An abortion clinic director's letter last Tuesday blasted pro-lifers for passing out
pictures of "stillbirths" outside her abortion mill.
First of all, where would these pro-lifers get stillborn babies to photograph?
Stillborn babies would either be sent to a funeral home for embalming and burial, or they
would be cremated in the hospital. There are, after all, legal and medical requirements to
be met regarding stillbirths.
Additionally, if those dead babies are really stillborn children, not aborted children,
how does the clinic director explain the wounds?
The best question, however, is this: If abortion is such a good thing that it should be
a "fundamental constitutional right," why wouldn't those abortion photos be
beautiful to her? Shouldn't they fill her with a sense of pride and satisfaction that the
right thing is being done?
If abortions are a good thing, those photographs would be in abortion clinic ads.
Planned Parenthood would distribute them door-to-door. The National Organization for Women
would have posters of them in their offices.
If abortion isn't wrong, then there is no reason to oppose the photographs. If abortion
isn't wrong, the photos should be used as evidence of what an enlightened and progressive
society we are.
Of course, the reason pro-choice people are so disgusted by the photographs is that
they show a reality they'd rather ignore: that abortion is killing babies, that it is
brutal and violent, and that it is evil.
Which leaves me to wonder why pro-choicers condemn the pictures while applauding the
Our mayor is calling for a ban on pictures of aborted babies being displayed in public.
He claims that the pictures are a public nuisance.
Next time the mayor sees one of those dead-baby pictures, he ought to think. Those
pictures show what abortionists do to babies right here in our city. If someone did the
same thing to a dog, we'd be horrified.
The truth is, he and many other people don't want to be reminded that those pictures
show a reality that happens every day. It is the height of hypocrisy to object to the
pictures of dead babies, but not object to the dead babies.
This newspaper has been full of letters lately condemning the recent pro-life
advertising insert. Most letters complain that the photographs of unborn babies are
"misleading and emotional."
I'll let a pro-choicer respond:
In her recently released book, Naomi Wolf stated that "those photographs are in
fact photographs of actual D&Cs; those footprints are in fact the footprints of a
10-week-old fetus; the pro-life slogan, 'Abortion stops a beating heart,' is
incontrovertibly true. While images of violent fetal death work magnificently for
pro-lifers as political polemic, the pictures are not polemical in themselves: they are
biological facts. We know this." She also said, "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 height of hypocrisy...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."
In other words, if you can't take the reality--that abortion is chopping up a live
baby--you have no business defending it.