In Defense of GAP
For those of you who may have read my earlier blog post or even live near Pullman, Washington, US, you are probably aware of the recent display shown on campus in regards to abortion. For those who have been following this event quite closely, you are most likely also aware of the intense controversy and outrage it has caused, evident by some more vocal individuals on the campus. Even some individuals who identify as "Pro Life" seem to have been taken aback by the graphic photos of aborted babies that the display was showing. Seeing as there seems to be numerous misconceptions, inconsistencies, and honest questions in regards to the matter - particularly as to the intensity of the images shown - I thought I would attempt to clear some of that up point by point. If your point was not addressed below, please feel free to leave a comment asking about it, and I will do my best to edit the article and address that as well. So with no further ado, here we go!
1) The pictures were disturbing and overly graphic
This one seemed to be on the tip of several people's tongues - especially on the first day of the display. What I find most interesting about this statement though are the hidden assumptions it entails. Firstly, for it to truly be "disturbing", it must be showing a real human being equal to you or I. It must truly be alive and human. After all, if it is merely displaying a tissue or a blob of cells, there can be nothing highly disturbing about the images. How can a blob of cells be considered disturbing? Even if this blob of cells is arranged in such a way as to appear humanoid, that is still merely an artistic expression if they are not human themselves. The same could go for being too "graphic". If what you are seeing is truly a human being of equal value and worth as you or I, then yes. It is graphic. If it is not a human being though, then how can that logic stand?
2) So if it is a human being, then you admit it is graphic and disturbing. How can you then show it?
Once again, this brings up an interesting set of implied assumptions. What this question is really saying is not that the images shown are human beings comparable to you or I, but rather that they are subhuman and not equal to you or I. For if they are truly equally human on the same level as you or I, then their death is such a tragedy that it deserves being shown. For instance, do you think that it was wrong for our Allied troops to force communities around the German concentration camps to walk through them upon liberation and view first hand the horrors within? I suspect you would adamantly say no! It was completely justified as it forced the onlookers to grasp the true horror of the torture and death of a select group of people that the Nazis party had set apart from the rest of the human race and deemed "subhuman". To this very day, Germany as a nation is raw to the atrocities that took place within its very borders. So if you concede to the justification of that, then how can you not concede to the justification of the viewing of aborted babies who were killed purposefully under the label of not being human like you or I?
3) And now we have gotten to the worst part of all. How DARE you compare the Holocaust to the abortion of babies?
Let me ask you then the definition of genocide. For I think we can all agree that the Holocaust was a form of intense genocide against the Jews and other minority groups on the part of the Nazi party. If you are unsure of the definition, let us just appeal to the meaning used internationally by the vast majority of nations on Earth. Let us look to the United Nation's publicly legal definition of the word in their first draft. But before we do that, why look at their first draft? Simply put, the USSR at the time refused to sign their first draft as they realized they were in blatant violation of it as they were vigorously punishing and torturing numerous individuals and people groups within their country. So the United Nations was eventually pressured to narrow the definition down in such a way that would allow the USSR to continue operations without being in any violation of it. So with that, here is the draft:
[Genocide is] a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups... whether committed on religious, racial, political, or any other grounds. (Emphasis added).
The only difference in the final version? To pacify the USSR, the words "any other grounds" was omitted. So even though the above definition of genocide is not the newest version put out by the United Nations, I think we can all agree it is the purer one as it is not tainted by an effort to omit the atrocities the USSR was committing against its own people. For to argue otherwise is to unwittingly condone what the USSR was doing.
As you can see, abortion fits within that definition quite easily for those who are truly Pro Life, as to Pro Life individuals it is the denial of an equal right to human life of an entire subset of humanity (preborn individuals) , justified by a view that they are not equal to you or I and based on the grounds of convenience. With that in mind, it becomes clear very quickly that at least from a Pro Life standpoint, the issue of abortion also falls into the description of genocide - thus making it comparable to other acts in history such as the Holocaust. Additionally, if you view the image that declared the similarity, you will notice that it specifically states that abortion is only "comparable", and not "identical". By now I think we can all agree at the very least that according to the Pro Life view of things, it is most certainly comparable.
4) I notice the picture above shows lynching! How can you be showing that?
Please simply re-read my reply to question 3. I think you will find the comparison between the Holocaust and abortion is very similar philosophically as the comparison to the violent dehumanization of black individuals in the history of our very own country and abortion.
5) Even if these images and the wording used on them have reason behind them, they are overly offensive to many and only serve to drive people away from your effort. Is your intent to offend people?
That is indeed an interesting question. In response, let me ask one of my own. Do you think images of what we as a country did to slaves before the Civil War was inappropriate for the abolitionists to show? I suspect you would respond that they were justified for showing them due to the plight of the slaves. If you responded in such a manner, then you are in good company. In fact, Martin Luther King Jr. said much the same thing during his lifetime.
Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such a creative tension that a community... is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.
- Martin Luther King Jr. from his "Letter From The Birmingham Jail"
So there is the response to your question. By displaying these images in a nonviolent, peaceful, direct manner GAP has "dramatize[d] the issue [so] that it can no longer be ignored" in an effort to change minds on the issue. Just as many people were highly offended by Dr. King's actions, so are many offended by the photos displayed by GAP. But just like Dr. King, the intent is not to offend but rather to change minds. If one is offended by it, one must ask themself the same question that one would ask if they were offended by photos of racism. Namely, why? Why do you find them offensive and not moving? In the case of racism, I think we would reply that perhaps the individual is offended by the photos of racism because they themselves wish to protect it, and cannot stand to see evidence in the form of photos that glaringly serve to convict them of their stance on the issue. Couldn't that same logic be applied for those offended by the pictures displayed by GAP?
6) Okay, so I see your reasoning in regards to the pictures (even if I do not agree with it). But what about the people who might be traumatized by the pictures - to the point of even skipping their classes for the day?
Please reference the response to questions 1, 2, and 5. I think they will answer this one quite nicely. After all, if abortion is truly the killing of small human beings, then is not the potential saving of life worth a day of discomfort?
7) But it is all propaganda! None of the pictures are actually true.
Well, stay tuned then! You might be interested in this article by CBR (the group that brought GAP to the WSU campus). For instance, consider this excerpt from a letter by Dr. Levatino who is both a physician and attorney:
I, the undersigned, having performed induced abortions earlier in my career, have examined the photos depicting the aborted human embryos and fetuses used by The Center For Bio-Ethical Reform in their public education projects (http://www.abortionNO.org). It is my professional opinion that the photos depict aborted human embryos and fetuses and that the depicted aborted human embryos and fetuses are accurately captioned as to age, in weeks since fertilization.
Even if you do not agree with the stance on abortion that GAP takes, I think you can begin to see why they consider their display both justified and necessary. It is my hope and prayer that this article has not only caused you to think about the issue of abortion, but also to consider its implications and the possibility of it being an egregious wrong in today's society.
And finally, a quote from Dr. King.
Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way.
- Martin Luther King Jr.