Posted on 08/10/2007 10:34:35 AM PDT by wagglebee
CALGARY, August 9, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In contrast with the media blackout that pro-life Canadians are used to expecting at their demonstrations, media coverage of the Reproductive Choice Campaign trucks rolling on Calgary streets this week has been lively. The trucks feature three-metre high photos of aborted children and an email address for more information.
Local papers and radio stations were joined by CBC and Global News who took video footage, while CTV News Calgary has run a two-minute television news spot three times in the last two days and included the sponsoring group's website address. This coverage constitutes a frenzy compared to the nearly total media blackout that is traditional at pro-life events such as the annual March for Life event in Ottawa.
The Calgary Sun headlined today's article, "Graphic abortion images shock Calgarians" and carried the CTV story verbatim in print form. A smaller local paper, Fast Forward Weekly, ran the headline "Little truck of horrors" and quoted Stephanie Gray, Executive Director of the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform, the truck's sponsoring group, responding to the accusations of shocking onlookers. "If there is nothing wrong with abortion, the images shouldn't bother them," she said.
A talk radio station, CHQR 770, has been broadcasting their report on the trucks every half hour from noon yesterday to five pm today. 630 CHED radio in Edmonton will carry a live 30-minute interview with Gray and she will be on 940 Montreal at 10:35 am EST for ten minutes.
CTV's video spot, which is available online, clearly shows close-ups of the photos and reporter Najuma Yagzan says, "You can clearly distinguish a body, hands and feet."
Jose Ruba, a cofounder and staffer of CCBR who today drove the support car accompanying the trucks, told LifeSiteNews.com that this was likely the first time the GAP pictures had been seen on English-language Canadian television.
"We had the GAP photos in Ottawa in 2004 when Planned Parenthood was giving Henry Morgentaler a lifetime achievement award and the national French-language TV used the images. But even when the CBC covered the controversy over the GAP display at UBC [in 2000], they only filmed the GAP images from 30 or 40 feet away."
"The whole story at UBC then was about the signs, but they didn't even show them. So today's coverage from so many sources was a big win for us in that they showed the signs," Ruba said.
Onlookers interviewed by CTV agreed that the images are "shocking" but also that they depict something true. "I've had nothing to do with it personally, so you don't think seriously about it, but looking at that, you can see the murder aspect of it all," one man said.
CTV offered a counter argument from a spokesman of Sexual Health Access Alberta (SHAA), but declined to mention that the group is an abortion advocating organization that until September 2006 was called Planned Parenthood Alberta. SHAA's Executive Director, Laura Wershler, criticised the tactic saying, "In those circumstances there's no opportunity for meaningful discussion or debate."
But Stephanie Gray told LifeSiteNews.com that she and her group were still waiting to hear back from Wershler on their offer of a public debate. Gray said, "I contacted Laura requesting a debate partner and I'm waiting to hear back from her and this is months ago."
CCBR said they contacted Wershler on November 16, 2006 on behalf of the pro-life club at the University of Calgary. "I emailed her a sample debate format and agreed that the debate should be a civil one with a neutral moderator."
"I'm still waiting to hear back from her," Gray said.
Wershler did not return calls from LifeSiteNews.com by deadline.
Onlookers interviewed by CTV, however, showed no signs of psychological trauma from seeing the photos. In one street interview, a young woman appeared unsettled but admitted that the images were depicting the reality of abortion, "To me, that's really harsh, but that's reality I guess. It's what happens when you have an abortion. But, wow, that is graphic, yeah."
Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Billboard-Size Abortion Photos to be Shown throughout Canada as Trucks Take the Message to the Streets
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/aug/07080802.html
Pro-Life GAP Display At UBC Causes an Uproar
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/oct/00102501.html
Bloggers Trump Mainstream Media With YouTube Videos of Canadian March for Life
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/may/07051705.html
Watch CTV coverage:
http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/RTGAMArticleHTMLTemplate/B/200...
That's true. Sounds like a teaching opportunity for mom.
I wonder, of those who are carrying on about this truck, how many allow their kids to be around violent movies, or watch TV shows on the health channel that feature surgeries.
No matter how you want to rationalize it.
Any of the people on this thread who want preschoolers to see actual autopsy photos from 9/11, or dead babies (from abortion or not) are sadistic. Period.
The same people here who would be horrified to have preschoolers shown how to put a condom on a cucumber to prevent that terrible disease AIDS and scream that it is a parent’s right to teach and no one else’s, have no problem with post mortem babies being thrown in the face of preschoolers.
Time for some rational thought.
>>Abortion is child abuse. Telling the truth about abortion<<
There is a huge genocide going on in Darfur. No preschooler has to see post mortem pictures to understand it.
Rotten.com is not a teaching tool?
>>When I was young, I tried to protect my little brother from seeing any evil, did my best to keep him naive<<
It is not your place to show things to your brother at five years old. It is your parent’s place.
Implying, or outright stating, that those who disagree with you are morbid, sadistic and child abusers has put an end to any discussion I hoped to have.
I disagree with you. That should not make me or anyone else target of name-calling from you.
You feel free to raise your children your way, as for me, mine are grown and married, the grandchildren are coming up just fine, thank you.
You might ask yourself who is doing the rationalizing here, instead of accusing me of it. Autopsy photos from 9/11 are not available, nor pertinent here. Period.
Your fake tenderness hides only YOUR inability to deal with the reality of abortion.
No, not my inability to deal with the reality of abortion, a preschooler’s inability. Name calling, I think not. Unless you really, truly believe that preschoolers should be shown pictures of dead babies. If that is the case, then the shoe fits.
Fake temdermess indeed.
Again, if anyone wants to educate children on Rotten.com, it borders on morbid.
You need to deal with the reality of abortion your way, with yourself and your family, and quit concerning yourself with how others do.
You are far too judgmental about those who do not sanitize this dreadful reality. You might ask yourself why, and then ask yourself who benefits.
I have no doubt you will insist on having the last word, and I have no doubt you will do your best to insult those who disagree with you, in some “subtle” way. I consider that “sanitizing” to be the real child abuse.
Therefore, proceed. I wash my hands of you.
Not me. I think that bringing that truck to a place where they KNOW children are going to be and having no concern about that is reprehensible.
I would not have allowed my kids to see images like that at that age and neither did I allow them to watch violent movies or things like that.
I did protect them, while they needed protecting. Now they don’t and they are learning about stuff like that and being incensed over it, not having been desensitized because of it becoming so common as a child.
“You don’t have the right to scare or sicken children so that you can show these horrors to the adults that need to see them.”
Children see rotten things daily on the TV. Death and mayhem. Explain to a child, should one see the pics and be traumatized, the why of it, so the child will understand that little people still in the womb, like he or she once was, are being harmed by bad policies. Frankly, I doubt that many children actually make the connection when young, and if they are older, then they will understand the explanation as to what the pictures are trying to convey. I’m all for this.
People (in particular women) need to see the results of their actions so that it is not just an abstract concept. I might add, it is because the MSM tries to stifle any pro-life debate and what the actual social, psychological and physical repercussions of abortions are, that forces more drastic measures to get the word out. These trucks are one method to get the reality of abortions before the public when so many other avenues of discussion are muted or hidden by the MSM. Go for it. Whatever works.
Who benefits? Innocent preschoolers who deserve to have the horrors of life presented when it is age appropriate. If you want to take any of my words as insults, that is your right. It’s amazing to me that the same people who scream parental rights, seem void of conscience with this issue. You want to show your children and grandchildren dead, bloody babies, go for it. Leave the others alone.
Personally, being in the medical profession, I’ve seen my share of gore. Those pictures don’t bother me and I see them for what they are. A teaching tool for teenagers and adults. However, all post mortem pictures are not for preschoolers.
Our society has indeed gotten pretty hard.
Perhaps you should read through the thread and see how many disagree with you. It’s not just me.
>>Not me.<<
Me either.
Here’s an example. My kids love Animal Planet. I kept them from watching the gory animal killings for a while. Slowly, with our supervision, my nine year old began to see actual killings and eatings. My seven year old does not. We distract her or tell her that she doesn’t want to see it, so close her eyes. When she can handle it, she will see them.
I know my own child, NO ONE has the right to give her an education that I do not approve of. Where are the conservatives that scream parental rights? Surely not on this thread.
I never thought I’d see the day when I was a bad guy for protecting my children until they were old enough to deal with stuff.
My kids had their childhood and it wasn’t marred with trauma that they weren’t ready for.
I guess parental rights only go as far as someone else lets them.
See ya round.
>>I never thought I’d see the day when I was a bad guy for protecting my children until they were old enough to deal with stuff.<<
Amen!
And the whole, “the little buggers need to see this early and often”, gives the FReepers a bad name. In fact, I would venture to say, those on the fence of the issue, would look at this thread and shake their heads.
Certainly many exposed to the image will likely discuss or debate related issues. Does she mean such discussion and debate would not meaningful? Why? Perhaps because she is not in control of it?
“If there is nothing wrong with abortion, the images shouldn’t bother them,”
I contend that it’s the parents who don’t want to confront the problem of abortion. Very few children are so emotionally fragile—even older sibs of premies—that a photo on a truck will derail them for a week.
Those parents ought to get together and pass a law against reality. After all, a child may be upset. We can’t have that. Hide the dead millions. Ignore them, until society doesn’t HAVE any more 5 yos.
/sarc
We had a truck like that parked in front of our church. It is extremely graphic and a bit too much for the small children so they were asked to move it. It’s right out there and in large graphics. It’s fine for adults but little children could be traumatized by it. I can understand why they do it and am in favor of it in most conditions, especially in front of Planned Parenthood.
I think small children should be shielded from these graphics. Older ones should not.
I agree with you. I hate abortion as much as anyone but small children don’t need to be exposed to this. Older ones, yes, but little ones, no.
You can’t get through to some folks here so relax and don’t let them get to you.
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.