Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Graphic Images - Controversial but Necessary

The video below has been removed by YouTube. It amazes me that all forms of media allow and permit pornography of all kinds, but they refuse to show abortion. Connect the dots - pornography is a major contributor to the breakdown of sexual morality and therefore it increases the need for abortion. Our society simply cannot live without abortion, because it is necessary to clean up the debris of sexual licentiousness. So don't let anyone fool you by saying that showing the facts about abortion is offensive - the real reason they don't want it shown is because they have to have abortion available to maintain their lifestyles.

As for CCBR's use of trucks to show the reality of abortion to the people of Calgary, I think the removal of this video by YouTube shows exactly that they must be doing something right. This video has been pulled for the very same reasons that objections are made to CCBR's use of graphic imagery: both hit too close to the truth and people are uncomfortable with that. All the more reason for why they must continue what they are doing. Abortion should make people terribly uncomfortable; it is only when people feel truly sickened by it, that we are going to see them brave enough to do something to stop it.



"The pictures are graphic because abortion is graphic."

"Injustice that is invisible, inevitably becomes tolerable." - Greg Cunningham

"Injustice that is made visible, inevitably becomes intolerable." - Stephanie Gray, Executive Director of CCBR

"If abortion is too horrible to view, then perhaps it is too horrible to tolerate." - Stephanie Gray

"I think this project really pricks people in their conscience, whether they be pro-life or pro-abortion because it shows the pro-aborts what they have to defend, the pictures don't lie, and it shows the pro-lifers what they've been tolerating all this time...
Are we responding to this atrocity, 100,000 killed Canadian citizens every year, the same way as if 100,000 new-borns or toddlers were being killed every year? And if the answer is no, then at some level, we're not equating the unborn as fully human as the born." - driver of the truck with the graphic images

"With almost 300 children being killed every day, pro-lifers can't just wait for Canadians to want to get educated about abortion. We need to force the debate open." - Stephanie Gray

I think she is absolutely right. Just today, I was speaking with a priest who was saying that being pro-life has to be part of the "seamless garment" of Christian theology. Where did I read just recently that that argument is deeply flawed? It was the argument used by Obama when he addressed the graduates at Notre Dame; it is the logic used by the clergy to avoid speaking about abortion clearly to their congregations. The logic is flawed; imagine if that logic had been used in the days of William Wilberforce - when you make the comparison between abortion and slavery, you realise how flawed this reasoning is. It continues to keep abortion hidden and tolerated; this rhetoric is "safe", and when people speak like this about the injustice of abortion, they avoid the reality of what is occurring - that real children are really being killed.

Note: in re-reading this, I realised that I hadn't even said what the "seamless garment" thinking is.

...the consistent ethic/seamless garment rationale first emerged under that name a decade and a half later, proposed by the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago. He adopted the approach in the early 1980s in order to make the case that concern about the fundamental value of human life ought to predispose advocates of various life-related issues -- from forestalling abortion to ending capital punishment to cleaning up the environment -- to form a united front of commitment to the sanctity and quality of life in a variety of contexts.
In case you wonder, that's the error which supposes -- or pretends to suppose -- that if some issue (curbing pollution, let's say) can be lined up more or less convincingly under the heading "human life," it carries the same moral weight as any of its cousins grouped under the same heading (abortion, euthanasia, whatever).

This reasoning then supplies the basis for a simplistic counting exercise: If Candidate A takes the side of life on eight issues and Candidate B does the same on fifteen, then B obviously is the authentic pro-life candidate -- and never mind that A's issues include abortion and euthanasia and B's do not. That fantasy calculus is sometimes used in the ongoing abortion wars and lately has provided a significant part of the reasoning of Catholics who support President Barack Obama.
- Russell Shaw, InsideCatholic.com, 8/17/09
Rethinking the Seamless Garment

While the idea of a "seamless garment" of life issues sounds really good, what I have noticed is that those who support this thinking always seem to be rather wishy-washy when asked to speak clearly on an issue. And wishy-washy always equals luke-warm, and remember the words of Scripture about being spat out of someone's mouth

No comments: