Posted on 02/06/2015 2:34:37 PM PST by Morgana
Because there is no evidence. They dispose of aborted fetuses promptly....to cover the crime.
I know gay people have anal sex. I don’t need to see pictures of it to be appalled by it.
When they actually see the photos, they can’t tell themselves and other lies about what is happening. That is why they are so furious. They see their own evil and it can not be denied or played down.
It was 1985, Photoshop was not even around in the imaginations of sci-fi writers then, and the abortion industry was just over 10 yrs past Roe v. Wade and had no reason to try and cover what they were doing.
I can’t believe you compared us to PETA. You basically just made their “Halocaust on a Plate” argument that peoples’ and animals’ lives are of equal value.
If you feel the need to close your eyes and shake your head and say “LA LA LA LA!” about the grim reality of abortion then continue to do so. Those of us who are braver will continue to show those who have eyes to see, what is actually happening.
Your Clintonian “The ends justifies the means” approach isn’t conservative. You could use more civilized images but those don’t get your rocks off. You aren’t interested in education. You just want to shock people so you can get your jollies. If you had a shred of decency, you would be appalled at the treatment of the dead in your images. You are no different from a group who try to gross people out with images of dead animals. Like you, they also think they are justified because they “have the moral high ground”.
I don’t need to see a picture of a dead baby to know that abortion is wrong.
bump
Argument from silence.
It's like saying, "Well, hey, that dead body depicted on the news during the VietNam war may have died from natural causes."
Now who's going to either fall for that? or, realize that it's up to the accuser (that the dead body isn't tied to the context of the ongoing war at hand) to prove it aint so.
You got any articles you can point to, appypappy, citing some anonymous "mom" claiming, "Hey, that pix was my miscarried baby?"
Hey, AppyPappy, IF you (& Trisham) wanna call such pictures "obscene"...OK, so be it. Understandable.
But "porn?"
The only tie-in is that in both porn and with abortions, you have exploited victims.
Beyond that, you have 100% distinct aspects of who is viewing those photos and for what purpose.
(And, no, I hardly think there's people out there viewing burned up and/or dismembered body parts for "jollies" purposes)
They probably aren’t aborted fetuses but miscarriages. Why would anyone take a picture of an aborted fetus? If you had a miscarriage, would you want your baby’s picture on someone’s sign? Not me.
First of all, if your son died in WWII or the Vietnamese war and some picture of his dead body emerged in the media somewhere, sure, you as the parent might not want that picture appearing anywhere...but so what?
You make it sound like the problem is the media who unveiled the photo -- and not the warfare that left you with a dead son.
Secondly, your comment here shows utter ignorance of the pro-life movement and how they've obtained these pictures through the years.
Some of the photos are admittedly of preborn babies who've been dead going back to the 1970s and 1980s. They were victims of saline solution abortions (which aren't done anymore -- to my knowledge -- at least not in the U.S.)
These are later-term babies who died by having their skin burned via a saline solution.
What began happening in the latter 1970s and 1980s is that pro-lifers began rifling thru the dumpsters of abortion clinics and made all kinds of finds, including grisly dumped babies.
In Southern California in 1982, 16,433 preborn babies' remains were found at a Woodland Hills home:
Then in the late 1980s pro-lifers were diligent in finding dismembered parts of aborted babies. Hence the short video made, "Hard Truth." And its ensuing video "Harder Truth"
Some of the pictures on signs were stills from these same sources.
Not all of the abortion pictures are intact babies; many aren't (since only the rarer late-term abortions involved leaving them intact).
Notice appypappy did answer my questions: Do you tire of abortion? Do you think it is murder or a choice? He’s just a pro-abort trying to distract us.
OK...sure it was just an oversight...but 'tis common courtesy that if you mention another freeper, then ping him/her...
[to appypappy] Do you tire of abortion? Do you think it is murder or a choice? He’s just a pro-abort trying to distract us.
Don't think appypappy is philosophically pro-abort...
However...LOTS of us -- and I include myself here -- are operationally "pro-abort" in that we fail to act as if the pre-born are being murdered daily (around us) in this country.
If we're not actively a solution to the war on the pre-born, then we become -- by omission -- part of the problem.
What is further more problematic reflected by the attitudes on this thread -- as expressed by appypappy and trisham -- is what I've expressed previously on several earlier (previous year) threads:
Some people wind up being more provoked by...
...specific images...
...than by the legal acts which created these images in the first place.
(And just because folks are ignorant of images does not make the exposition of these images the problem)
The questions to ask posters appypappy and trisham are:
Have you given "feedback" direct to the picture-holders -- the ones you immorally reference as "abortion pornsters"??? (Or do you only complain about them on forums like these)
Secondly, have you given negative DIRECT feedback to either the abortion industry or to its legal pathfinders (Supreme Court; legislators)?
Thirdly, have you complained more about the evidence that a murder has been committed (abortion pictures) or that these very murders have occurred?
It's answers to these specific questions which will reveal the ethical priorities or ethical AWOL vacuums to be further commented upon.
Thanks for your response. As to not pinging appypappy, or anyone else, how do I do that if I am not replying to a post of theirs?
I am as prolife as you can get and I take issue with using the bodies of these precious ones in this way. I think it’s exploitive and disrespectful. They deserve more, the fact that they died the way they did is horrific enough.
I could not agree more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.