Where the Rubber Hits the Road: Do graphic anti-abortion posters cross a moral line? | Holy Post

08 October, 2010

Do graphic anti-abortion posters cross a moral line? | Holy Post | National Post

8 comments:

Lady Janus08 October, 2010
I do not see this as a "moral" argument, because "morality" is not universal, and anyone who appeals to "morality" as a basis for "right" or "wrong" loses my interest in seeing/hearing anything further. They get dismissed out of hand as being entirely irrelevant.

I don't object to displays such as this on the grounds of some "right" that does not exist. I object to it on the grounds that the protesters want to be allowed to get in my face while I'm forced to stand there and accept that they're allowed to scream filthy names at me without my being allowed any recourse. If they wanna call me names, they better go do it somewhere else, 'cause if they do it in my face, I'm gonna whack them on the nose with a newspaper like the ill-mannered puppies they are.

Mark Tawse-Smith almost made a good point, but what that Carlton group was after was not "shock and awe" but revulsion and disgust. Sorry, peeps, I've gutted entirely too many fish and game animals to be either revolted or disgusted by the purportedly "real" display of what they're pleased to call "gore." I have, in my time, literally been up to my elbows in it, and I can tell y'all...realblood does not look that bright. FAIL.
ReplyDelete
Fr. Tim Moyle08 October, 2010
Lady Janus: For me, I keep coming back to that old saying that 'freedom of speech means defending the right of someone to say something I hate'.

I don't really see it as a 'right' - they have that. For me, it's a question of good taste, politeness, manners and civility. Alas all these are entirely subjective.

Hell I remember my mother's shock when she first saw an ad for tampons on TV. At the time, it was quite the issue. Now, I won't be surprised if soon there's an ad that demonstrates how to use it!

Times and tastes change. We better get used to it.

Fr. Tim
ReplyDelete
Lady Janus08 October, 2010
Yes, I agree with your definition, Tim; but I take it a little further: the right to freedom of speech does not guarantee the right to make everyone else listen.

The Carlton group were offered an alternative venue. They threw it back at the university. They were not so much concerned with being able to speak freely as they were in forcing others (who clearly are uninterested) to pay atention to them, and that right does not exist.

Tampon ads -- LOL! My grandmother nearly fainted! My father just eased himself out of the room. And my brother stood transfixed, wondering what other female mysteries were about to be presented for the further agitation of his pre-teen hormones! Mom and I got a chuckle out of all that. I don't really remember the first ads being very specific, at all. Woefully short of useful information, in fact. Still, as far as breaking down the matter-of-factness of biology, they had their place.
ReplyDelete
Julie C09 October, 2010
I had a conversation with the man who was the crown prosecutor here in NS when Morgentaler was trying to get his clinic funded. He said he had been given a tour of the abortion clinic as part of his background on the case, and when he saw the plastic clear bottles at the end of each bed, he asked the nurse "does this not bother you?" and her reply was "only when I see hands and feet."
Seeing what abortion actually does is necessary. As for the article stating that seeing this will just make us insensitive to it, how will this happen when these students are prevented from having their GAP displays?
ReplyDelete
Lady Janus09 October, 2010
Julie, that was one answer from one nurse. She did not -- and cannot -- speak for any other nurse. It's entirely possible that ten other nurses simply shrugged off the question, but their answers were not what the prosecutor was looking for, so they didn't get reported. And IF it had bothered that one nurse all that much, she would not have been working in that clinic in the first place.

As for "seeing" what abortion "actually" does -- why not conduct a public tour of all medical prcedures? 'Cause I guarantee you that anyone watching open-heart surgery or brain surgery, or even an appendectomy, will be just as disgusted as he would be with abortion, and in the case of the appendectomy, possibly even more disgusted, if the appendix ruptures.

And show me where it says the students were prevented from having their displays.
ReplyDelete
Julie C10 October, 2010
Being shuttled off to a room where no one passes is preventing them having their display. Other groups would not be treated this way, and that is the students' point.

Re other surgeries: they are all on television for people to see, but not abortion. Why? because somehow most of us feel disgust when we see a life being extinguished. Other procedures never do what abortion does - they never terminate the life of a living being, they are all dealing with parts of the person. Abortion however, does not remove a diseased organ, or repair a faulty heart, comparing abortion to other medical procedures fails in one big aspect - there is another life there that is being ended.
ReplyDelete
Anonymous10 October, 2010
As I mentioned in a previous post, these pictures and signs do have an effect on some people. While I do not personally believe these graphic images should be used, I know first-hand they are VERY EFFECTIVE!

If it convinces even one person, it has served its purpose.

Cliff
ReplyDelete
Lady Janus10 October, 2010
"Being shuttled off to a room where no one passes is preventing them having their display. Other groups would not be treated this way, and that is the students' point."

First point: wrong. No one was being prevented from viewing what they wanted to view. Second point: wrong. Other groups are frequently "treated" exactly the same. The use of PRIVATE PROPERTY is completely and utterly at the discretion of, and prioritized by, the OWNER. The university was not under any obligation at all to provide any space at all, but they offered -- and were rudely refused -- a venue for the display. I saw and heard the video. My own eyes and ears, darlin'. A video that was shot and posted by one of your own people.

And if other surgical proceedures are shown on television (I wouldn't know; I don't watch television), then there's nothing wrong with showing surgical abortions, either. Why it doesn't (IF it doesn"t) get shown, I have no idea. But I rather doubt it's because they think it's "immoral" in some way (I also doubt they'd think of a fetus as a "living being," but you'd have to ASK them). More likely, they simply want to avoid all the howling that would ensue from hysterical mobs of fetus fanatics.
ReplyDelete