Should We Use Graphic Images?
by 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.
- 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.
- 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."
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
|
