Should We Use Graphic Images?
Rev. Frank A. Pavone
National Director, Priests For Life
Should graphic photos of babies who
have been killed by abortion be used by pro-lifers who demonstrate on public
sidewalks?
Even among those who oppose abortion, answers to this question vary. The
dispute was recently brought to my attention again by a news article describing
the concern of residents of a certain area that the graphic photos used by local
pro-lifers disturbed the children.
I have demonstrated against abortion on the public sidewalks of almost every
major city in America. I have used graphic images and have watched their effect.
I am convinced they should be used, and here are some of the reasons.
1) The word abortion has lost practically all its meaning. Not even the most
vivid description, in words alone, can adequately convey the horror of this act
of violence. Abortion is sugar-coated by rhetoric which hides its gruesome
nature. The procedure is never shown in the media. Too many people remain either
in ignorance or denial about it, and hence too few are moved to do something to
stop it. Graphic images are needed. A picture is worth a thousand words -- and
in this battle, it can be worth many lives as well.
2) Graphic images of abortion have saved lives. One example is a letter I
have from Violet Sherringford of New
Jersey, who went to an abortion facility and found pro-life protesters there.
"The posters they displayed, though very graphic, did succeed in bringing me
back to reality and in conveying the horrible mutilation and dismemberment
inflicted on the unborn child.... I decided to have the baby. It was the best
decision I ever will make."
3) We use graphic images to save lives from other kinds of violence - I've
seen graphic drawing by first and second graders accompanied by the words "Drugs
Kill"." I've seen smashed cars put on public display with the sign, "Drunk
Driving Kills." The LA Times 7/8/95 reported an effort at Jefferson High School
to stop street violence. Freshmen were shown slide after slide of victims blown
apart by bullets. The anti-war movement in America was given momentum in the
early '70's by a famous photo of a napalmed girl. Efforts to save the starving
have been spurred on by images of malnourished children. The examples can go on
and on.
4) The fact that the use of such images is disturbing does not mean such use
is wrong. The free-speech rights guaranteed under the First Amendment apply even
to speech which is disturbing, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld (see
The Right to Protest,
ACLU: Gora et al .). Such disturbance is part of the price we pay for freedom.
People might also be disturbed, annoyed, and upset by the blaring sirens of an
ambulance rushing through the neighborhood. Yet the noise serves a purpose:
People's lives are at stake, and the ambulance must be given the right of way.
5) I too am concerned about little children who see graphic images. I am also
concerned about the littler children those images depict. The key factor that
will make the difference in how children react to seeing anything disturbing is
the role of their parents, who are present in a loving and comforting way,
answering their questions and calming their fears. But to say that the presence
of children in a neighborhood forbids the use of graphic images leads to an
absurd conclusion, for what neighborhoods have no children? Is free speech to be
limited to adult-only communities? And even then, what is to be done for the
adults who complain?
It seems to me, furthermore, that if we find it difficult to explain images
of abortion to our children we will find it even more difficult to explain why
we didn't do more to stop abortion itself. The bottom line is that if graphic
images of abortion are too terrible to look at, then the abortions themselves
are too terrible to tolerate. We need to expose the injustice, and then direct
our displeasure toward those allow the injustice to continue, not toward those
who speak against it.
Following is a letter on this same topic:
July 20, 1995
Dear Editor,
"There are no charts, no words, that can convey what these photographs can,"
argued prosecutor Brian Kelberg in a regent dispute over whether photos of the
slashed murder victims could be shown to O.J. Simpson's jurors.
The defense had argued that the photos were too distressing and sickening,
and should not be shown. Charts and diagrams were suggested as an alternative.
But the judge allowed the photos.
Similar concern was raised in a Congressional Subcommittee hearing in June
when diagrams of the partial-birth abortion procedure showed how scissors are
placed in the child's head prior to its exit from the birth canal. Some raised a
complaint that it was inappropriate to show the brutal diagrams in the halls of
Congress. (Never mind that the reality is allowed, just don't show the
drawings.) This incident in Congress reminded me of the scene in the movie
Judgment at Nuremburg where the films of the Nazi atrocities were actually
shown in Court. When the film ended and the lights came back on, the defense
argued that it was not appropriate to show the films in court.
Social evils cannot be addressed unless they are faced. Denial gets us
nowhere. "These photographs show what happened to these two people," Mr. Kelberg
correctly stated. It's time more people saw the photos and films of what has
happened to some 30 million babies by abortion. Anyone willing to defend
abortion ought to be willing to see one, and those who fight abortion ought to
be willing to expose it. Only then will enough people feel the appropriate sense
of outrage needed to make the sacrifices necessary to end this injustice.
Prudence must be used in all things, but prudence also involves enduring
discomfort in order to root out evil. Just ask Violet, who wrote to a Catholic
paper a few years ago, and said that on her way to get an abortion she saw
graphic posters that brought her "back to reality." She decided to have her
baby. She said, "It was the best decision I will ever make."
Sincerely,
Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director
More On Graphic Images
