The final chapter in the abortion series. I promise.
So I put together a more or less concise version of what's been said around here lately and fired it off to the Omega. I think it's mostly a rehash of what I wrote, but some of what hexkitten or melly_gloworm said might have snuck in there in an altered form. (Your royalty cheques are in the mail.)
So, for anyone who isn't sick of the topic by now, here is
Dear Omega,
I was impressed by Leah Smeaton’s response to the anti-abortion display, and in particular by the following statement:
"...shock value is a deceitful form of persuasion. Women (and girls) pursue abortion as a solution for some situations even more graphic than the images that were displayed."
This presents some intriguing possibilities. I had previously defended the display on the grounds that it was an accurate portrayal of what abortion really looks like - if the consequences of our actions are too horrible to stomach, I said, maybe they are not as harmless as we like to believe.
Leah’s point made me reconsider. The pictures may be accurate in what they show, but what do they leave out? What disturbing images lie behind some of those photos, visible only in the nightmares of the would-have-been mothers? Collectively, perhaps they can be compared to a genocide, but individually, each represents something more personal and immediate to a unknown woman somewhere. If the circumstances that drove her to seek an abortion could have been similarly captured on film and displayed on a five foot board for the world to see, would the images have been even more appalling?
I wonder what the effect would have been of such a display, one that connected each dead foetus to depictions of the agonizing helplessness, the frustration, and the desperation it represented to its mother. Although impossible, such a display would have been more holistically "Pro Life" - concerned not only with securing the right to be born, but the right to have a life worth living. It would have revealed that abortion is horrible, but that it is a horrible symptom of a society that doesn’t care. Greed, cruelty, selfish exploitation, abuse, neglect, hate, spite, viciousness... these are the disease.
Abortion can’t erase the memory or heal the trauma. It won’t resolve the situation, relieve the grief, or mend the broken hearts and lives. Again, abortion is the symptom, not the cure. But who can say to a woman that having an abortion is an ineffective response to the disease that infects our lives, that creates situations so hellish that such a brutality can seem the only viable option?
No one can, not without offering a cure. I'm reasonably certain that Love is that cure, by which I mean a genuine “Pro Life” outlook - an enthusiastic desire to better the human experience for as many people as possible; a daily attempt to counter the infection of greed with generosity, and of cruelty with kindness; a selfless effort to contribute to others’ self-worth and enjoyment of life with openness, acceptance, friendship, and random acts of kindness; and, in all things, to the extent that one is able, a determination to make life not just available to all, but worthwhile for all.
Yours,
The ever idealistic,
Joel.
So, for anyone who isn't sick of the topic by now, here is
Dear Omega,
I was impressed by Leah Smeaton’s response to the anti-abortion display, and in particular by the following statement:
"...shock value is a deceitful form of persuasion. Women (and girls) pursue abortion as a solution for some situations even more graphic than the images that were displayed."
This presents some intriguing possibilities. I had previously defended the display on the grounds that it was an accurate portrayal of what abortion really looks like - if the consequences of our actions are too horrible to stomach, I said, maybe they are not as harmless as we like to believe.
Leah’s point made me reconsider. The pictures may be accurate in what they show, but what do they leave out? What disturbing images lie behind some of those photos, visible only in the nightmares of the would-have-been mothers? Collectively, perhaps they can be compared to a genocide, but individually, each represents something more personal and immediate to a unknown woman somewhere. If the circumstances that drove her to seek an abortion could have been similarly captured on film and displayed on a five foot board for the world to see, would the images have been even more appalling?
I wonder what the effect would have been of such a display, one that connected each dead foetus to depictions of the agonizing helplessness, the frustration, and the desperation it represented to its mother. Although impossible, such a display would have been more holistically "Pro Life" - concerned not only with securing the right to be born, but the right to have a life worth living. It would have revealed that abortion is horrible, but that it is a horrible symptom of a society that doesn’t care. Greed, cruelty, selfish exploitation, abuse, neglect, hate, spite, viciousness... these are the disease.
Abortion can’t erase the memory or heal the trauma. It won’t resolve the situation, relieve the grief, or mend the broken hearts and lives. Again, abortion is the symptom, not the cure. But who can say to a woman that having an abortion is an ineffective response to the disease that infects our lives, that creates situations so hellish that such a brutality can seem the only viable option?
No one can, not without offering a cure. I'm reasonably certain that Love is that cure, by which I mean a genuine “Pro Life” outlook - an enthusiastic desire to better the human experience for as many people as possible; a daily attempt to counter the infection of greed with generosity, and of cruelty with kindness; a selfless effort to contribute to others’ self-worth and enjoyment of life with openness, acceptance, friendship, and random acts of kindness; and, in all things, to the extent that one is able, a determination to make life not just available to all, but worthwhile for all.
Yours,
The ever idealistic,
Joel.