Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Do Graphic Signs Work?

"One thing is clear. Pro-lifers dispute the power and effectiveness of using abortion pictures to change hearts and minds. Pro-aborts do not."

Anti-Choice Project - pro-lifers with graphic signs surprise Planned Parenthood supporters at a rally. It seems that, when faced with graphic evidence of abortion, pro-aborts have to cover them up.

A comment on the previous post about the Alberta bishops, from Melissa, was deleted by Blogger. So I will summarize it here. Melissa said that she sided with the bishops in this case, because the Alberta March for Life has been taken over by people carrying huge graphic signs. In a march of about 400, the graphic signs are front and centre to the exclusion of other signs. I can see Melissa's point and that is a shame that one group has predominance. The March is supposed to include everyone of all stripes, who are pro-life, without any single group predominating. We all come at this issue from different angles and there is a need to discern how to accommodate one another. If the graphic signs really are taking over the Alberta march, then I would have to concur with Melissa's viewpoint that the bishops could be right to stay away. It's too bad.

There really is a time and place for graphic signs. I personally don't want them on street corners for unsuspecting passersby to view, but the GAP demonstration on campus is entirely appropriate. If university students can't face the photos of what abortion does, and be able to discuss it, then they really aren't ready for the rigours of higher education.

One statement that strikes me as ridiculous is that signs of beautiful babies should be used to protest abortion, rather than photos of dismembered ones. That is as appropriate and effective as showing photos of Jewish boys at their bar mitzvah celebrations in order to depict what happened to the Jews in the holocaust.

No comments: