Regarding Abortion and the Media?

Question

Is the reason that the leftist/liberal media supresses images of aborted babies that they know it could set off a firestorm against abortion?

I saw a special on PBS about child labor in America. Large pictures were brought into a congressional hearing about the issue (a new tactic in the early 20th century, though pictures are commonplace now) of kids tied to their machines in factories. This caused an outcry from many lawmakers and soon child labor was outlawed.

In the 60's, people were apathetic about civil rights in the south, but when images of blacks being fire-hosed by white cops hit the living rooms of America, Americans began to become aware of the injustices in the south.

Who could say what the effect of real pictures of murdered innocent babies would have on the abortion debate? I challenge you: Go to Google, and do an image search on "abortion". The gruesome results will rock you back on your heels.

Who thinks this is why mainstream news suppresses these images?

Answer 1

Correct

Answer 2

A lot of those images are misrepresented to the point that calling them fakes would be more fair. That said, when I took developmental biology, the professor warned everyone who was pro-choice that they probably wouldn't be able to consider choosing abortion after they took the class and knew the facts. He was right--while I wouldn't put the alive-not alive line at conception, it is certainly nowhere near birth! (I'd put it at the start of cell differentation--in practical terms, a morning after pill wouldn't be any different than birth control, but would certainly be a small child and not a potential child after a very short time--less than one month.)

Not that it matters. Logic has never been a part of this debate. No one even looks at the science of embryology to decide it. They make up their mind where life begins for irrelevant reasons (a preacher told them, a feminist told them, what kind of life will that child have?, if you were in heaven. . ., people will do it anyway--don't you want them to be safe). No one cares about the truth, or answering the only important question--is this a human being yet or not?

Obviously, if it isn't a baby, women should have every right to the procedure and if it is a baby, they obviously have no right to end someone else's life because they choose to. Prolifers and prochoicers are all full of it.

Answer 3

Sad that what several people here have called "blobs of tissue" have very clearly defined arms, legs, hands and even tiny fingers and toes.

If they aren't human, what are they? There's no in between.

A picture is worth a thousand words. It won't soften every heart, but it can definitely do some good. There's never anything wrong with showing people the facts....the truth.

And the truth is....abortion is gruesome and terminates a life.

Pax Vobiscum+

Answer 4

Yes, they can't risk letting photographs disturb the "pro-choice" consensus.

It is important for people to see what "pro-choice" really means, just as it was important in the 1960s for people to see the images of lynchings, and for people in the 1940s to experience the grim reality of the Nazi death camps. In the mid-nineteenth century, it was important to experience the reality of slavery by reading Uncle Tom's Cabin.

Here's a challenge to the pro-death crowd: Publish the photos, and then explain that they aren't really babies, and they weren't really alive.

Cheers,
Bruce

Answer 5

Actually, that's how I knew that pro-life protesters had those pictures -- the so-called liberal media covered it in an hour-long special on Frontline, plus the movie "Unborn in America" aired on public TV.

Answer 6

Is the reason that the Right Wing media supresses images of explicit sex is that they know it could set off a firestorm against sex?

We can plug any world issue into that statement and it would hold just as much credibility as your original statement.

I say- televise an abortion. Simple- someone goes on television, and they show the ENTIRE process. They show ultrasound images of the mass of cells, then the procedure, and the remains. I think that would put a LOT of minds at ease in this subject.

I'm lovin' it.

Answer 7

Outlawing child labor based on a photograph is bad policy. Raising awareness with a photograph so that an issue is fully investigated and then passing a law based on those findings is a differnet story.

A lot of attention has been raised by pictures of aborted fetuses. I don't think there is anyone who hasn't seen them. Yet, still, 70% of the population favors some degree of safe legal abortion. Maybe because they have seen what happens when it is not allowed and that is more shocking than the pictures of bloody fetuses.

Answer 8

Most likely.... people get so angry when you show them pictures of aborted babies. someones paying the media, it is not i.

Answer 9

They are willing to show just about every other gory, inhumane, disgusting image to boost their ratings. They don't show this because the people couldn't stomach it and would simply change the channel or turn it off.

Answer 10

I'd imagine it's because mutilated fetuses are a bit more graphic than child labor or hosed people. That's not exactly appropriate for a mixed audience, e.g. out in public.

Personally, I think those images make aborted babies seem less human.