Let's face it... there are some things we would simply rather avoid.
Death and taxes immediately come to mind. Unfortunately simply ignoring such things does nothing to eliminate them from reality.
In the same way, there are also some issues and controversies in life that we prefer to ignore--in the hopes that
they will just go away. Abortion usually falls within that category.
Even hardcore pro-choice advocates, when pressed, admit that abortion
is not a pleasant subject. Sarah Weddington herself likened it to divorce and argued in Roe that she was not asking
the court to declare abortion a good thing.
The whole "pro-choice" phenomenon is itself a massive diversionary tactic--a
means of shifting the emphasis away from the unpleasant reality of abortion to the much more appealing concept of freedom
to make choices.
But much like today's technologically advanced smart-bombs reach
their targets with pin-point accuracy, photographs have an amazing ability to break through the diversionary clutter and
go straight to the heart of the issue, leaving the truth exposed for all to see.
Photographs of holocaust victims are difficult to look at. They typically
evoke a deeply emotional response--as they should. And although it certainly was evil on a massive scale, the
holocaust really happened. Photographs help to expose the horrific truth of the matter we would rather ignore or even
deny. While such photos may be out of place within certain contexts, they should never be censored from society
in general or from media exposure. To do so is to deny reality and does a further injustice to victims
by ignoring their suffering. It also moves us closer to the dangerous position described by the old addage: those who
ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Today, photographs of aborted babies are treated with even greater disdain
than those of holocaust victims. They are condemned as repugnant and even deceptive by the pro-choice community, but
surprisingly and unfortunately, they are even sometimes disparaged by pro-lifers as well. Again, there is certainly an
appropriate context--as well as an innappropriate context--for exhibition of such photographs, but to totally deny them
or the truth they expose is not helpful, but instead compounds the problem.
Pro-choice advocates are well aware of the damage photographs can do
to their cause. And so they attack the use photographs by pro-lifers with an almost unparalleled ferocity:
“We expected the anti-abortionists to use
grotesque and misleading photographs; they usually did. Some on our side felt we should show graphically
the problems that resulted when abortion was illegal. Others argued that we would be sinking to the level of the opposition—a
level we disdained—if we did the same. We decided to use reason instead of pictures.” - Sarah
Weddington, A Question of Choice, page 78. [emphasis added]
So while Weddington
acknowledges the power of photographs to convey truth in the case of women injured by illegal abortions, she nevertheless
condemns their use by her opposition as "grotesque and misleading."
At another point
in her book, she further condemns the use of "images" by those who oppose her pro-choice philosophy:
"Anti-abortionists began using words and images
in new ways, emphasizing graphic depictions of what they claimed was the developing fetus, even playing tapes
of what was said to be the heartbeat of a fetus. Experts questioned the accuracy and validity of this “evidence,”
but reason could not erase the impact of those tactics.” - Sarah Weddington, A Question of Choice, page
177. [emphasis added]
As an accomplished attorney, Weddington is careful
to use precise words that seem to convey "reason" candidly and honestly. Yet it doesn't take a rocket scientist to
see what's going on here. Notice that Weddington does not deny the validity of any specific pro-life photographs
and is careful not provide any "misleading" examples, but rather simply makes a sweeping and unsubstantiated statement that
unnamed "experts" questioned the accuracy and validity of this "evidence." This amounts to nothing but rhetoric.
Surprisingly, feminist Naomi Wolf had the temerity
to openly acknowledge the problem in an uncharacteristically candid
manner:
"How
can we charge that it is vile and repulsive for pro-lifers to brandish vile and repulsive images if the images are real? To
insist that the truth is in poor taste is the very height of hypocrisy. Besides,
if these images are often the facts of the matter, and if we then claim that it is offensive for pro-choice women to be confronted
by them, then we are making the judgment that women are
too inherently weak to face a truth about which they
have to make a grave decision. This view of women is unworthy of feminism."
- Naomi
Wolf, "Our Bodies, Our Souls", New Republic, October 16, 1996, p 26
Unfortuntely
Wolf's candor was out of the ordinary and she received some heat for her honesty. Yet her words ring true. The issue is whether photographs
accurately depict reality... which brings us to Michael Clancy's "Hand of Hope." [ www.michaelclancy.com ]
Clancy's photograph is one of the most powerful
weapons in the pro-life, clutter-busting arsenal because it does not depict the remains of
an aborted child. In fact the photo really has nothing to do with abortion procedures at all. Instead, the photo is an
accurate depiction of a living, active and wanted unborn child, Samuel Armas, halfway through pregnancy.
The problem for pro-choice proponents when confronted
with such a "tactic" is the fact that the clutter is busted--leaving the truth staring you square in the face. It is
simply impossible to deny that what we are looking at is the arm, hand and fingers of a human being. It is virtually impossible
for pro-choice proponents to label the photograph "grotesque and misleading" since the purpose of the photo was to document
maternal-fetal surgery for a major U.S. newspaper, not to advance a pro-life agenda. In fact Clancy wasn't even pro-life
at the time the photo was taken. (It even changed his outlook!)
Nevertheless, the pro-life truth contained in the
photo is undeniable. If the stakes weren't so high and the results so serious, it would almost evoke sympathy
for the plight of pro-choice advocates faced with the necessary dilemma of denying the personhood of the individual who's hand
is clearly grasping the doctor's finger in Clancy's photo.
Such photos may not be appropriate to display everywhere
at any time, but, much to the dismay of pro-choice advocates, they definitely have their place in the abortion debate.
