There was no public outcry, nor any public discussion or debate of any kind. I think that's a circumstance which requires a pretty strong response.

Could we give an equally strong response with words alone? I think not. Suppose a man at church is secretly going to strip clubs at night. Suppose you find this out, whether from one of his friends or his wife or his parents. First, you check out the information and it's source and you decide the information is very reliable. Then, you go to him and gently ask him about it. Suppose he denies everything. Suppose you bring a friend or two and ask him. Suppose he still denies it. It seems to me, at that point, you would want to get a tangible piece of evidence and present it to him--presenting tangible evidence of the (moral) crime is a powerful tool in confronting it. Suppose you get receipts or toll booth records--that would be one way. Even more powerful would be to get photographs of him entering the building and standing out front of it. Even more powerful would be to lay in wait and confront him there at the place. These latter ways are more powerful because they involve using some physical, tangible thing to confront him. This doesn't mean you can do anything you like if it's done in the name of getting evidence to confront him. You can't go into the strip club and sit there, right next to the dancers, lying in wait to take photos of him in there. The situation doesn't justify that. Of course, if a wife calls you up and says her husband is there and she just saw his car there--that kind of situation might justify you in driving down there, going into the club, and taking him out. You have to look at what the severity of the situation demands.

I think this same kind of thing applies to abortion. You start with gentle appeals--but continued denials coupled with continued sin means an escalation of attempts to change their mind. Eventually, you confront the guilty with the most tangible evidence of the crime. So, this is partly why I think we should use the images--the guilty should be confronted with their crimes. If a court of law will not do it, then we should do it in whatever minimal way that we can.

This is, I think, like a father going to confront a prince about why the prince's soldiers were killing innocent civilians, and taking the body of his dead son as evidence of the crime. It would be one thing for him to go and plead his case to the prince, it is quite another to take his son's body and show the prince the evidence and result of his terrible deed. If we could do it, I would bring out the aborted fetuses themselves and confront the world with them. Can you imagine the gospel power of such a event?

Is this the only response we should have to abortion? No, of course not. We should work for legal reform to make abortion illegal, we should open and run crisis pregnancy centers, we should reform and simplify adoption laws, we should advocate for abortion education in schools, we should distribute literature about adoption and social support that is available, and other things. But, I think that if we fail to come out publicly and say "this is wrong" or if we do so in a way that is less than our best, then we have failed in our responsibility to these little ones in our midst.

Again, while we discuss whether to show certain pictures or not, 17 babies will be murdered tomorrow morning at 421 S. College St. in Bloomington, Indiana.

[David Talcott]

Sam--1) You're right we don't show pictures of Abu Ghraib--but what if had been going on for 35 years, you had been telling people for 35 years that it was going on, 1 million prisoners were being abused every year, no major media outlets were covering it, and no one seemed to care? At that point would you still consider it wrong to use signs?

2) It is sad that women who have had miscarriages and children see these images, but I think the gravity of the circumstances means that it is worth the cost. We absolutely don't promote the culture of brutality and sexuality, but that's why we must bring these things to light.

3) If you're suggesting that even if we could pass laws which would make abortion illegal then we still shouldn't then I think you're badly mistaken. By that logic, why not get rid of our current laws against murder? If you're right, then they won't stop anyone after all--you can't change a heart by making a law, right? The fact is, by introducing a negative incentive for doing something you can get people to do less of it. Laws are one of the means we use to change hearts. The apostle Paul, in Romans 13, said that governments do not bear the sword in vain, but punish evildoers. Do you think that if he were speaking to political leaders he would tell them not to punish evil, but rather to let evil continue? Consider also these verses from Amos 1:11-15. God expects even pagan nations to know not to kill their brothers and rip open the wombs of women:

11Thus says the LORD,
"For three transgressions of Edom and for four
I will not revoke its punishment,
Because he pursued his brother with the sword,
While he stifled his compassion;
His anger also tore continually,
And he maintained his fury forever.
12"So I will send fire upon Teman
And it will consume the citadels of Bozrah."
13Thus says the LORD,
"For three transgressions of the sons of Ammon and for four
I will not revoke its punishment,
Because they ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead
In order to enlarge their borders.
14"So I will kindle a fire on the wall of Rabbah
And it will consume her citadels
Amid war cries on the day of battle,
And a storm on the day of tempest.
15"Their king will go into exile,
He and his princes together," says the LORD.

[natalie]

David - first, as a man, and as one who's not been there, you believe it's not badgering, but to the woman who IS there, it is. What you need to understand is that most women who have abortions aren't doing it to murder and they certainly aren't flippant about the ordeal. Most women I know of are deeply grieved about the decision and people who treat them the way you do only push them further away, away from the right decision, and away from Christ.

Second, if you read carefully, I never said it was okay to condone abortion at all. I said we should be supportive of a woman's right to make their decisions on their own, which could be pro-choice I suppose. I don't mean we say, "oh well, if you really want and abortion, that's cool." I mean we should say, "this is wrong, here's why, but it's in your hands, along with the consequences."

Third, your analogy of the cheating man is very different than what I'm talking about. You're comparison only makes sense with a woman who is unapologetic about abortion and is doing it carelessly and without any conviction at all. This, in my experiences makes up only a small percentage of actual abortion patients, but sadly makes up the majority of those publicized through the pro-choice movement and so women are stereotyped in this way. Again, most women absolutely know they have a difficult decision and would likely not choose abortion if they felt they could.

Finally, and I hope I haven't been too argumentative here. I just feel so deeply for these broken women... ANY TIME you mention Christ to a non-believer, it feels like badgering. It's coercion any time they didn't ask you to tell them how you feel or about God's word. If your speech is unsolicited, it's usually unwelcome, and to a non-believer knee-deep in sin, it's incredibly convicting (not your fault and not a bad thing), and it is often disabling to that person.

I'm not saying we should back down and just let people think abortion is okay. What I'm saying is that we should have a little more compassion and try to reach the root of WHY they're considering an abortion and how to help them past that BEFORE we ever mention God or the Bible, because the moment we do, any help we offer is suspect. We don't have to talk about Christ to show Him to people, and too much talking can turn away someone otherwise receptive to Him.

[Adam Spaetti]

Dear Natalie,

I too am sorry to learn of the sorrows you've experienced.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you wrote that we need to lead women in difficult situations like yours to Christ. Where I find myself so often lacking, though, is in knowing exactly what Christ looks like. That's why Scripture is indispensible at keeping the real Christ -- not one that's disfigured by my sin and ignorance -- before my eyes.

I was just having this same conversation two nights ago with my friend who also has a hard time seeing the benefit of protesting as opposed to simply preaching the Gospel. We ended up concluding that just as we constantly forget or reject what Jesus looks and sounds like, we also harbor our own tight, rigid ideas on what the Gospel has to sound like until we go back to Scripture. Sometimes the Gospel sounds like Genesis 3, sometimes Isaiah's prophecies, sometimes Paul on Mars Hill, sometimes like Peter's profession that Jesus is the Christ. Our challenge is not to judge those who are living and speaking biblically just because their message doesn't sound like we think it should.

Of course I can only speculate, not having been there, but is it possible that those who badgered you were speaking truth about God's holiness and defense of the weak and oppressed in such a way that prepared you receive the 100% compatible truth of our hope in Christ that your friend offered you? It's easy to hear Jesus say "neither do I condemn you." It's harder to listen to Him say "go and sin no more," but both statements are part of the same message. If someone only tells us part of the Gospel, it doesn't mean we don't need to hear what they have to say (or that the speaker is unfaithfully); it may be that they're simply telling us what the Holy Spirit has prepared us to hear while He's planning to use someone else to unravel more of the mystery for us later.

One last note, regarding the loss of two souls for the sake of one life, Mother Teresa was known to say that when a baby's life is taken in the womb, there are two deaths: the death of the child and the death of the mother's conscience. Not knowing you, I don't know anything about your conscience, but perhaps you see the general wisdom in that statement. Many of the protestors I know keep the salvation of the mother at the forefront of their mind which is why they're fighting to keep her conscience from the searing dagger of abortion.

[Rebecca Nugent]

Here in Nashville, a veterinarian recently had his license temporarily revoked because he injected a fatal serum into the hearts of dogs (ones that were being put down for various reasons) without sedating them. It was even shown on our local news (the procedure, that is.) What an outcry that was heard from our community, with little to no complaints about any inappropriate images!

Yet, thousands of babies every year are being injected with a saline solution that burns them to death. I have never heard of any outcry because they are not first sedated. In fact, the only outcry that is consistently being heard are from those who complain about the inconvenience of being confronted with the images of these aborted babies.

So, yes. The public should be well-informed of the legalized atrocity from which everyone continues to shield their eyes. Unapologetically, yes. I don't even know why this is a question.

[Margaret]

When those who are anti-abortion use pictures of mangled fetuses, it always reminds me of the protesters who wave pictures of slaughtered animals to protest the eating of meat. So perhaps the best way to consider the effectiveness of mangled fetus pictures is to ask yourselves how you feel when animal-rights activists use similar tactics? Do their tactics give you pause about your carnivorous ways or do their tactics make you more inclined to dismiss them as crazy? I am not asking this to be argumentative, because I think the answer could be one or the other depending on the individual.

I think the people who are swayed by pictures of fetuses are those already inclined to accept moral and/or religious arguments against abortion. The people who are turned off by the protesters with pictures are the ones who are already inclined to accept moral arguments in favor of abortion. Ultimately, a picture cannot take the place of an argument.

Full disclosure: My views have changed over the years from anti-abortion to pro-abortion. Despite my pro-abortion stance, I do not oppose the use of graphic fetus pictures per se. I found during the shift in my views that the protesters' use of bloody pictures negatively colored my views of the anti-abortion lobby for two reasons (neither having to do with the graphic nature of the pictures): (1)The protesters lost a lot of credibility in my eyes when I learned that virtually all of the pictures used depicted late term abortions, whereas the vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester. (2) Given that the pictures depict late term abortions, I would immediately think, "What about the physical suffering and/or death of the woman who needs a late term abortion and doesn't get one and why aren't the protesters concerned about that?"

I should stress that these are just my reactions, and per the above the pictures may well be effective for certain audiences. It really depends on whom you are addressing -- it can either work or backfire.

[Chantal]

Margaret,

What really changed your mind? Don't give us the crap reasons of the pictures weren't the right term, or the whole "women who need a late term abortion", because you know well those are pretty pathetically stupid reasons to go from thinking murder is wrong, to murder is ok.

[Natalie Jost]

Margaret - your comment is not "crap, pathetic, or stupid" at all. I'm sure, like the rest of us, there are some strong and logical reasons why you feel the way you do. I agree that the audience is important here, and the general public may not be the right audience for something this graphic. Likewise, your question: "What about the physical suffering and/or death of the woman who needs a late term abortion and doesn't get one and why aren't the protesters concerned about that?" is valid. It's difficult to choose between the life of a mother and a child, and I have sympathy for anyone who finds themselves in that position. Although I disagree with you in general, on those points I'm with you.

Adam - thanks for understanding. You're, right, it IS difficult to know what Christ would do, which is why we look at what He DID do. What made a difference to me was not the picketers outside the clinic, or even the kind conversation with my friend about God, but simply her friendship and emotional support. I saw Christ, not immediately, but later as I reflected on what she had given up for me. She set aside her beliefs for a moment to hold my hair back while I got sick with morning sickness, and she picked me up from work when I was too sick to drive home. She could have just shown me pictures of aborted fetuses and told me I'd be ruining my life by having an abortion. She didn't.

"...perhaps you see the general wisdom in that statement." I absolutely do. My conscience is the reason I do fight for the life of babies. I just happen to see things from the mother's point of view as well, which means I have to do what I can not to try to make her see the truth without pushing her away. It's incredibly difficult, but much more so when you start pushing graphic photos at them.

About the discussion of ultrasounds... even THAT was offensive to me at the time. I had an OB (a Christian) shove an ultrasound image in my face and tell me this was a real life I was killing. She tried to be delicate about it, but it killed me. It didn't persuade me at all, but only made me feel worse about the decision I was to make, and made me hate the Christians - and Christ - all the more.

I recommend Feminists for Life

[Chantal]

Natalie,

There are "strong logical" reasons for being pro-murder? Really?

[Carole Canfield]

I'm grateful for this opportunity to read & discuss the use of graphic pictures in protesting abortion and in educating the public via these pictures. (Thank you, Tim.) I'll address the veracity of the pictures. In our use of them, particularly on the campus corner at IU, we often hear people say that these are not authentic pictures, that they are "doctored up" or are actually victims of wars, late-term abortions, etc. I must tell you that the signs we have and use are of unborn babies who are 8-11 weeks, indeed first-trimester babies. Our signs come from the Center for Bioethical Reform (CBR). They were given to me when we hosted a Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) at Indiana University a few years back. I have worked at least four GAPs at various campuses around the Midwest, and I can assure you that their pictures are of children the ages stated. CBR has on site at any GAP a medical resource book verifying this, and in fact, have been successful in getting every media accusation that they are otherwise retracted, or face a lawsuit. Granted, there are some pictures of later-term abortions (example: "Abortion Malachi" at 21 weeks, not a CBR sign) that are used by some pro-life groups (and while I own several copies of that one, too, I rarely use it), but by and large the signs used around the country are first trimester. The reason is that this is when most of the abortions occur (8-10 weeks). I would urge anyone who doubts the effectiveness of these signs to change the minds of abortion-minded women to visit CBR's website, www.abortionNO.org. Let me warn you that on the initial page you see, there is a box on the upper left or right (it's moved so I'm not sure which side it's on currently) containing a video of a live abortion. You have about 10 seconds to go to another page on the website before the video begins, so just click on another part of the page to bypass that. Read the testimonies of the women who saw the signs and changed their minds. Then take the time to read the information on the site. It's an education you won't soon forget. Also, I want to say that the primary use of these pictures when we go to campus is to make people aware of what exactly is going on and to start conversations. I am always baffled by the number of people who have no idea what an abortion actually is until they see these pictures. They have been lied to for so long that it's a clump of cells or fetal tissue mass, and when they see ears, eyes, fingers, toes, colon, legs, tongue, arms, ribs, etc. of this little 10-week person, they are taken aback. There is absolutely no denying the humanity - the personhood of this child. Then the conversations begin, and that's when we can really get to the heart issues. We take a lot of flak about having "disgusting" pictures on campus and we're told we should not be showing these pictures, but these students forget that they are on a campus where education is the main objective. So we are educating them, using our free speech means. It's odd they don't get the connection, but they object because they don't like the subject matter. They forget that a university is exactly where these conversations should take place (not exclusively, of course). We remind them that just as Martin Luther King Jr. used photos of black men hanging from trees (the famous lynching in Marion, IN) to make his point about racism, and pictures of the Holocaust showing stacks of emaciated bodies of Jews are used in history books and otherwise so that we don't repeat that atrocity, so must we also use these pictures to wake people up to the greatest atrocity this country has ever known. FIFTY MILLION children have died legally since 1973. No, I do not apologize for using these signs. I wish we didn't have to. I wish there were no abortions to take pictures of. But as long as we forget that we are to protect those who cannot defend themselves, I will take these signs to the public to remind them. In closing, let me leave you with this quote from Proverbs 24:11-12 (NIV):

"Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, 'But we knew nothing about this,' will not He who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not He who guards your life know it? Will He not repay each person according to what he has done?"

The blood of these children will be on our hands if we do nothing. God forbid that we do nothing.

[Adam Spaetti]

Dear Natalie,

I agree that we have to look to Christ and imitate Him, but it doesn't stop there. We're also to learn from all of Scripture including Paul and the other Apostles, not just the parts in red letters. But even if you do just focus on what we know about how Jesus as a man interacted with others, I'm afraid you'll find that the model you hold up for us in your friend falls dreadfully short of His example.

On numerous occasions, if we're honest with ourselves, we find Jesus's words shocking and insensitive. After carefully reading your posts, what I think you actually believe is that we need to protect these women from the real Jesus until they're ready to see Him.

--"ANY TIME you mention Christ to a non-believer, it feels like badgering. It's coercion any time they didn't ask you to tell them how you feel or about God's word. If your speech is unsolicited, it's usually unwelcome, and to a non-believer knee-deep in sin, it's incredibly convicting (not your fault and not a bad thing), and it is often disabling to that person."

Contrast that strategy with

"I am not ashamed of the Gospel for it is the power of God." Romans 1:16

So is the Gospel always powerful or just when people solicit it and aren't sinning/hurting?

On another note, it didn't require your friend to "set aside her beliefs" to help you when you were sick; helping the sick is part of Christian love. But Jesus did much more than help the sick, and if you honestly look at how Jesus dealt with people on numerous occasions, you won't like it nor will you want to recommend His methods (which, as you said, we're supposed to imitate).

For example: "He replied, 'It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs." Matthew 15:26. Do you think that's a strategic way to win someone over?

Outrage and rebellion are often my own initial responses in confronting the true Christ of the Bible, and I suspect they're yours since you have not used Scripture at any point to show that the methods of the OB doctor and others were not Christ-like.

Yes, she made you feel worse, but how often did Christ make people feel worse? The hatred for Christ that you admit to in your last line doesn't nullify her attempt to speak to your conscience. Haven't you read the Bible where it is written that light has no fellowship with darkness (2 Cor 6:14), and that Christians are the stench of death to those who are perishing (2 Cor 2:15-16)?

Also, you wrote David
--"What you need to understand is that most women who have abortions aren't doing it to murder and they certainly aren't flippant about the ordeal."

Is this not all the more reason to try to open their eyes to what they're doing? Abortion is murder and while intentions matter, they don't supercede truth. Whether or not the baby dies actually matters far more.

Finally, you write
-- "It's difficult to choose between the life of a mother and a child, and I have sympathy for anyone who finds themselves in that position."

Have you discussed this with the father of your children? I'm curious he what he thinks of that. Speaking as a husband and a father, I rejoice that when I leave my children with my wife each day, I know that for her it won't be "difficult to choose" if one day, God forbid, it comes down to her life or theirs. And I hope my daughters are watching her closely and learning everything they can.

Margaret,
You wrote "What about the physical suffering and/or death of the woman who needs a late term abortion and doesn't get one and why aren't the protesters concerned about that?" Surely you're not posing this as a serious argument. This reasoning has been debunked time and time again, partly in that (as you say) the vast majority of abortions occur early in pregnancy but more importantly because almost no one ever suffered, let alone died -- even before Roe v. Wade -- because they needed a late term abortion and couldn't get one. Bernard Nathanson made up the numbers and then admitted they were a lie years later. What suffering has occurred in those rare situations does concern many protestors, but it cannot compare to the suffering of 1.3 million babies who die each year just in the U.S. because of the choice of their mothers. Both your facts and your logic are bad.

[Craig French]

Natalie,
does it seem there may be something backwards about your recommendation for approaching women considering an abortion?

It is true that women suffer from considering and having abortions, but THEY ARE NOT the victims. Women ought not confuse the guilt/pain from wrestling with abortion as them being the victims of abortion.

There is no virtue in a convicted murderer reconciling himself his violent act...not in an ideal court of law, at least.

While ministries are out there to evangelize women planning on butchering their children; the evangelism shouldn't punk out and affirm injustice "hoping" these women will see in our eyes the pain they feel.

In addition, I doubt women who have miscarried are affected by images of mutilated babies anymore than parents who's children have come to term. A woman who miscarried did not murder her child and likely understands she isn't responsible for that death. If anything, she may be more likely to shake her head about women having abortions...because the little life she lost against her will is what others discard as like a used condom (after all, abortion is just birth control).

The horror of losing a child to miscarriage is far different than having an abortion. On the one hand, you have one woman planning on life with a child, and on the other you have a woman planning life without a child.

I'm not saying all this to be cold and cruel. And I'm not saying we ought to speak this way with women who are wrestling with abortion. But it is important, for those who take the name Christian, to be clear with ourselves who the victims are and stop sanitizing our apathy with false pretenses of protecting our children and others from these images. Your children will not be damaged by seeing those images. They will perpetuate the apathy they learned when listening to our cerebral rationalizations on pro-life methodology...likely, they'll magnify it.

[Barbara L.]

God Bless you, Carole Canfield, for your tireless work on behalf of God's beloved little children. I love you.

[David Talcott]

Natalie--I feel like our discussion is winding down, but I have just a couple of more things I'd like to say.

I never assumed that women have abortions for flippant reasons--I've read the Guttmacher reports on why women have abortions. But, I want you to think about the situation of these women one more time and help me to understand. You say they are "deeply grieved about the decision." Why is that? Why are they deeply grieved? What do they have to be grieved about? You see, if they don't recognize that there is a new life inside of them, then I don't think they would be grieved. There's no reason to grieve over a mere clump of cells or a $450 medical treatment that may mess with your hormones a bit. Those are reasons for annoyance and irritation, but not grief. Thank goodness it's a treatable disease! No long term effects (other than a heightened chance of depression and breast cancer).

But, you see, that interpretation doesn't make sense--what makes sense is that they understand there is a new human life inside of them, but they have decided they would rather kill it than accept all of the consequences (financial, social, relational, educational, etc.) that would come with bringing the baby to term. Those consequences are scary--perhaps a loss of job or career, an inability to finish high school or college, the chance that a boyfriend would leave them, the chance that her parents would be mad, having to explain the whole thing to co-workers, the 18 years of caring for and raising the child or the knowledge that your child is out there being raised by someone else. I know these are not flippant matters, quite the opposite. But I think we should be honest and say that most women who have abortions are doing it with the knowledge that they are intentionally killing a human life.

Second, I don't understand what you mean when you say "we should be supportive of a woman's right to make their decisions on their own" but we should also tell her "this is wrong, here's why." It sounds like you want abortion to be legal so that women feel like they have unconstrained freedom, but that you hope women will choose not to have abortions anyway. You're right that that position is "pro-choice", but I fail to understand why a Christian should agree with you. If you agree the baby is alive in the womb, why shouldn't it have legal protections just like the rest of us?

Third, my cheating man illustration didn't at all presuppose that the man was being flippant. Quite the opposite--he's quite distraught over the whole thing! He doesn't know what to do--he's frightened. But he's deciding to continue to do wrong, anyway, even though he knows its wrong.

Finally, I absolutely agree we should address the root causes of abortion. Of course, those causes are massive--and will require lots of social and legal changes over a long period of time. I also agree that we should have compassion for women who are considering abortions or who are having them. I've seen many women go into planned (non)parenthood who clearly don't want to be there--they come because they feel trapped with no way out. Of course, they've already given in to those feelings by not honestly looking at the resources that would allow them to carry the baby to term. But, I know they feel trapped--which is why I try to encourage them to do the right thing--let their baby live. No amount of feeling trapped or hopeless is worth killing your baby over--none! We will help--many others in town will help! Surely we should say this to them, shouldn't we?

[Lisa]

Concerning some of the above comments the loss of baby is the loss of a baby whether it be a miscarriage, abortion or the death of a 6 mos old child. Whoever losses a child by any means grieves, who are we to add to that grief by our actions. I grieved as much for my 6 mo old as a friend did for a miscarriage and as well as some who have had abortions grieve for their loss. Yes, abortion is wrong, but for many they see no other way and go against their own conscience and abort.

Col 4:5-6 says we are to walk in wisdom toward those that are without, redeeming the time, that our speech is to be with grace, seasoned with salt, that we know how we ought to answer every man. Salt is a preservative. Our speech is to be gracious, yet firm always telling the truth. The truth may not be pleasant it may be brutal, but there is no excuse to be so blunt that we crush others. If Jesus could tell the adulterous woman that her sins are forgiven go and sin no more who are we to keep making people atone for their sins. They know they sinned, they don't need it continually rubbed in by graphic pictures, nor do those of us who have lost children need to reminded that children die. What unsaved sinners and us saved sinners need is the gospel of Christ for it alone is the power of God unto salvations.

[Kamilla]

I've been sitting here with the early news on and they just did a story on a dog who was described as being, "a celebrity in his own right". His previous owner has been charged with animal cruelty for leaving the dog almost starved to death.

So, I was wondering if we should use posters of emaciated and abused dogs, cats, horses, the snake that had it's side torn open trying to crawl through a heat duct, etc.

with the caption,

"People get arrested for doing it to animals"

hmmm,

Kamilla

[James Hogue]

Kamilla - I could not agree more.
-------
All:
The question is not whether or not GAP signs are appropriate or not - take a look at the peaceniks and wannabe peaceniks who infest the corner of the Square and illegally block the doorway to the ARNG recruiting office every week; look at their signs: A man holds a large (poster-size) picture of a Middle-Eastern woman holding the mutilated body of her child (and from the damage, by the bye, it is quite obvious that it was from a non-military bombing - something that has been going on in the MENA region for decades prior to the American Military presence) with a caption calling passers-by to "Stop killing Iraqi children!"

Two points from this. Before that, however, a quick geographical aside (because it helps me to visualise). The Bloomington Killing "Clinic" is 3 blocks South of the Square, and the ARNG recruiting office is 5 blocks East of the Square. Every week the protesters spend an entire afternoon at each place, sometimes, at ARNG office, all day.
First: No one, nemo, NOBODY has anything negative to say about the anti-military protesters. In fact, they are frequently in the paper and lauded for their "work". Blame for terrorist bombings is placed on the shoulders of American boys and men, under the bogus claim "if we had not gone there, none of this would be happening." Large, graphically violent, gory pictures are displayed to support the bogus claim, and the persyns holding the signs are praised and lifted up on high for telling the "truth".
Second: At the same time, these persyns will fight more violently than a father protecting his wife and children, more violently than the effects of a terrorist bombing, to protect a womyn's "right" to do violence to a defenseless, relatively innocent, unborn child.

I have a theory that I would really like to test but never have, usually because when I think of it, my work prevents me from doing so. I am willing to wager more than just my usual Coke that, if invited to also protest the killing of American children, the persyns holding "Stop killing Iraqi children!" signs would not only turn down the invitation, but jump into a loud, screeching defense for why they would never do so.

There is no question, "should GAP (or similar) signs be used to protest abortion?" It is quite clear that citizens have absolutely no problem with their children seeing graphic images of other children who have been killed, if such pictures were a problem, you would see the peacenik in the news defending his right to free speech. These signs must be used because death is not an "ignore it and it will go away" sort of thing. I am dying. You are dying. "We're all going to die!" But children must not have their deaths at the hands of those whose job it is to protect them. Some things are not clear until you have seen it for yourself. The killing of unborn children was merely an abstract concept until I saw pictures of dead babies and videos of abortions taken from an in-the-body camera. Abortion remains an abstract until it is made a tangible, and until it becomes a tangible, it will always be a removed, detached, "this doesn't really apply/affect me" concept. Every time I see a GAP-style sign, I gag and want to look away because it is GROSS! But "An Inconvenient Truth" is not something from which to turn aside.

Affectionately,
Jim Hogue

[Lisa]

Kamilla,
The problem is that the dog was alive and there are some who don't realize that the unborn baby is alive as well. When a living being that is already born is starved, abused or killed be it human or animal the person responsible is arrested. Those who don't see the unborn as alive aren't going to be to concerned about it being aborted since in their mind it only has the potential for being human not becoming human until birth. This is not to say that all who have abortions think this way, but there is a certain mindset that does feel this way.

And using "posters of emaciated and abused dogs, cats, horses, the snake that had it's side torn open trying to crawl through a heat duct, etc." would be just as offensive to us sensitive types who are animal lovers and can't stand to see animals or humans suffer or be abused.

[David Talcott]

> Those who don't see the unborn as alive aren't going to be to concerned about it being aborted since in their mind it only has the potential for being human not becoming human until birth.

What could do more to show them the full humanity of the unborn child than a picture?

[Mick Buschbacher]

My question is why we show the restraint not to (at the very least) destroy these "clinics" where innocent people are killed.

[Natalie Jost]

Okay, I think some people have gone off on a bit of a tangent where my comments were concerned, which is easy to do on a blog where comments are totally out of the context of who we are as people and as followers of Christ. I never said I was against sharing the gospel - even when unsolicited - IN GENERAL. Where I see us failing is when we try to USE the gospel as a means to ending abortion. THIS, however gallant our intentions, is more often hurtful to the cause, and often makes us impotent in our attempts to change.

One last analogy - with my daughter, I can't simply tell her not to do something. She's young and doesn't understand why I would do that. I have to explain why, and often she still won't listen. So, instead of simply saying NO all day long, I have to offer her an alternative solution as well as a little bit of mercy, knowing she doesn't REALLY know better (even though I think she should). Didn't Jesus do that too? I never meant we should only look at the "red letter parts" of the Bible, of course not - because JESUS DIDN'T JUST TALK TO PEOPLE - he helped them up off the dirt of their sin. BEFORE he ever told them to "go and sin no more," he forgave them and offered relevant solutions to their problems. "Give your money to the poor," He'd say, not simply "stop hoarding money."

Most women who want an abortion have no idea how wrong it really is and no matter how much we tell them or show them fetus photos, they won't get it simply with words and even "hard evidence" - which they still may believe is faked. That doesn't mean we stop telling them, but we can't FORCE them either. Maybe we stop a few abortions, but it doesn't help the bigger picture. There needs to be a partnership between pro-life and pro-choice to get to the root of WHY people seek abortion and fix THAT.

I realize it's a lofty dream to think that hard-wired political Christians can have mercy on people they see as "baby killers", and it's ludicrous to think those wild and crazy promiscuous pro-choicers would ever "get with the program", but it's something I and countless others are steadily working toward. And yes, I realize these "baby killers" should have the same mercy for their babies, but they don't see them as babies and no amount of graphic photos will convince them without simultaneously convincing them to stay away from those sick, self-righteous Christians and their unmerciful God. Just take a minute to sit in their shoes for awhile before you begin to preach. Jesus gave people that much, don't you think, on the cross?

Sharing the gospel is great, and yes, we should do it, unashamedly, but never at the expense of real, tangible help - always in tandem and without loud and malicious judgment. Jesus didn't just go around saying, "your sinning and you're going to hell." His gift was so much more than that and that's what made Him - and those who followed - effective. If you really believe these women to be swine, then stop casting pearls and help clean them up!

[Adam Spaetti]

Dear Natalie,

Throughout this thread you've had ample opportunity to make your case from Scripture and thereby show that you believe in the true Christ of the Bible. Nevertheless, you consistently avoid Scripture in your arguments and instead continue to offer opinions on how things ought to be and what Jesus was like, opinions which are by and large unsupported Biblically. Therefore, I simply want to conclude by pleading with you to study the scriptures, front to back, over and over, and to ask the Holy Spirit to give you the faith to accept what they say.

Sincerely,

[Ruben]

Re: women feeling imposed upon when someone points out forcefully that abortion is wrong.

Jane Austen has a word of sound psychology for us

"…when people are determined on a mode of conduct which they know to be wrong, they feel injured by the expectation of anything better from them."

(From "Sense and Sensibility")

[Lisa]

> What could do more to show them the full humanity of the unborn child than a picture?

It begins one on one with parents teaching their children Gods view of human life, that life is sacred to Him, it has value. It is backed up by churches that teach and show the value God has given to human life. As Christians how involved are we in volunteering at crisis pregnancy centers, do we care for those who choose life for their children or do we forget them once they decide not to abort the child? For parents who do not abort their handicap child how do we care for the families and their children? We get peoples attentions by meeting them where they are, and listening to them.

How did Jesus get His point across? He approached people one on one as with the woman at well, or the woman caught in adultery. Other times He addressed groups. Did He use placards or graphic pictures of the woman committing adultery to show how wrong this was or how it affected those around her? No. He used parables and taught by example among other things. He met people where they were.

I realize this answer does not address getting it across to those entering an abortion clinic however how do we show people their need of the Savior who without which they are lost and bound for Hell? Do we carry signs and graphic pictures of people burning in Hell? No. We meet them where they are and show them Christ. Perhaps we could use the same approach in reaching those seeking abortions.

[Julie Shockley]

When I was 16 years old, I was forced to abort my child of 16 weeks. It was an aspiration procedure in 1979; had they done an ultrasound instead of taking my word for it, they might have chosen a less difficult method, since the 16 week old child is a bit large. But the abortionist managed to take care of his "business." And once his vile task was complete, I sat up and tried to escape; in doing so, I saw the jars, filled with fluid and flesh; and the nurse taking care of her own "business," piecing the child back together to ensure they had all of him. Images of aborted children are not just ugly things to me and many women like me. They are triggers for a post-traumatic stress response, even for those who don't hold any regrets or who deny guilt for having had abortions. It is an uncontrollable neurological response which brings a host of problems to the PTSD victim. Thank you for posting a compassionate, theological view that we don't need these images to bring people to repentance and to the Lord.