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...
This from your freeper page about you...
“By denying that she ever existed, Disney has altered a classic. It’s wrong. A part of our history is gone. How can I teach my children the sins of the past if we sanitize everything?”
Isn’t it a bit odd for you to post the above quote, as you are so concerned about denying certain truths...hiding part “of our history....teaching [your] children the sins of the past”, yet complain that we need to censure the photos of what abortion is really about?
I thought you didn’t want it “sanatized”? Yet now you are complaining.
You are more concerned about hiding Disney cartoons because they are not PC than you are about revealing that “aborting fetuses” is really killing babies?
huh? Bit of a quagmire for you eh?
Nope never been there, get the thread right here on FR.
Figured that since they never had an original idea, they would steal it.
And since threads like this give fodder to those that seek to destroy us, we evil conservatives, I figured I may as well just point it out.
>>I thought you didn’t want it “sanatized”? Yet now you are complaining.<<
Did you happen to see the posts where I said, “Age appropriate?”
Why do you think it’s a good idea to show these images to five year olds, totally unexpected and without parental involvement?
Let’s send the trucks to the Nightspots and away from preschooler targeted venues.
I'm with netmil. I happen to live on a regular city street. My kids ride their bikes around on our regular city street. If one of those vans were to come down our street, I shudder to think of how p!ssed off I'd be.
I am not saying that there isn't a proper use for the images--there most certainly IS. The way they are used now, however, will not change the minds or hearts of the pro-aborts. The billboard-style use of the images will also not elicit a warm and friendly feeling to the pro-life camp from those whose hearts and minds might still be swayed to the cause. It will only draw from them an angry response--not anger at the horror that was done to the baby in the image, but horror at those who flung said image in their face. I am not saying that is the proper response--I am simply stating that that IS the response. This tactic does not work.
Hypocrisy. The stench of it here today is overwhelming.
O.K.... So Then, you are NOT FOR the murder of people(babies) as long "we" keep it quiet and not in your face?..
You know, like the gays, atheists, leftists do constantly...
I agree about discretion where children are concerned. I was criticized for *overprotecting* my children at that age, but there are some things they just don’t need to see; they’re not mentally,and emotionally mature enough to handle them. My kids never had nightmares and night terrors and if some kid ends up with them because of these images, who’s going to be sitting up at night with them? Certainly not the people that caused it.
Putting something like that at a place that’s family friendly is likely preaching at the choir. If those people feel it ABSOLUTELY necessary to post images of preborn children, there’s many that could be substituted. The classic ones of the fetus sucking his thumb would work well and even a little child would get the message without being traumatized.
It’s hard to look at pictures of a fetus and not see how well they’re developed and how human they look.
This parent does.
That's good - most don't.
“get some artwork made...”
What are you talking about?
>>O.K.... So Then, you are NOT FOR the murder of people(babies) as long “we” keep it quiet and not in your face?..<<
Absolutely not.
I don’t care what they shove in my face. I’m old enough to take it.
But when a truck pulls up on the beach at 2:00 on a schoolday, who are they targeting? Mothers and preschoolers.
>>I am not saying that there isn’t a proper use for the images—there most certainly IS.<<
Amen.
LOL Well, I don't really care what a bunch of DUmmies think. They're going to find things to ridicule no matter what we say or do. The only way to stop that is to shut up and hide, and I don't plan to do that.
You are absolutely right. My two year old and four year old are learning everything they ought to know about preborn life, simply by hanging out with me while their brother is gestating. They go to doctor's visits and hear his heartbeat, the four year old was fascinated by the ultrasound and they feel him kick them. They know about life in the womb, more or less since the four year old did mention to me that she has babies in her tummy on Tuesdays. They don't need to know about the absolute satanic horror that some people are capable of.
Some day they will learn of abortion, and will be properly horrified since they know the truth, they have seen their little brother before he was born. But they don't need to know that mommies kill their babies sometimes, not right now.
These billboards have a place and are an important service, it's just a matter of good judgment where they are placed.
>>My kids never had nightmares and night terrors and if some kid ends up with them because of these images, who’s going to be sitting up at night with them? Certainly not the people that caused it.<<
Thank you!
We have a huge poster at my church of Christ holding a tiny fetus in His hand. Our Lord is crying. That is a powerful image my children can handle.
Bill O’Reilly thanks you.
In reading through this thread, I have no doubt at all that we are all ardent, passionate pro-lifers. Agreed?
If the vans carrying these images can elicit such a strong, negative response from pro-lifers, what possible good can they serve in the war to end abortion??!
Again, I AM NOT saying that there isn't a use for these images. Using them on the sides of vans, or on park benches, or up on billboards is most definitely NOT a winning tactic. It's as simple as that.
And as for that crud about "let's wall up Auschwitz," I have never seen a photo of a concentration camp--or any photos of any of the horrors of concentration camps--up on a billboard.
Is that what's called a strawman?
Are you proposeing they repaint the truck nightly?..
You know to get that horrible scene off it?..
What if the "the truck" must be driven past a schoolyard?..
COme on Mah your being silly.. "THey" can look away, as you know "they" do anyway.. The scene on the truck is to energize people that AGREE WITH THE pro-life attitudes..
Pro death people are pretty hardened.. or they wouldn't BE pro death..
To elicit stronger action from pro life forces..
i.e. building a fire under them.. Duuuugh..
While I know it got attention, there is one part of it that concerns me. Seeing gory graphic pictures of aborted babies may open the eyes of some people but what it does that is harmful is increases the pain, shame and guilt of those who are post-abortive. It forces them that much further away from the saving grace and healing they need. It also hurts those of us who have lost babies to still births, miscarriage or other ways... I am not sure that the gore of it needs to be part of the message. The message can still be conveyed without the gore of it all, and without the increased hurt to others.
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.