15 January 2020 | Arguments and Ethics
By Tracy Taylor
Debate often arises both from within and without the pro-life movement over whether or not the use of abortion imagery is appropriate. People have strong opinions about depictions of abortion and their use, but something we would all do well to remember that while the use of graphic imagery has come to be associated with pro-lifers, we were certainly not the first to begin this trend.
The use of graphic images and accounts is something that has historically been used to demonstrate the horror of reality by almost all major social reform movements seeking to end one atrocity or another. This was a particularly prevalent tactic among abolitionists for example, who made extensive use of it to help shatter the idea that slaves were well treated or that slavery itself was benevolent.
Among the woodcut images of the brutality of slavery and racism, it was images of horrifically abused slaves like ‘Whipped Peter’ and the circulation of grotesque textual descriptions of abuse that helped turn the North against slavery and galvanize advocates to action.(1)
The images and descriptions of the atrocities performed against blacks were shocking and horrifying. Even today they are difficult to listen to and view at times. But they served a purpose to enlighten people as to the reality of what was happening. Yes these pictures made people uncomfortable. But if you don’t create discomfort with the status quo, there is no pressure for change.
Today we still fill our lives with reminders of these sorts of atrocities. We teach about them in schools. We think it so important to understand that we show pictures of the emaciated bodies of holocaust victims from the 1940s, and explain to our children how terrible slavery was despite a hundred years or more having passed.
Many pro-choice advocates often deride pro-life advocates for their use of abortion imagery as being emotionally manipulative. Some compare it to trying to ban heart surgery by showing gory pictures of operation for example, but in doing so, they highlight exactly why these images should be used.
No one who sees a picture of a heart surgery thinks “By god, this is so horrific. We need to ban this!” Even really squeamish people wouldn’t have a reaction like that or think that heart surgery is some terrible atrocity.
So think for a minute why abortion is so different. Why is it that we have a reaction to seeing abortion that we would never have to heart surgery? The difference is that graphic images of abortion illustrate important truth – that abortion kills another human being.
It is not a fallacy to describe and show the abuse that slaves were subjected to. It is not emotional manipulation to recount the horrors of Auschwitz. These pictures affect us emotionally but only because they help us understand just how wrong things were.
It shows people just what’s going on, and they don’t like what they see.
Yes these pictures are hard to look at. But we cannot allow our nerves to be more sensitive than our consciences. Yes there are times when such media is improper and does not fit the venues it is distributed in. But there are times when the stark reality and naked truth of abortion must be laid bare, no matter how uncomfortable it makes us.
No atrocity was ever ended by ignoring and covering up its horrors.
Protecting the Defenseless – The Lifeguard Initiative