So, if it's ok to show graphic images to raise awareness of what smoking does to human body, why is there so much commotion over graphic pictures that raise awareness of what abortion does to the baby's body? Why similar looking graphic warnings are acceptable in one case, yet controversial in the other? Smoking damages one's health, but abortion doesn't merely damage - it destroys the baby, not to mention that leaves the mother physically and emotionally scarred. If anything - graphic warnings should be made mandatory for every abortion facility. But up until this happens, it will be up to the courageous volunteers to show what exactly the pro-aborts mean by saying "choice" or "reproductive health" or any other euphemism they can come up with:
The vision of EndtheKilling is to ensure the pro-life movement and all Canadians have 20/20 vision regarding who the pre-born are and what abortion does to them. Abortion, particularly in the first trimester, is perceived as “choice.” Until pro-lifers shift peoples’ understanding from “choice” in the abstract sense to what is being chosen, in the sense of what abortion actually is, things will never change.If graphic images are legitimate means to combat smoking or cruelty to animals - there's absolutely no reason why using graphic images to combat wholesale slaughter of innocent unborn babies should be looked at differently.
It is important to point out that CCBR is an educational organization and, as such, cannot fulfill the entire vision on our own. That is why our goals are specific to CCBR’s educational approach. Other groups are essential in achieving the vision of an abortion-free Canada; in particular, political groups and post-abortion ministries. Our hope is that these groups will join us in making abortion unthinkable in a coordinated and intentional fashion with specific time frames. Everyone has their place in the movement and together we can EndtheKilling.