I know not every member of the PWPL team agrees with the “show the truth” method of convincing Canadians that abortion is wrong. I do. It’s one method that will change some minds. (And other methods that will change other minds.) Here’s a new video from the Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, in Calgary, Alberta. Have a look and see what you think. I think it’s well done, if a bit long for the YouTube crowd.
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl9-MCgmMTg”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl9-MCgmMTg]
by 
Although I do admit that seeing those trucks on the streets is not pleasant, I heartily agree that this approach works.
Isn’t this exactly what Wilberforce did when he showed pictures of slaves on ships to the English middle classes? isn’t that what it took for people to understand the atrocity of slavery?
For 40 years, we have shoved abortion below the surface to the point that it can’t even be discussed publicly in Canada. The tactics of CCBR are what it is going to take to break that surface and bring this issue out so that people have to face it. Unless they see what abortion is, they will never reject abortion.
I think part of being pro life is to do your best to ensure that our culture is friendly to families with children. Graphic abortion photos are R-rated and are not appropriate for kids. I think showing these pictures to a wide audience can easily backfire, and we may end up alienating people who would otherwise be allies.
I can see setting up a display with these photos on a university campus, where shocking images are de rigueur. I think they might be appropriate to show in a high school, even. And I do think that anyone who is pro choice should have to view them and explain how they can support abortion. But to run trucks down a highway and show shocking images to just anyone, without preparing people for what they are about to view, and without giving parents a chance to keep their kids from viewing them? That crosses a line.
Melissa wrote, “I think part of being pro life is to do your best to ensure that our culture is friendly to families with children.” Induced abortion is NOT friendly to families with children. I know what Melissa means, but she’s saving a ladybug and swallowing a human fetus. “Out of sight, out of mind” is a good abortionist strategy, but we must expose their practices to the sunlight. This stuff happens! It is shocking! It should scare children.
I am more persuaded by arguments like Bishop Henry’s. I think he said that repeatedly dragging the little children’s bloodied bodies through the streets desecrates them. He’s suggesting, I think, that the GAP is repeating their slaughter, increasing the indignity of the original atrocity. Don’t dishonour the dead.
My uncle opposes the GAP because he thinks it’s ineffective and desensitizing. He says it offends him for the wrong reasons. He’s not a butcher, he doesn’t want to be a butcher, but he has nothing against butchers and their slaughterhouses. Of course, the key is the realization that the dismembered organism is not a plant or animal but a human being. The aborting mother is not having a cow killed for food, or a decrepit pet euthanized, but someone of her own species ripped away from the safe sanctuary she had offered it. That person was as like herself as anybody could be and was just beginning life. Properly understood, abortion is a treachery of the highest degree.
Melissa,
I agree that it is important to ensure that a culture is friendly to children. However the fundamental question is what it more important; Is it children’s feelings or children’s lives? The issue is that abortions are happening to people everywhere. We have to bring that message everywhere as well. The issue is that people can go their whole lives without ever having to be confronted with this issue. This is what has to change.
I would firstly like to challenge a couple assumptions that you are making. The first one is about whether or nor children should see the images. On the 40th anniversary of the Morgentaler decision I did a protest on parliament hill with graphic imagery. The most passionate people at that protest were four kids. These kids were between 4-10 years old. They understood what was happening in these photos and were appalled by it. They understood it and they wanted to change it.
My experience is that kids have two reactions; the first is they do not comprehend what they are seeing. The second is they ask “Mommy/Daddy why is there a dead baby on that truck?” or “what is that?” At this point it is all the parents choice. If the parent reacts emotionally then the child will as well.
I remember one story where a child complained about having nightmares after seeing pictures of her Mom coming and killing her. The Mother got angry and sent a message to the pro-life group. The parent revealed in this e-mail that she told her daughter that the picture was a Womens choice to have an abortion. Is the child’s reaction not reasonable? Her Mother supports the killing of children, wouldn’t you be scared? I have seen that children’s innocence is exactly why they understand what is going on and only see negative affects to the children when the parents react negatively.
Therefore I would state that there is very little proof showing that the pictures harm children in any meaningful ways in and of themselves. However, I will cut you a break. I will assume, for the sake of argument, that the pictures upset children in and of themselves. My question then would be how high would that affect have to be to put children’s feelings OVER children’s lives.
If you have any better ways to confront the culture and to show that abortion is an act of violence that kills a child I would be more than happy to hear it. I am fully supportive of CCBR and the Reproductive “Choice” Campaign because it does what very, very few pro-life groups and pro-life people are willing to do.
That is confront the culture and SAVE LIVES. If you heard that parents were bringing their toddlers to a facility where they were slicing them apart, what would you do? What if you heard the government was going into schools and taking children and burning them with acid until they died, what would you do? What if you learned that scientists were taking children and doing science experiments on them, what would you do?
If it is anything more than what you are doing right now, if the tactics that you felt would be acceptable to stop those slaughters are anything more than what you feel should be used to stop abortion I would ask you…do you really consider the unborn as human?
Hi Jon,
“GAP is repeating their slaughter”
Just read that again. You just said that showing pictures is the same as KILLING them…does that make sense? Just throwing that out there. Also the Genocide Awareness Project is different from the Truck.
Here is a story: On wikipedia
Emmett Louis “Bobo” Till (July 25, 1941 – August 28, 1955) was an African American boy from Chicago, Illinois, who was murdered[1] at the age of 14 in Money, Mississippi, a small town in the state’s Delta region, after reportedly whistling at a white woman. The murder of Emmett Till was noted as one of the leading events that motivated the American Civil Rights Movement. The main suspects were acquitted, but later admitted to committing the crime.
Till’s mother insisted on a public funeral service, with an open casket to show the world the brutality of the killing: Till had been beaten up and his eye had been gouged out, before he was shot through the head and thrown into the Tallahatchie River with a 70-pound cotton gin fan tied to his body with barbed wire. His body was in the river for three days before it was discovered and retrieved by two fishermen.
After Till’s disfigured and partly decomposed body was found, he was put into a pine box and nearly buried, but his mother, Mamie Till Bradley, wanted the body to come back to Chicago. A Tutwiler mortuary assistant worked all night to prepare the body as best he could so that Mrs. Bradley could bring Emmett’s remains back to Chicago.
The Chicago funeral home had agreed to not open the casket, but Mrs. Bradley fought their decision. The state of Mississippi insisted it would not allow the funeral home to open it, so Mrs. Bradley threatened to open it herself, insisting she had a right to see her son. After viewing the body, she also insisted on leaving the casket open for the funeral and allowing people to take photographs because she wanted people to see how badly Till’s body had been disfigured—she has famously been quoted as saying, “I wanted the world to see what they did to my baby.”
News photographs of Till’s mutilated corpse circulated around the country, notably appearing in Jet magazine, and drew intense public reaction. Some reports said that up to 50,000 people viewed the body.
[End Story]
Rosa Parks said that when she decided to stay in the front of that bus that it was Emmett that was on her mind. So let me ask you this. Did his mother “repeat his slaughter” when she said that she wanted the world to see her baby? When the pictures of holocaust were released and are in textbooks and are shown are you “repeating the slaughter” of the victims there?
What is more disrespectuful? Showing the horror, showing the crime, or is it hiding the horror, hiding the crime, and letting it continue?
The Bishop supports parading around dead bodies of saints and of popes. What about the dead body of Jesus Christ? This logic does not stand up ANYWHERE else to ANY OTHER tragedy or genocide. So why does it apply to abortion?
You dishonor the dead by not seeking justice.
As far as whether it works or not I can say that how does he know it does not?
I read CCBR’s latest newsletter lately and it will speak to quite the opposite.
http://unmaskingchoice.ca/PDF/newsletters/CCBR_2009_July.pdf
Here is another one of the students who had a COMPLETE conversion and is now on the CPL executive.
http://unmaskingchoice.ca/PDF/newsletters/CCBR_2008_March-April.pdf
Go through their newsletters and in every one you will see PROOF of lives saved and minds changed because of pictures.
Also if they were morally wrong why would all these high ranking priests support CCBR:
Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director, Priests for Life (Staten Island, New York)
Rt. Rev. John Braganza, OSB, Abbot of Westminster Abbey (Mission, British Columbia)
Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, STL, President, Human Life International (Front Royal, Virginia)
Fr. Tony Van Hee, S.J., Jesuits in English Canada (Vanier, Ontario)
On CCBR’s website
Also Archbishop Burke, who was Archbishop of St. Louis and now the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, in April 1999, he wrote a letter endorsing CBR’s staff member Paul saying, “… I highly recommend him and GAP and support fully his work with the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform.”
The use of graphic images to appeal to people’s emotions is the resort of someone who either has no good intellectual arguments, or who believes that winning the debate is more important than debating with honesty and fairness.
A lot of pro-choicers seem to think that displaying these images is somehow “cheating.” There are many sound intellectual arguments against abortion, but why shouldn’t we engage people’s emotions as well? John gave the example of Emmett Till’s body being a galvanizing influence; I immediately think of the famous photos (many of them also controversial at the time) from the Vietnam War that forced people to confront atrocities. There were solid arguments against the war but the images played an important role in getting people to realize how horrible it really was. You want to support abortion? Okay. But why try to hide, suppress or deny what it looks like? *That* would be dishonest.
Which is not to say I am in favor of using these images indiscriminately. I think Melissa is right to point out that some of these images end up alienating people who might otherwise support us. And there is an astonishing amount of denial among pro-choicers (and some pro-lifers) who would prefer to believe that these images are of miscarried fetuses rather than aborted ones.
Just splashing around some gory pictures out of context doesn’t help a lot. Using these images as part of a public awareness campaign targeting specific audiences that explains how abortions are performed and how often they are carried out might be more effective over the long term.
Suricou, I think a debate can’t be had with honesty and fairness without (amongst other things) both sides coming to terms with the reality of what abortion actually involves. Many people who support it, do so exclusively from the context of how it affects/benefits the mother. Many of these people have changed their minds because an image made them seriously consider the context of the child for the first time, and only then did they understand (or even hear) the intellectual arguments against it. This indicates that a lot of people are hardly rigourous in dealing with this subject on a purely intellectual basis. That people are tempted to deal with only the intellectual arguments that suit them, is a truth of human nature.
As is stands, an image that accurately shows what a child in the womb looks like is not dishonest. Neither is it dishonest to show what has to happen to that child in order to abort it. I agree that it shouldn’t be necessary to show such images, but for people who consider it to be an operation akin to the removal of a tumour, they are the ones being dishonest with themselves.
Speaking of honesty and fairness, do pro-choice and pro-life groups typically face censure equally at today’s Universities?
The whole point of showing graphic images can be summed up as Stephanie Gray said: If abortion is too horrible to see, then perhaps it is too horrible to tolerate.
And tolerate is exactly what we do here in Canada, even more than in the US. At least there, they argue about it, their senators actually bring it up in Congress. Here there is silence.
It is that silence that must be broken and that is what CCBR is trying to do.
As for young children being upset by the images, I have heard one child ask “who broke the baby?” Parents who answer truthfully do their children a much greater service than those who react angrily and defend abortion. Their children get the mixed message that abortion is okay, but somehow you escaped it. Surely they wonder why?
Hi Suricou,
I have been lucky enough to hear Stephanie Gray and Jojo Ruba speak on more than one occasion at my University and at the National Campus Life Network to name a few. I do not think it would be too much to state that they are two of the premiere speakers on this issue in the country. Also they are some of the only ones who debate who actually debate the issue. I have hosted both Stephanie and Jojo at my University. One debate was against the Executive Director of Planned Parenthood Ottawa and Canadians for Choice. He SMOKED them both.
I would like for you to imagine a trial. The prosecution goes up to show the body of the murder prove what has happened. No one wants to see it, especially the family of the murdered and the murderer who are in attendance. He is about to show them but the defense attorney stands up and stays “Objection, the use of graphic images to appeal to people’s emotions is the resort of someone who either has no good intellectual arguments, or who believes that winning the debate is more important than debating with honesty and fairness.”
Do you think the judge will say “Sustained, you are right only silly losers show evidence of crimes to prove what is happening.” Or do you think he will say “Overruled, we need to see the evidence of what happened. Justice has to be served and we the people have a right to know what is happening whether it makes us feel bad or not. Gosh man, a human being died here. This is no ARGUMENT this is MURDER.”
This is a trial as well. The court of public opinion has to see all the evidence whether we like it or not. If you watch the video they said that “we do not explicitly say that abortion is wrong, we only show the evidence of what ‘choice’ actually is.”
Again, if it works for everything else, for every other genocide, why not abortion as well?
John, I’ll readily withdraw my clause “the GAP is repeating their slaughter.” You’ll notice, if you go back to read the context, that I wrote it somewhat hesitantly. Since you challenge me on it–rightly so–I’ve tried to find exactly what Bishop Henry of Calgary wrote. I found the following at http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=80886&pid=1617404&st=40&#entry1617404
Poisoning babies in the womb with a saline solution or cutting them up with surgical tools is a heinous act. The magnification and subsequent portrayal of the body parts on moving trucks further violates the human dignity of the aborted children, denies human remains the respect that inherently must be accorded them, and reduces them to things, albeit, for an arguably good reason. The end, however, does not justify the means.
See also CCBR’s response at http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/gap-faq.html#Anchor-33333 (a frequently asked question, number 14)
See also http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/may/07050908.html
I’d also like to say that I’m not necessarily convinced by this argument of Mr. Henry’s, either. I just find it more convincing than Melissa’s. (And I wrote, “Mr. Henry,” just now to emphasize that I’m a member of a Protestant church, not a Roman Catholic church.) I find it more convincing than Melissa’s because the Bible is clear about showing respect for the body of a dead human being, the same kind and maybe the same level of respect that we show to him while he is alive.
When the unborn are forgotten and dumped into trash, or their body parts are sold for profit, surely showing the photos of them is not “disrespecting” them?
Rather it brings those persons before the eyes of the public, who would never know about them otherwise. That to me, shows more respect for them to acknowledge their death and the horrible way they died, than not showing their remains.
The use of graphic matter incited a civil war several thousand years ago. This matter wasn’t images, however; like the case of Emmett Till, it was the actual remains. The people at that time responded with outrage at the original acts of violence that killed the victim and did not concern themselves about the subsequent violence to her remains. Perhaps they had a sense of proportion that we lack.
The account of the original violence mirrors quite closely the epitome of depravity for that age. Anyhow, one night a woman was raped repeatedly so that she died at dawn. Her husband or boyfriend, not a particularly admirable man himself, took a knife and “cut her in twelve pieces, limb by limb, and sent her throughout the territory of Israel. And it came about that all who saw it said, ‘Nothing like this has ever happened or been seen from the day when the sons of Israel came up from the land of Egypt to this day. Consider it, take counsel, and speak up!'”
Soon thereafter, “the tribes of Israel sent men throughout the entire tribe of Benjamin, saying, ‘What is this wickedness that has taken place among you? Now then, deliver up the men, the worthless fellows in Gibeah, that we may put them to death and remove this wickedness from Israel.’ But the sons of Benjamin would not listen to the voice of their brothers, the sons of Israel.” So there was civil war, and the tribe of Benjamin was almost wiped out.
You can read the full account in Judges 19-21 of the Bible. It does not comment on the rightness or wrongness of cutting up the dead body.
Look, I’m not opposed to using graphic images in certain contexts. I think that the Genocide Awareness Project, done on university campuses, is certainly a valuable endeavor. And I do think that anyone who is pro choice needs to look long and hard at those photos, and see exactly what it is they are supporting.
But the GAP is staffed by trained volunteers who are there to engage in debate and provide a context for the pictures. They probably also have some training in talking people down who have an overly emotional and angry reaction to the pictures. That is not what is going on in this particular campaign. Splashing these images around public highways where anyone can see them (small children included) and leaving the general public to deal with their emotions themselves is not a good campaign.
My kids (9 and 6) don’t know what abortion is yet. We will discuss it about the time they hit puberty, but until then, I’m going to spend my time talking to them about how wonderful babies are, and how sacred life is. In short, I want to instill in them a reverence for life before they are exposed to just how casually it is stubbed out in our society. If I were to come across one of these trucks with my kids before then, I will be angry (and I think justifiably so), because I really don’t want them to have to grow up too fast, to deal with grown-up matters before they are ready. I can’t be the only person who thinks that way. I won’t take my kids to rallys because of the images that they would be exposed to there. I think that the more these images are shown in the public arena, the fewer children will be seen in the public arena, as parents keep their kids away.
This is an extremist tactic. It is a valuable tactic, especially among teenagers and young adults, who tend to be drawn to extremes. But we live in a culture that thinks of pro-lifers as extremists, and terrorists. I worry that the truck campaign will only reinforce these stereotypes.
The image of a mangled fetus served up on a cannula is an image of despair. This seems to be the publicity that we are getting. I suppose maybe some publicity is better than none? But my view of the pro-life movement is one of hope–you can make this work out; don’t give in to your fears over your pregnancy. There is nothing hopeful about these images.
Melissa, I think you lack proportion. You said that if you were to come across one of these trucks with your kids, you would be angry. You would be angry because you think your kids would grow up too fast, not angry first of all because those other kids were killed. What do you do when your children see a road kill? Are you angry? Is your family vegetarian? The reality is that we live in the midst of death, but the death that the GAP is protesting is murder. And do you watch television? I was raised without a television, and I remember crying as a child the first time I saw Laurel or Hardy with his leg up in a cast in the hospital. The t.v. shows far worse scenes than those you’ll see on the Truth Trucks, and very often it encourages us to delight in them. I’m angry that adults view them: they’re not becoming more mature (growing up), they’re just becoming perverted.
If you’re consistent, you’ll also be angry with me at the many people who dress immodestly (and the many advertisements that go way too far). Adolescents see far more than they should before they marry. Children grow up far too fast; premarital sexual intercourse is now commonplace. If we’re going to talk about extremes, then we ought to focus on what I call sexism, the extreme place of sex in our society. Abortion is just one of its consequences.
Seeing a Truth Truck with your children is the best possible situation for your children. It may well be inconvenient for you, but your children have very close to them not just a guardian and teacher but one of the two people they most trust. Consider the incident a teachable moment. What should anger you far more is the children’s viewing of the truck when they are alone. But why are they alone? If they are yet so young, they should have their mother with them or at least within easy reach. And that’s the horror of both abortion on demand and state-supported day care facilities: the mother has all the wrong priorities.
I don’t at all want to suggest that somehow you’re a bad mother; you sound like a very good mother. I think you lack proportion. Like the Canadian Centre for Bio-ethical Reform, I think that there are important and prominent similarities between the Holocaust and the abortion holocaust, one of which was the general ignorance of the population as to what was happening (out of sight, out of mind). The Simon Wiesenthal Center’s seventeenth question about the Holocaust is, “What did people in Germany know about the persecution of Jews and other enemies of Nazism?” The last part of the answer says a lot about the worth of publishing graphic images:
“As far as the Jews were concerned, it was common knowledge in Germany that they had disappeared after having been sent to the East. It was not exactly clear to large segments of the German population what had happened to them. On the other hand, there were thousands upon thousands of Germans who participated in and/or witnessed the implementation of the ‘Final Solution’ either as members of the SS, the Einsatzgruppen, death camp or concentration camp guards, police in occupied Europe, or with the Wehrmacht.”
The twenty-fourth question (next paragraph) makes the same point. Publishing beautiful picture books of Jewish families (your suggestion?) might be very hopeful but also very unrealistic and counter-productive. As you know, the official line still is that children are not being killed; every child (defined as being born) should be a wanted child. And when the mainstream media report the killing of a wanted human fetus, they call it a child or a baby. The duplicitous language is not at all rational, but it is emotionally satisfying.
“The Germans made every effort to ensure secrecy. In addition, the notion that human beings–let alone the civilized Germans–could build camps with special apparatus for mass murder seemed unbelievable in those days. Since German troops liberated the Jews from the Czar in World War I, Germans were regarded by many Jews as a liberal, civilized people. Escapees who did return to the ghetto frequently encountered disbelief when they related their experiences. Even Jews who had heard of the camps had difficulty believing reports of what the Germans were doing there. Inasmuch as each of the Jewish communities in Europe was almost completely isolated, there was a limited number of places with available information. Thus, there is no doubt that many European Jews were not aware of the ‘Final Solution,’ a fact that has been corroborated by German documents and the testimonies of survivors.”
Melissa, at the risk of demonstrating a lack of proportion myself (by writing too much), I want to say a little more. First, I should apologize for some sloppy thinking in the first paragraph of my previous comment. I noted that the difference between a road kill and a graphic abortion picture is that the latter is the evidence of a murder. And you said the same thing yourself: “I want to instill in [my children] a reverence for life before they are exposed to just how casually it is [snuffed] out in our society.” Still, when you respond to your children’s questions about the graphic pictures, the amount of detail you give them is up to you. For example, you do not have to go into the oftentimes casual natural of abortion. You might not even have to explain it as a killing. I think John at 12:57 am yesterday (see above) gave an excellent analysis of a parent’s response.
Secondly, universities in Canada have sometimes banned the Genocide Awareness Project so that the organizers’ only recourse was to show it outside the university on public property. This has been the case with at least two universities in the past, the University of British Columbia in 1999 and the University of Calgary still today. The following are pro-abortion reactions to the GAP at these two universities. They both assert: (1) The GAP does not depict reality, and so (2) a human fetus is not a person.
The first reaction comes from the article “[GAP] Stopped by UBC,” written by Joyce Arthur for the Pro-Choice Action Network: “First, just because something is true (like the horrors of the Holocaust) doesn’t mean that it must therefore be presented graphically in public… Second, many aborted fetus pictures are NOT true—they are distorted misrepresentations or outright lies…. [F]reedom of speech is never absolute. In Canada, it can be justifiably restricted to protect public safety and vulnerable groups. Canada also has hate crime laws to protect minorities like Jews and blacks, and anti-discrimination laws that protect women as well as minorities.”
The second reaction comes from a March 25 comment by Portia Mercury on CBC’s article “Anti-abortion Protestors Return to Calgary Campus”: “I believe that the rights of people who are not ‘pro-life’ are being threatened. There are women who have had abortions- being assaulted by these photographs, which show an unrealistic perspective on the abortion issue – this is not right…. I am sick and tired of Christians shoving their agenda on other people…”
Even after viewing the GAP, these two commentators still refuse to acknowledge pre-born people to be people, a vulnerable group, and a minority. Am I arguing against myself? I do not think that everyone can be so hardened.
Jon–
I agree with you completely that the pro life movement has resorted to these tactics because the mainstream media has completely ignored us. We live in a culture that pretends that abortion doesn’t happen all that much, and when it does happen, it is a minor and inconsequential procedure. I realize that the CCBR is tying to force the debate open. That is a good thing.
But these Truth Trucks cross a line. You mentioned earlier about the holocaust. i think that it is necessary and good that the holocaust pictures are available for view, because we really ought never to forget just how much evil humankind is capable of. But I would have a real issue if those pictures were printed in elementary school textbooks.
Likewise with these Truth Trucks. Abortion is an adult matter. We don’t need to bring the kids into the debate. I worry that if these images are bandied about in the public square, young children will be pushed even further from the public square, which kind of defeats the purpose.
The graphic photos are simply being educational. If the photos are the truth, why would you want them hidden from women?
As a member of Show the Truth in Ontario, I can agree with John (Aug. 19, 12:57a.m.) that, only “if the parent reacts emotionally, then the child will as well”.
Suricou – if showing pictures in a debate isn’t ‘honest and fair’, then what is?
The number one reason I agree with showing the graphic pictures is, “shouldn’t we all be able to see what we’re getting for our tax dollars?”
Melissa
I am the mother of the 4 young children that John referred to in his Aug 19 (12:57 am) posting (5-10 years old). I had not expected my children to come face-to-face with the explicit images that John had available on the Hill that day. But as Jon suggested (Aug 20, 1:29 am), it was an “inconvenience” that turned into a teachable moment. I was put into the position of having to explain to my children what they were seeing. And as John’s earlier post states, they were fully capable of understanding what I told them (with as few details as I could give them – while still getting the truth of the matter across). They were appalled that this should happen to innocent babies. But they were also further galvanized into wanting to help bring about change. And despite how disturbing the images were, my 7, 9 and 10 year old each took turns helping to hold up one of the larger banners – one that displayed some of the more graphic images. I neither asked them nor told them to do it. They volunteered.
And my 5 year old was not traumatized either. Rather, he found it unthinkable that any doctor would do this to a baby. And he found it incomprehensible that anyone, let alone a mother, could allow this to be done.
Isn’t that the appropriate response? Isn’t it telling that while they are still innocent, before they get self-centred and able to rationalize away the truth under the guise of “my choice”, that a child’s gut, instinctive reactions to these images are those of being incensed by the procedure – not incensed at a picture of a successful procedure’s product?
As parents we would like our children to remain “innocent” forever. But we also want our children to grow up, armed with the truth. I may not have chosen the time, place or circumstances of the conversation I had with my children that day about the reality of abortion, but neither do I regret it. An unexpected viewing of these graphic images did not rob my children of their innocence that day. Rather, in their innocence, they recognized the innocence of the victims. They identified with them. And in their innocence, they firmly believe that with their input, they can bring about a change in the situation. Canada without abortion. By choice.
YouTube has removed your video.
Hmm… Can’t say for sure why YouTube removed this one, but here’s a video about other pro-life videos on YouTube “disappearing.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apLjGQnTVg8
Visible stores are sometimes associated with first amounts and common patients, creating impressive respect infections traveling to awkward materials for . Fedex Or Ups Overnight Buy amoxicillin in Los Angeles us buy amoxicillin online without dr approval GET discount amoxicillin from Canada on line? Buy Now And Save Huge!.