I am not hoping to make anyone dislike anyone else. I simply want people to have the right to show this atrocity for what it is. I agree that it is beneficial to show the positive option, but I also feel that it is necessary to show the consequences of the negative option. This is a two sided issue and focusing on one side of the argument at the exclusion of the other prevents a conclusive result.
For instance, let's pretend it's 1943 and I am in Germany protesting the state sponsored internment and murder of people of Jewish ancestry. It would be good for me to portray the positive potential these people could have if they were free, educated, and respected with full human dignity. This, however, is insufficient. It is also necessary to show the horrific repercussions that result from their subjugation for people to be able to make an informed judgment. If you are ever ever in Washington D.C., visit the Holocaust Memorial and you may develop a better understanding of this distinction.
I have been there, and appreciate where you're coming from. There may be some useful parallels, but I don't see the shock-photos of aborted fetuses fitting that categorization.
At the Holocaust museum, there are some photos of stacks of corpses, but the museum shows nothing like the blood and gore of the anti-abortion shock-photos. Instead, the museum shows the "machinery" of the holocaust, and emphasises its truly aweful scale. The photos of corpses are not set out to be visually shocking, but instead have a disturbing 'matter-of-fact'ness to them.
Indeed, if one is trying to expose the horrors of abortion, this would be a much better tack to take than pushing shock-photos on people. Not sure how it could best be done, but it should be considered...