Jun
14
2012
Opening the Casket on Abortion
Scott Klusendorf:
In 1955, Emmett Till, a 14 year-old black youth, traveled from Chicago to visit his cousin in the town of Money, Mississippi. Upon arrival, he bragged about his white girlfriends back in Chicago. This was surprising to his cousin and the cousin’s friends because blacks in Mississippi during the 50s didn’t make eye contact with whites, let alone date them! Both actions were considered disrespectful. Later that day, Emmett, his cousin, and a small group of black males entered Bryant’s Store where, egged-on by the other males, fourteen-year-old Emmett flirted with a twenty-one-year-old white, married woman behind the counter. After purchasing candy, he either whistled at her or said something mildly flirtatious. (Reports vary.) The cousin and the others warned him he was in for trouble.
A few days later, at 2:00 A.M., Emmett was taken at gunpoint from his uncle’s home by the clerk’s husband and another man. After savagely beating him, they killed him with a single bullet to the head. Emmett’s bloated corpse was found three days later in the Tallahatchie River. A cotton gin fan had been shoved over his head and tied with barbed wire. His face was partially crushed and beaten almost beyond recognition. The local Sheriff placed Emmett’s body in a sealed coffin and shipped it back to his mother in Chicago.
When Mamie Till got the body, she made a stunning announcement: There would be an open-casket funeral for her son Emmett. People protested and reminded her how much this would upset everyone. Mamie agreed, but countered, “I want the whole world to see what they did to my boy.”
The photo of Emmett’s mangled body in that open casket was published in Jet magazine and it helped launch the Civil Rights Movement in America. Three months later in Montgomery, Alabama, Rosa Parks refused to go to the back of the bus when ordered to do so. She said the image of Emmett Till gave her the courage to stand her ground.
Klusendorf makes the application:
It’s time for pro-life Christians to open the casket on abortion.
We should do it lovingly but truthfully. We should do it in our churches during the primary worship services, comforting those who grieve with the gospel of forgiveness. We should do it in our Christian high schools and colleges, combining visuals with a persuasive defense of the pro-life view that’s translatable to non-Christians.
But open the casket we must.
Until we do, Americans will continue tolerating an injustice they never have to look at.
—Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2009), 242-243.
48 Comments
A very valid point.
However, Facebook is not that place.
My kids often look over my shoulder when I catch up on stuff in the evenings, or could even pick up my tablet and see things on the way to sneaking in a few Angry Bird shots. When we post things to the web we lose complete control on the context.
While I think a cold dose of reality might aid the pro-life cause, I struggle to see an approach that shoves repulsive evil under peoples’ noses for shock value to be Christ-like.
Truth is truth. Humane Society has no problem with showing pictures of abused pathetic animals, World Vision constantly pops up on my homepage with poor, underfed, bloated children. Why do we hold the prolife community to such a higher standard with the sin imposed on these innocent souls is so much greater? Perhaps it forces us to really evaluate what we ourselves are willing to tolerate. After all, if it’s so horrific that you must look away or cover your child’s eyes, then perhaps it shouldn’t be tolerated.
Truth is truth. And those who follow Christ should learn how to speak it like he did, not by flaunting evil in front of people.
You might also consider this. With the number of abortions in the US well over 50 million, that means that the number of women in our churches who have had abortions would surprise all of us. What does throwing images like that do to them? It only serves as a reminder of their sin that Christ has already forgiven. We should help people heal, not remind them of their failures.
I fail to see how this strategy is either gracious, or redemptive. It seems to imply that the ends justify the means.
By all means, we should not confront people with their sin… that would break the cardinal rule of our society: “Thou Shalt Not Violate Someone’s Comfort”.
I don’t mean to be ugly or unkind, but let’s think through why we get offended by these images. Is something Biblical being violated by exposing this kind of evil or is it more likely that it makes us uncomfortable to have to tackle difficult issues with our children, peers, and in our own hearts?
JB,
You missed my point completely. I clearly affirmed that we should speak truth to people, but do it in a way that is both gracious and redemptive.
I said nothing about worrying about offending, but rather that we should treat people with dignity and respect.
See my discussion with Scott K below…
First, the photos can bring flashback memories for some women who may have gone through an abortion earlier in life.
Second, some people can go through a form of PTSD from seeing overly graphic images.
I wonder if showing the images will get the effect that you are looking for.
Why do we want to show the images during a worship service? Is that part of our worship? Is that an appropriate use of worship time? Why do we want to shock people who actually agree with the Pro Life position? What was shocking about Emmett Till’s images was that they were shown beyond “the choir”.
Another question, how can anybody fight against injustice and evil if it (and its end results) can’t be seen? Sweeping it under the rug only prolongs the problem and causes its symptoms to persist. Another way of looking at it is not going to see a doctor about an obviously fatal rattle snake bite. Ignoring the bite won’t make it go away and will ultimately kill you. I see the same circumstances as applicable to the above article. Killing is killing, no matter who it is.
How do you see moral equivalence between abortion and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I agree with this. I also agree that we should open the casket on the wars in which the U.S. is currently engaged. There has been a concerted effort by the government to prevent the true costs of war from being seen by the public. As Christians, we should be consistent about our efforts to uphold the sanctity of life.
Aron, Thanks for expressing your concerns. You may be surprised to learn that large numbers of post-abortion women (and the men) thank me for showing the images in my speaking presentations. Indeed, proper use of the pictures points them to the very solution they need, the gospel. You can watch a short clip of how I introduce the images at the link below. After viewing it, I’m curious to hear if you think my approach is unloving.
http://vimeo.com/25061075
Best Regards,SK
Scott,
Your remarks here are very well done. Thanks for your heart and good intentions.
I can get behind this approach, because you can completely control the context here, and people can hear the concern in your voice for them as people. Random images on the internet cannot do that, nor can they communicate the gospel of hope as you do very well here.
I have seen these type of images floating around the internet in ways that I’m convinced do more harm than good – to both the cause and the name of Christ. My observation is that as Christians we too often approach these issues in an us-vs.-them mentality, the same way other cultural issues are fought. In that approach we lose site of the fact that we are dealing with real people like ourselves.
I believe the body of Christ should do better than that. I think you modeled that well here.
Thanks for the note,
Au
The images make us wince, they are repulsive, they make children and adults cry, they grieve us, they shock us… I want to stress that the church of Jesus Christ doesn’t engage the culture and turn the tide on darkness by voting. the letter of our lives needs to hit the streets. I am in total agreement with exposing it. anywhere. Mrs. Till did not keep it in certain circles, only showing those she thought could handle it; she went public. people talked about it. shared the articles. moved the images into general population consumption. These are real babies. Sons and daughters of our cities. Our little neighbors. they are the tiny ones left to die in the ditch. Talking about it is the beginning. I also reccomend finding where the closest abortion mill is in your area and then going there. get connected with gospel oriented pro-life ministries and expose the darkness. Our family has been going, with graphic images, (and saved babies too!) for a couple of years now. We offer help and HOPE and share the gospel. Because it has changed our family, we now talk openly about it and share what we do and what we’ve learned at every opportunity. I do not want my generation to be “asleep.” Abortion will come to an end when the church of Jesus Christ decides it will come to an end.
James, Thanks for your important comment. War can be a moral evil, but it isn’t always so. Careful thinkers make distinctions between intrinsic (absolute) moral evils and contingent ones. For example, the decision to wage war may or may not be wrong, depending on the circumstances. However, the decision to intentionally kill an unborn human being for socioeconomic reasons is an intrinsic evil and laws permitting it are scandalous. True, a general in a just war may foresee that innocent humans will die securing a lasting peace, but he does not intend their deaths. With elective abortion, the death of an innocent human fetus is not merely foreseen; it is intended.
I disagree. War is ALWAYS a moral evil because it involves the deaths of innocents. You cannot use the justification that the ends justify the means if the means are evil.
Many will disagree with me, but my point is that the truth about war should be exposed so that the populace can assess whether or not the atrocities of war justify the waging of it. The military has prevented the truth about the current wars being waged from being exposed to the public (embedding of reporters to show the “good” being done while not allowing the evil to be shown, the ban on photos of caskets returning from the middle east from being shown to the public, etc.). If we are about truth, let’s go the whole way.
Was WWll a moral evil?
@James: Since the use of television (notably in the Vietnam war), America’s attitudes about war are indeed changing. The average American’s attitude during WWII toward the war was remarkably different from the attitude today. A disenchanted generation seeing more dead bodies would only think: “more of the same.”
Now, as much as I hate war, I believe in the concept of a JUST war. I think the writer of the article won’t be advocating we give war the same treatment as abortion because whether or not there is a just war is open to debate. Abortion isn’t open to debate.
Was the invasion of Canaan upon the command of YHWH a moral evil?
I understand the motivation, but that will be disastrous. Walking w pics on the street will cause car accidents from people being distracted, and relationships made btw Christians and non-Christians will be lost. Where does it end? Shall we show pics of dismembered bodies to protest against war? Instead of anger, befriend a girl who wants to have an abortion and show her Christ’s love. Let your care and your showing her the bible transform her. Support crisis pregnancy centers so they can purchase ultrasound machines. The mom seeing the baby will feel love. Shoving pics down her face will not convince her. Go ahead and march with the pics and then go home and pat yourself on the back. The world has shown her hatred and abandonment. Who will go wash her feet……?
Allison, we have ‘washed feet’ as well as driven to dr. appts, given food, hosted baby showers with other ministries, had a young mother stay in our home, my children have held little ones that were scheduled to die. please do not stereotype what some do on the sidewalks. I’ve never ‘marched with the pics and then gone home and patted myself on the back.’ The signs make women see the truth of their actions in the few minutes right before a life and death decision. Scripture says we are to expose the deeds of darkness. Love is not just hand-holding, it is also wisdom crying out in the streets and warning those stumbling toward the slaughter. Please do not assume what our family does is anything less than loving.
Honestly Allison, I know where you are coming from. I went to an anti abortion meeting for college students running pro-life clubs and there was a young woman there talking about the use of pictures on her campus. I just didn’t look at the pictures. I was SO grossed out and thought…what MONSTERS!? Why would they show that? But since then, I’ve thought about it more. I have decided that in order for something to be rejected, people have to see it for what it is. If it’s disgusting and wicked, it can’t be candy coated.
You can show pictures AND give money to CPCs. I actually know personally quite a few people who hadn’t really given much thought toward abortion until they saw pictures. Sometimes that changes people’s minds a lot.
I mean, the same could be said of the Emmet Till story. Mrs. Till could have silently covered the battered face of the son for fear that it would make things worse, but she didn’t want to hide that evil was happening. Evil is happening and there are many people who just don’t know.
The way abortion is spoken of is SO full of euphemisms. I think we need to shed a little light. Now, do I think this involves running up to cars stopped at traffic lights and shoving pictures in their faces. No. Do I think it involves shouting at a frightened girl thinking this is her last option? Absolutely not. We should do it prayerfully and carefully, but I think it does need to be exposed.
[...] This is a really good post by Justin Taylor. In it, he quotes from Scott Klusendorf as Scott tells the hellacious story of Emmett Till. If you know Till’s story, you’ll understand why it’s moving. If you don’t, read Justin’s blog. [...]
It’s so true that it’s easy for people to dismiss the horror of death to babies that they never see. There should be more seeing. A friend of mine posted a photo of an aborted fetus on fb one day and some people expressed irritation. Oh well. I’m sure the same would have been true during Nazi Germany if the German people saw photos of what was happening in the concentration camps. Should ruffled feathers stop the showing of the truth so that people can continue to turn a blind eye? There would need to be some wisdom about the place for these photos, yes, but I don’t think it’s an idea without merit.
Jeanette, I do not in any way want to portray you as un-loving. Part of being sanctified is practicing being vocal and no, I don’t always come across as I would like. Praise God He works in me and in you to reach out to the unsaved. The body of Christ is not perfect but He is.
At 16 my parents made me have an abortion done by a doctor who was a relative. Years later my teenage daughters brought home a note from school to say there was to be a movie on what really happens in an abortion and it wouldn’t be shown to the students until the parents had opportunity to see it and comment. After having been told that my 10 week pregnancy was nothing but tissue I was shocked at what I was seeing. Why isn’t it part of the duty of care to make it compulsory for it to be seen before any decision is made to have an abortion.
Please keep letting people know the reality of abortion so they know what their baby (not tissue) looks like and above all that they are loved not condemned if they put their faith and trust in Christ.
I think one of our biggest obstacles in Christianity is the either/or mentality when it comes to the way engage people and fulfill the Great Commission. We have to get past this mindset and realize that more often than not a both/and mentality is appropriate. That is what the critics of the approach in this article miss.
There are two sides of the same coin. There is the message of life, hope and possibility, and then there are the ugly facts of death, dismemberment and the wholesale slaughter of the unborn. We cannot and must not ignore either aspect of this issue. Both sides are truth. And both are needed to overcome this Satanic stronghold in our society.
There was a very interesting article in the Los Angeles Times a few years ago written by two pro-choice leaders (http://articles.latimes.com/print/2008/jan/22/opinion/oe-kissling22). They admitted that they had lost the moral high ground to the “anti-choice” movement. Here’s what they said:
“In the 1970s, the arguments were simple and polarized: Abortion was either murder or a woman’s right to control her body. The fetus, however, stayed largely invisible. The pro-choice movement stayed on the message offensive, tactically shifting in 1989 from women’s bodies to the ‘who decides’ question posed by NARAL Pro-Choice America. But this was rapidly parried by the anti-choice demand that we look at what was being decided, not just who was deciding. Science facilitated the swing of the pendulum. Three-dimensional ultrasound images of babies in utero began to grace the family fridge. Fetuses underwent surgery. More premature babies survived and were healthier. They commanded our attention, and the question of what we owe them, if anything, could not be dismissed… In recent years, the antiabortion movement successfully put the nitty-gritty details of abortion procedures on public display, increasing the belief that abortion is serious business and that some societal involvement is appropriate.”
No one wants to see the nitty-gritty details of abortion, but every person needs to see it—at least once. When I visited the U.S. Holocaust Museum in D.C. and Yad Vashem in Israel, I didn’t think that evil was being shoved in my face. The images moved me in a way that words and philosophical arguments never could. Ever.
I remember showing the video “Hard Truth” during a weekly devotional service that I held at a large company. What struck me the most was the number of grown men and women who came up to me after the meeting crying and saying, “I had no idea.”
Frederick Douglas, the former slave who became a great statesman and abolitionist, said, “All that the American people needed, I thought, was light. Could they know slavery as I knew it, they would hasten to the work of its extinction.” That’s our problem. Many Americans and Christians for that matter don’t know or even care to know abortion as the child in the wombs knows it. In the words of Dr. King, they prefer to “remain silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows.”
I’ve served as pastoral counselor at Rachel’s Vineyard retreat for post-abortive women, and I serve on the board of a life affirming pregnancy care center that offers abortion after care. I even have post-abortive members in my church. We never minister from the context of anger or shame. Truth must be cloaked in love. We are love and we are light. As love, we cover the sin and shame of the individual. As light, we expose the works of darkness. There is a time when graphic images are needed to convey the horrors of abortion. Some times we simply need to showcase the miracle of life. It’s not either/or; it’s both/and.
Excellent article.
I’ve gone back and forth over this issue for a long time.
I volunteered for a time at a CPC that did not allow their counselors to tell women that their abortion would be murder. Just a teenager at the time, and a very fiery social justice advocate, I was put off by this seemingly flimsy and unloving approach. As I grew and became more nuanced in my understanding of sin, grief, growth, grace, sanctification, love, truth, all these things that make for a rich wisdom in counseling post-abortion women I began to see that multiple approaches are equally helpful if applied with wisdom. Yet some things MUST be shared for real truth to be spoken. Abortion. Is. Murder. Telling a woman anything less is lying to her.
At the same time, I still cringe at some of the T-shirts from groups like Abort73. I appreciate the message, but there has to be a context for people to receive this stuff as less than belligerent.
Friendly neighborhood pro-choice guy, with a question.
You say: “abortion is murder” without qualification or condition.
The overall statistic is roughly 50-75% of all fertilized eggs are eventually miscarried, so miscarriages are more likely than not. Why would God allow that, or design humans in a way that even absent abortion, more than 50% of conceived children will never be born?
I don’t mean to troll, and I don’t mean to criticize anybody, but I’m genuinely interested in how pro-life Christians understand the fact that God has designed a system where more than half of all “humans” die before they can be born — in most cases, before the mother even knows she’s pregnant.
It is murder without qualifications or conditions.
Sure I don’t think you are a troll (although, as I usually point out on these things…I don’t usually get on pro-choice blogs and comment so I never know why pro-choicers get on these… ;-) and I’ll attempt to answer your question.
We believe God made a perfect world, but gave man the ability to make choices. Man chose to elevate himself above God (by deciding that God didn’t know what was right for man…sometimes known as the first sin) and thus the perfect world became a fallen one. So, horrible things like miscarriages and cancer and unjust wars and hatred and you name happen as the result of a fallen world. At the end of the world, we believe Christ will come back again and re-fashion the world into a perfect one for those who are saved.
In case of confusion that should have said “So, horrible things like miscarriages and cancer and unjust wars and hatred and you name it happen as the result of a fallen world.”
Thanks, Heather. (I don’t ask these questions on pro-choice blogs because I wouldn’t have gotten any useful answers. :-)
I understand the “fallen world” argument: are there other explanations/arguments?
Heh…did you need any others? I mean, the world is fallen so there is death. But we still aren’t supposed to kill people just because there is death.
I can almost guarantee this is the answer you will get from any other Christian.
I have another answer, not at all in contradiction to the one Heather gave but just another take.
I totally get your argument, Keith, and I like that you posted the question because it gives us a chance to hear the logic of someone who believes differently and ask ourselves why we believe what we do. And my answer would be this: I probably don’t have an answer that’s gonna satisfy anyone’s thirsty intellect, mine included. I sometimes wish I could explain God, but for the Christian, our faith takes precedence over being able to explain God’s ways. No Christian can attempt to explain why God allows the things He does other than what Heather has already offered. And you know, that’s kind of the basis of our faith – that we believe in spite of not having all the answers. Some may call that burying one’s head in the sand, but in the end no believe system is gonna completely satisfy anyone’s intellect, totally. We believe because we’ve tasted and seen that God is good. Of course, there are plenty of people who are skilled in offering practical reasons to believe the Bible, but in the end it’s about faith.
All that to precede the actual answer I have to your question: why make such a big deal about protecting life when it seems that under God’s sovereign jurisdiction, so many lives don’t make it anyway? Because we believe that that’s God’s call to make; not ours. That’s why we fight so hard against abortion. When it comes to innocent lives in the womb, we have a God who gives life and takes it away. And I get how someone who doesn’t believe in a good, sovereign God in the first place wouldn’t begin to buy into such a philosophy, so if that doesn’t give you a satisfactory answer, I understand. but that’s my answer to your question. :)So it’s our base, core belief that God is good and in His sovereignty He gets to create life and take it away and everything Christians believe about abortion and human rights, etc is (or should be) shaped by that. And really, just for me personally, I like to think that it should be my first priority to show people that there is a God and He is love and He is sovereign and holy and just, because only through that knowledge do we begin to have the ability to desire to obey the truth of the Bible, you know?
That’s my feeble offering to this discussion. :) I’m glad you stopped by, Keith!
Everyone is talking about pictures, but I don’t see many discussions about Klusendorf’s underlying philosophies. I would like to a conversation between him and James Davidson Hunter.
What are his underlying philosophies and how do they differ from Hunter’s?
I’m not sure. I’d like to hear that interaction.
Thank you Justin for this. Am frankly stunned by those who might object. Jesus Himself said ““The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil” (John 7:7.) The world hates Jesus, and those who are His, because He, and we, expose their evil deeds. Trying to undo this reality is trying to be more pious than Jesus, and is therefore horribly impious. The offense is not found in exposing the deed, but doing the deed.
RC Jr.,
As it seems I was the first to push back on this, I’ll take the unpopular position and try to clarify my meaning.
You are right in saying is it wrong to try to outdo Jesus in piety, it is blasphemous in fact.
My main point is context is everything. What Scott K demonstrated in the clip he posted to me above here I think demonstrates well what he is talking about and advocating for. Images, tone, and the gospel itself can be clearly communicated with the the love and concern that is intended. I am all for this.
Images on their own have no context, and thus can do none of that. That is what I was initially concerned about, and still believe is very wrong. I have seen pictures floating the internet that are horrific, and have no person, no face, no tone of voice, no relationship behind them to clarify any of the intended meaning.
It is often said that a picture is worth 1000 words. But with no context, or control over who views those pictures or in what avenue, we don’t get to control WHICH words. And that is critical
To reiterate, I am all for calling sin what it is. And I’m all for pulling the curtain back on it. And abortion is surely sin. What I am objecting to is people thoughtlessly passing around pictures without any thought as to how the images might be received or who might see them. Simply hitting ‘forward’ on a picture isn’t ministry, and doesn’t communicate what we as Christians really want to communicate. It is simply using the same habits of cultural engagement that people use for immigration, taxes, health care, or any other pet political issue. And the body of Christ should do better than that.
What stuns me is how easily we forget that there are people on the other end of this issue. So I’m just saying we need to keep that in mind as we try to sway people to truth.
Hopefully this clarifies things.
Thanks, Au
Aron,
I don’t think every movement that tries to stop evil can be approached with a personal message. A picture can have a profound effect on someone thinking about having an abortion to think back on a picture they didn’t otherwise opt to see, would now reconsider. As I always say what is the worst and best that can happen, someone gets offended and a life gets saved? I think weighing these options I go for opening the casket. I don’t get what is the worst that can happen, if we think somehow we are driving people away from Christ because of a picture then there is more theology issues at stake.
Thanks
Ajit
por favor en español
Aron,
All well said. Perhaps I read everyone in a particular context that wasn’t necessarily fair, hearing everyone whining, “But someone might get upset.” I want people to get upset, everyone from proponents of abortion to forgiven Christians who have procured abortions to Christians indifferent to the issue to Christians who think they are involved because they vote Republican and sometimes write a check to cpcs, to sidewalk counselors. As I have opined elsewhere, the fact that we get our tail feathers ruffled over this late term forced abortion in China, or this sex-selection abortion from Life Action, but most days are more interested in The Avengers than the plain, ordinary murder of little babies is what tells me we really have no idea what we’re talking about. Pictures of babies help to wake us up, because that IS the context- babies are being murdered. My problem is that I forget, and I relax. The babies help me remember
Thanks,
Also well said – all true. I agree that we sleep walk through this, and too many issues. (Lord, wake us up!)
It is disturbing, and there is no way around that. It needs to be looked in the face. I don’t pretend to have a perfect approach, but it makes me long for the day when sin is judged and evil is put away for good.
Ps. 10:17-18.
Au
When I read this article I thought of the scene in “Amazing Grace” where William Wilberforce gives a tour of the slave ship Madagascar. With shackles hanging over the ship railing and the stench of death in the air, Wilberforce orders the shocked aristocrats to remove their handkerchiefs from their noses and says: “Remember that smell! Remember the Madagascar! Remember that God made men equal!” I think there’s a parallel between these stories that shows the value of shock effect. Sometimes it is the only way to awaken the sleeping saints.
I’ve thoroughly enjoyed reading the discussion. Thank you, Susan Pull for sharing your personal testimony.
Shock effect, to further a noble cause? That suggests furtherance of the cause at any price. Sorry, but I’m just not there.
One who does not presently oppose abortion is unlikely to be shocked into it, but if s/he is, then his/her conversion is based on visceral disgust rather than heart-felt moral principle. Abortion is wrong because it takes a life, NOT because it takes a life brutally. When science finds a way to eliminate the brutality, will the moral principle wane?
Frank, your philosophy looks great in principle but unfortunately it doesn’t work out in practice. In over a decade of post-abortive counseling and involvement in the pro-life movement, I’ve witnessed firsthand that sometimes visceral disgust can convert a person from neutrality to opposing abortion from a heartfelt moral principle. History supports this in examples I could offer from the holocaust or the abolition of slavery. Thankfully, many have been shocked into reality. Some we save with compassion, and others with fear. It’s not either/or; it’s both/and. It’s visceral disgust and heartfelt moral principles that are needed. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to this ministry. The shock effect is never to further the cause, but always to save a life.
You raise a valid point and are right that perceived brutality does not make abortion immoral. Chemical abortions are no less brutal than surgical abortions. An abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy is equally abhorrent as an abortion in the third trimester. And abortion by any method at any stage of pregnancy should prompt visceral disgust.
This was the dilemma we ran into when promoting the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Should abortion be outlawed only because the unborn child feels pain at 20 weeks? Does this mean that it’s acceptable to kill a child in the womb before the pain receptors are formed and the thalamus has developed? These are valid questions, but again the answer is both/and not either/or. By all means we save some until the day when we can save all through an amendment to our constitution. Emotional arguments can change hearts. Children at 20 weeks do feel pain in neonatal surgery at levels 3 to 5 times greater than an adult. While abortion should be outlawed regardless of the pain felt by a child and we want to protect all children in the womb, we were able to ban all late term abortions and save thousands of lives on the argument of fetal pain.
Some people are converted by degrees. Conversion can be sudden but it can also be gradual. I’ve witnessed both. Heartfelt morality in respect for life at all stages is our goal, and sometimes visceral disgust is the thing that start someone on that path of understanding. When Kermit Gosnell was indicted for killing live born babies with scissors, there was a public outcry. Not on moral principle but on emotional argument. I remember thinking, “Is this any less barbaric than an abortion with surgical instruments?” You and I get this. Was the brutality of the Amistad any worse than the injustices suffered on an obscure plantation? No, but God used the story of the Amistad to advance the slowly turning tide of public opinion. My bottom line is that it ALL works together for good. Blessings, and thank you for your pro-life position.
As I point out in “The Case for Life,” The question is not, Are the pictures shocking? They are. The real question is, Are the pictures true? If so, they ought to be admitted as evidence. We ought to avoid empty appeals to emotion, those offered in place of good reasons. If, however, the pictures substantiate the reasons I am offering and do not obscure them, they serve a vital purpose. Truth is the issue.
This is precisely the point feminist (and abortion-choice advocate) Naomi Wolf makes in a New Republic article:
“The pro-choice movement often treats with contempt the pro-lifers’ practice of holding up to our faces their disturbing graphics….[But] 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 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 with 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 is unworthy of feminism.”
Indeed, educators universally acknowledge the value of graphic visuals when used in educational settings. High school students, for example, are routinely shown grisly pictures of the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Images of mutilated bodies stacked like cordwood communicate the horror of the death camps in a way no lecture can. In fact, the producers of “Schindler’s List” donated a copy of the film to every high school in America, in spite of its graphic content. At the same time, movie theaters provided free screenings (during school hours) to over 2,000,000 students in 40 states.
Faculty acknowledged the disturbing images, but argued that students would not fully understand the holocaust unless they saw it. As noted television critic Howard Rosenberg wrote in the Los Angeles Times, “Although almost too horrid to watch, these segments are absolutely essential.” The same can be said about teaching the controversial histories of the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement. Teaching the abortion holocaust with any less academic rigor is intellectually dishonest. If students are mature enough for “Schindler’s List,” they can certainly view a one-minute abortion film.
For what it’s worth, I’m pro-choice and genuinely disturbed by the images.
The reason I’m not pro-life is the pro-life position that late-stage abortion and the morning-after pill are ethically equivalent. I can understand how Christians believe abortion to be murder at any time after fertilization, but that position is unlikely to be shared by those who don’t share their mythology. (And for what it’s worth, the Christian view that abortion is murder from the moment of fertilization is relatively recent, dating from the 1970s if I recall correctly.)
In other words, there are many people who would take your side of the argument, but can’t because we don’t believe a group of cells should be considered “human”. In finding a middle ground, we’d be on your side.
[...] Opening the Casket on Abortion by Scott Klusendorf — Posted on Justin Taylor’s blog, Between Two Worlds. [...]
I believe that the folks at http://www.abortionno.org have been working for a while toward this end.