Page 10, 7th December 2007

7th December 2007
Page 10
Page 10, 7th December 2007 — We don't need gore to show the horror of abortion

Report an error

Noticed an error on this page?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it.


Organisations: Foundation for Life
Locations: London


Related articles

We Should Not Be Restrained By 'good Taste'

Page 11 from 14th December 2007

We Should Not Be Restrained By 'good Taste'

Page 13 from 14th December 2007

Shocking Images Will Not Bring An End To Abortion

Page 12 from 29th October 2010

Horror Over Abortions For Minor Disabilities

Page 6 from 2nd June 2006

Helping The Russian Pro-life Cause

Page 6 from 2nd February 2001

We don't need gore to show the horror of abortion

Shock tactics and gruesome images will not help the pro-life cause, says Joanna Jepson friend of mine recently showed me a picture. ft was of a man with a rucksack over his shoulder about to cross the road as another man grabs the rucksack from behind him in what looks like a case of daylight robbery. The picture is then unfolded to show the rest of the scene: an articulated lorry rumbles down the road towards the man as he crosses it and we see that far from being an opportunistic criminal the second man is actually in the process of saving a life. Yes, pictures do tell different stories and, yes, they certainly can mislead.

I recently saw a photograph of an aborted baby's head or perhaps I should stick to the technical term `foetus' and not mislead people with emotive language held by forceps over a jar. Perhaps you know the one I mean. Apparently it has been well circulated on the international pro-life scene since it was taken in 1987.

Next to the head are some vital statistics which claim that the gestational age is somewhere in the third trimester, which would explain why she (also documented is that this tiny one was female) has so much hair. However, medical opinion suggests that, given the size of the forceps compared to the head it is extremely unlikely this is the head of a third trimester baby. Now I'm not a doctor or a scientist but, ignoring my clerical collar, I'm probably representative of the kind of young woman that those folk at Foundation for Life were aiming to reach with the sickening postcard of this tiny dismembered head.

The image undoubtedly tells a story about the gruesome reality of abortion but these kinds of pictures and associated websites also tell another story about the people who promulgate them. Tracing this particular postcard back to its organisation I came across an American website called Abortion Truth. At first glance its bornepage appeared more like some homemade teenage Dracula-fest website.

The page is animated, so that blood appears to be pouring down the page and features anomalous ghoulish chains. The "abortion truth", it seems, just isn't bad enough without naive horror graphics. The site presents not only disturbing pictures of abortion remains, but an equally discomforting idea of what pro-lifers are like.

These shock tactics suggest some antiabortion campaigners are more interested in exploiting the gore than engaging in a debate on a moral, scientific or medical level. The fact is that the argument against abortion doesn't rest on the distressing aftermath of the procedure. Pro-lifers don't disagree with abortion because of what it looks like but because of what it does. Terminating human life is morally abhorrent. If we follow the arguments put forward by those who parade shock photos of 24-week old aborted remains then what are people to conclude? That abortion at seven weeks is OK because it doesn't look as bad?

Reliance on these photographs risks undermining the attempt to win over public opinion not just because of the potentially disreputable association it creates around anti-abortion campaigners. It is only part of the argument and it is naive to think that the issue can be solved by producing ever more gruesome evidence of late abortions in order to shock and frighten women. It is like trying to answer someone's question in a different language: the message simply won't get through.

In an increasingly visual culture photographs are necessary but it is vital that they are used with an appropriate moral and medical purpose within the debate. They need to ensure recognition of a reality that would otherwise be too easy to hide under clinical terminology, rather than functioning as an indiscriminate broadcast which pays little heed to the particularities of the current debate. Thrusting a pamphlet displaying a series of dismembered baby's body parts into people's hands as they walk down the high street is more likely to rankle than recruit a new campaigner to the cause. Why? Because being invaded with these kind of photographs leaves us with a sense that we have been exploited. It is easy for the undecided to perceive hysteria in the random and gratuitous broadcast of bloody images the man featured in the programme "My Foetus" who drives his lorry around with photos of aborted babies emblazoned on every side springs to mind.

At the moment the debate in the United Kingdom is focused on gestational age limits for abortion. Twelve weeks, 20 weeks, 24 weeks, birth: it is easy for numbers.of weeks to be bandied around without the public being any the wiser about what this looks like in terms of physical development. This is the question that is being asked in the public domain and abortion photographs are an important and rational expression of the scientific and medical facts. Used judiciously, as a response to the moral discomfort over late abortion, photographs can tell the truth.

Moreover, in the case of Professor Stuart Campbell's 3D ultrasound images, the photographs partly led to moral questions over late abortion being raised in the first place. Possibly because there was no underlying sense of a shock-tactic agenda these photographs have become a powerful force in changing public opinion about abortion. Perhaps it is their joyful beauty and the wonder they evoke, but their subsequent use within a Philips advertising campaign further shows how the truth speaks for itself.

The reality is that both sides of the abortion debate are constantly trying to establish their own picture of abortion in the public's mind. Language can fashion that picture in equally disturbing ways as photographs. When abortion clinics reassure a client that was is being removed is "just a clump of cells" it is a photograph of the eight-week-old life inside her that can sharpen an understanding of such a misleading definition.

When pro-abortion campaigners celebrate women's freedom of choice I think of the woman I met in the hospital waiting room, crying in despair over the choice her partner had given her between him or her unborn twins one of which had suspected Downs Syndrome.

In debates in which I've taken part I may well hear my opponent speak as though there is nothing to justify the judgment and shame surrounding women's choice to abort. Yet there will almost certainly be reference to the painful, heavy and difficult decision-making process that their abortion clinics counsel women through. How, if abortion is such a safe and morally acceptable procedure, can this be so? Listen carefully and one begins to see that the pictures painted in words by the pro-abortion lobby are often inconsistent and untruthful.

The pro-life movement has no need to resort to hideous and gratuitously shocking images to make its point. That's because the argument is not about how bloody or baby-like the unborn is when it is sucked from the womb, it is the fact that we as a country sanction the practice of killing a mother's offspring within her womb at all.

The Rev Joanna Jepson is vicar of St Peter's, in Fulham, west London

blog comments powered by Disqus