In Defense of Using Graphic Images to Protest Abortion on Campus
Mairead Mcardle of The College Fix tells us why the use of graphic images in pro-life protests is supremely effective:
Why I Use Graphic Images to Protest Abortion
Boise State University was sued recently for requiring pro-life students to use warning signs when they protest abortion on campus with graphic images of aborted babies.
You know the ones – they are not easy to look at. They are real photos of murdered children, and they look like just that: blood, dismembered parts, lifeless faces.
Why would we use such images? We do so because those horrific photos so many prolifers use, including myself, are effective.
Women going into clinics have stopped in their tracks upon seeing the images and changed their minds. Many have later told pro-life workers that the disturbing pictures portraying the truth about abortion were the sole thing that convinced them to turn around and have their babies.
I have heard the argument (from people on both sides) that the graphic pictures are counterproductive because they make people angry at us and harden them even more.
Certainly, they make many people furious. One time a young college student even came up to my group and started crying and yelling at us, claiming that she had been raped and had had an abortion.
Many have heard of the feminist studies professor at UC Santa Barbara who stormed off with a teenage prolifer’s sign last semester. I was among that group of prolife protesters on campus that day, and we dared to hold graphic signs showing what abortion is, causing the professor to throw herself into, literally, a rage.
It is not the photos that upset them, though (after all, it is not a baby, remember?).
The hard truth of abortion thrust in front of them is what sets people off. The photos do not harden people against the pro-life cause; they only give them a run for their money…and deeply unsettle them.
Comments
I would understand, perhaps, at my alma mater, which even though technically non-sectarian, does not, for example, advertise condoms. But at the typical University that publically displays pictures of sexual organs, descriptions of sexual practices, and “sextoys” – banning such pictures is nothing but a thinly disguised (and successful) attempt to squelch the other side of the debate. Same for in the media.