Lungs Are One Thing.....But An Abortion Truck?

B.C. blogger John Sutherland, writing on his johnonlife blog, offered some viewpoint yesterday on the CCBR “abortion truck” tactics.

John’s posting, entitled “Lungs are one thing.....but an abortion truck?” is an interesting read, with a very surprising, unexpected one-liner conclusion. Here’s some of what he had to say:

I thought of this incident when I opened last Saturday's National Post to p. A6, only to be greeted with the photo of a cube van covered with pictures of aborted fetuses. A group that rejoices in the name of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR) has taken to driving this van along Calgary's busiest streets with the aim of bringing home to drivers the implications of choosing to abort pre-born babies. It is not a pretty sight.

….snip

Not surprisingly, this venture has engendered the wrath of the National Abortion Federation, which accused the CCBR of using 'misleading images'. I'm not so sure about that. Given that the most common abortion procedure is to suck the fetuses out of the womb (gently, they assure us) using a suction tube that tears apart both the body and placenta and deposits them in a jar, I think that any pictures of abortions would look pretty bad.

But even some pro-life advocates have condemned the tactic, including Calgary's Catholic Bishop Fred Henry who says that this strategy "does more harm than good to the pro-life cause." The archbishop here in Vancouver shares this view.

Using arresting, even horrifying, pictures to either stop some practice or to motivate people to donate has been stock in trade for many organizations for years.

….snip

Seldom is the use of such images condemned. But pictures of the results of abortion appear to draw significant opprobrium from groups at various places on the pro-life, pro-choice, pro-abortion spectrum. I suppose the question is, should anyone condone their use? How are they different from lungs? [referring to anti-smoking campaigns].

If I can say anything in their favour, the images certainly obliterate the common myth that a young fetus is just a collection of cells. As anyone knows who has viewed more agreeable pictures of life in the womb, pre-born babies look pretty much human almost from the get go. Even at two months the fetus is forming teeth; fingers and toes are developing; ears, nose, lips and tongue can be seen; brain waves can be recorded--the fetus may even suck its thumb.

But if abortion is wrong, it is not because it is ugly. Open-heart surgery has little to commend itself as art either. The issue of the rightness or wrongness of aborting pre-born babies turns on the question of personhood. Is a fetus a genuine person that should be accorded the rights and privileges of personhood? If yes, then aborting it is homicide. If no, then it's not.

….snip

One paragraph later, John concludes his post with this somewhat astonishing statement:

With respect I say to the CCBR, don't distract from the real issue--personhood.

I guess I just wasn't expecting that conclusion! John deserved a comment for his effort in raising this all important issue with his readers so here’s the message I sent to him soon afterward.

Hi John,

Thanks for bringing some much needed attention and discussion to this controversy.

You said, “With respect I say to the CCBR, don't distract from the real issue--personhood.”

But John, you’ve missed the obvious. CCBR most certainly IS focusing on the real issue. Pictures of aborted fetuses speak most loudly to the humanity of the unborn. If these graphic images are not those of human beings, what are they? As you pointed out “If I can say anything in their favour, the images certainly obliterate the common myth that a young fetus is just a collection of cells. As anyone knows who has viewed more agreeable pictures of life in the womb, pre-born babies look pretty much human almost from the get go. Even at two months the fetus is forming teeth; fingers and toes are developing; ears, nose, lips and tongue can be seen…”

And unborn humans, being human beings, ARE persons. The pictures point precisely and immediately, if not instinctively, to the fact of personhood. Aside from the blood, why else are they so shocking to many? These are NOT pictures of collections of cells.

Would anyone deny today that the use of graphic pictures of the Holocaust might have saved many millions of Jews if they had been widely distributed and shown in the Western World immediately following the start of the horrors? Would discussions of the personhood of the Jews at that time, without the graphics, have achieved the same result?

The answer is all too obvious. There WERE voices proclaiming the plight of the Jews, just as there have been voices for forty years proclaiming the plight of the Unborn. But voices did not save the Jews—the voices were insufficient. Debate about the personhood of the Unborn is also insufficient. The argument for personhood is best encapsulated in an image, an image which is but a fleeting shadow and reminder of the true nature of the offense against the person.

From the CCBR’s website, in the Q & A section, is this pertinent passage:

"We recognize there are differences between abortion and the Holocaust just as there are differences between the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide. However, there are also significant similarities, one of them being that the victims are denied their personhood status. The victims of abortion, like the victims of the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide, are stripped of their value and viewed as sub-human, even animalistic. Jews were considered to be "vermin" and "parasites" and Tutsis were called "cockroaches." Today that dehumanizing sentiment remains, only it is directed towards a different group: the unborn.”

John, thanks again for blogging on this. We’ve been doing quite a bit of blogging ourselves, at the Vote Life, Canada! blogspot.

Stop by and check it out. Here’s a good place to start.

Blessings.

Eric