That’s my dilemma.
But I will say that attitudes like Barbara Boxer’s when she objected to graphic depictions of Partial Birth Abortion during Senate debate help to settle the issue.
I’m sort of glad graphic images are displayed if only to shake us out of lethargy about the destruction of the innocent.
The pro-abortion crowd wants to censor the pictures.
Liberal politicians in York,PA (the area where I live) went after this preacher (I admit with some public opinion on the liberals side) and came out the losers in federal court.
There are First Amendment rights and once we say this is too graphic and has to be banned then where does it stop.
Are Passion Play’s going to be graphic if they depict the crucifixion in a grisly manner.
There are some who extend their desire for infanticide to even children who are out of the womb; they want at least a week to decide if they can “euthenize” a child.
Graphic images are not an argument. They are an appeal to revulsion and emotion. Operation Rescue uses pictures of fetuses. PETA uses pictures of bullfights, and the slaughter of cattle and swine. "That looks gross" is not a moral or logical argument against eating meat, and it is not a moral or logical argument against abortion.
If you have to resort to gross-out pictures to make your case, it doesn't give the appearance of a strong case. Make the case rationally; no need to get vulgar and go into Larry Flynt territory.