Of course the pro-aborts are furious:
Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada said such ads are disturbing, offensive and frightening as they could incite violence against both women seeking abortions and the medical staff that provide them.But wait! Doesn't abortion kill innocent babies? So why can't we portray abortion the way it truly is? After all, it is socially acceptable for the animal rights activists to portray seal hunt as murder and testing on animals - as torture. I've seen their displays several times; a picture of a clubbed baby seal or of a dissected kitten is no less "graphic" than a picture of a baby that has been aborted. So, maybe we should ban animal rights protests because they may incite violence against hunters or against scientists that perform tests on animals? If anything showing a graphic picture is far more civil method of arguing than throwing a pie at someone you disagree with. Not to mention that it also makes a lot more sense.
“When you portray abortion like this, as murder and killing, it portrays abortion staff as murderers and it can incite violence on some level,” Arthur said.
Moral relativism fans too have their objections:
Greg Smith, executive director of B.C.’s Options for Sexual Health, Canada’s largest non-profit provider of sexual health services, including pregnancy counselling and education, said such graphic ads distorted the issue and seldom changed opinions.How many of those "personal decisions" are made of the lack of knowledge; because the women believe (or have been convinced by others) that an unborn baby is just "a blob of tissue", with no heart and no life of its own, that could be surgically removed? How many women regret their abortion after finding out that this was a living baby, with a beating heart?
“With any ad against or in support of abortion rights you probably aren’t going to change the minds of most of the population. It is an intensely personal decision for women, and it’s not an easy decision for women to make,” Smith said.
Graphic images don't influence decisions? Then what about all those abortion clinic workers, let alone ordinary women, who rejected their pro-abortion views after seeing an ultrasound image of an unborn baby? Earth to moral relativist vacuum!
Yes, the ad may be seen as controversial by some. Obviously, Kelowna TV station is going to be inundated with complaints as soon as the ad hits the airwaves and I won't be surprised if the ad ends up being taken off the air just days (if not hours) later. Still, during that short period of time, the ad will be seen by some, touching a few hearts and changing a few lives. And, once the ad is no longer there - the debate over it will keep going; not just in Kelowna, but from coast to coast.
2 comments:
Throwing in animal rights activists, as if to legitimize your propaganda is utterly ironic. Given that most "anti-choice" activists are not vegan or speaking out against the murder of ALREADY LIVING OUTSIDE THE BODY beings. You claim you are "pro-life" and value the process of life. Yet you stand behind oppressive ideologies that rely on the abuse, enslavement, and murder of beings.
In addition, I'm really sick of anti-choice activists claiming they are compassionate for life. Really? Then why do you not require everyone that joins your ranks to be a foster parent? Why do people in your ranks often support banning gay-couple adoption? Why do you often individualize poverty in efforts to do away with welfare and public services? You run around screaming life at the woman who cannot care for the potential child- yet you stand in your suburban churches and point the finger of blame at them when they cannot afford to eat.
Do not throw "pro-life" rhetoric in with animal rights activists. We are fundamentally and ideologically opposed.
I'm not saying that our ideologies are identical or that we are somehow allies. All I'm saying is that if it's ok for animal rights activists to use graphic images of animals that have been clubbed by hunters or dismembered by scientists, then there's nothing wrong with pro-lifers using graphic images of unborn babies, dismembered by abortion.
As for your remarks about us pointing the finger but not doing anything to help - I think you should learn more about pregnancy resource centers. The ones that your fellow feminists accuse of "misinforming" women. Like this one.
You'll be surprised to find out that in addition to telling women the truth about the baby in the womb, those pregnancy resource centers offer a variety of services to help young parents as well as pregnant women. And they're always there for a woman who can't afford food for her baby. Just like the Ray of Hope soup kitchen, that is somehow located at St. Augustine's Church. (Not at a Marxist club or at a vegan cafeteria.)
Finally, when it comes to adoption - there are many pro-life leaders that become foster parents; for example - Mary Ann Kuharsky, who adopted six or seven children, and she's not the only one. As for your concerns about homosexual adoption - I hope this article gives you some explanation to why we oppose the state policy that forces a motherless or a fatherless family on a child for the sake of some twisted ideology.
Post a Comment