Welcome to Gaia! ::

This has irritated me for a while. Anti abortioners* that claim fetuses are people who show bodies of dead fetuses to evoke sympathy for their cause.

Now, I don't know about you, but I don't like the idea of showing dead bodies to make a point . My grandfather died of cancer when I was twelve. I despise smoking. But I don't have pictures of my grandfather's open chest showing lungs blown up to poster sizes and plastered on trucks. That would be disrespectful of the dead. Does MADD or SADD show mutilated, dead bodies from car accidents? Do people who don't like motorcycles show pictures of people becoming street pizza? Do people who despise the death penalty go into graphic detail about how a person can be executed by the state to fight against the death penalty? Even better, do the show pictures of women dying with close ups of their hemorraging vaginas in the pro choice group? No. Because they respect the families and the dead, by not using their bodies for a message.

Anti abortioners clearly don't have the same respect for the so-called people they are fighting for. I'm not surprized if they see them as expendable soldiers in the war agaisnt choice to be paraded around and used against their will. If I was the spirit of a dead baby and I saw my dead I've be so offended by seeing my body displayed on someone's truck I'd reincarnate into a pro-choice woman just to piss them off.

So if anti abortioners REALLY think a fetus is a person, they should treat it with the dignity afforded to a person. Shop showing their dead bodies everywhere. And stop using them for messages.

(Disclaimer: I am not saying any of the anti abortioners here use photographs in such a way. I am saying that those who do should be ashamed.)

* I'm pro life and pro-choice*, so I use "anti abortion" for those who oppose abortion.

**That is not a contradiction in terms.

I personally don't like showing these pictures because, well, I don't like seeing them myself. And personally, logic is the best way to get someone on your side, not trying to elicit sympathy from some pictures.

It's my own personal feelings that these pictures aren't needed, but many use them to make their point stronger, or better. I'd say that they can do what they wish, but I HATE seeing dead fetuses. It gets me all... sick feeling. I don't know. I just plain hate seeing those pictures.

Perhaps it's that the child has hands, and toes, and a head, and they're cut up into pieces that makes me feel sad. I hate those pictures, and I'm glad they've been kept out of the many debates here.

Are you telling me I cannot derive logic from seeing something and disproving of it?

Most of these fetus pictures are not endorsed by the women who have them. A great many are fake. And those swayed by disgust annoy me, as I could use the same type of pictures to damn things like open heart surgery and natural birth because it's gross and icky.



No. PETA shows pictures of dead animals in gruesome pictures all the time to evoke sympathy. It doesn't make the animals people.

So the foetus is a mistake now?

It's not the family that give consent, it's the person who is dying. That person, when of sound mind and judgement, gives permission for their body to be used in those anti-smoking campaigns. A foetus is never of sound mind and judgement.

If you hide the pictures it does nto prove that the foetus is a person, it only shows that you truley believe it to be a person. "This is just your opinion, sorry but it has no backing."

As for people being changed by those pictures; yes, people are changed by anti smoking pictures. Seeing what your lungs look like on the inside might just kick-start you into giving up, because it is a fact that your lungs look like that. Seeing an image of an aborted foetus only makes peoples go "ick"...if anything at all...does about as much for me as pictures of a live foetus...because it's a foetus. An aborted foetus is just that, an aborted foetus. It's the facts surrounding the lungs that change peoples idea's on smoking, the pictures of truth just kinda drive it home. The facts of abortion should be used to change peoples minds. And if someone wants to use pictures of aborted "people" in their campaign then they should use the correct pictures and add the correct facts.



That's about it, yes. Well, almost. If I were to show you pictures of a threesome and you dissaproved of it, it would not mean that it is logical for all people to dissaprove of it. Also, dissaproval is not logic on its own, it is simply your own feelings.



Following on from my point about facts...

No...it...is...not.

The Veil pregnancy Crisis Centre

Abortion 1999: Numbers by Procedure ((England and Wales))
Hysterotomy (Only) 15
Hysterectomy (Only) 7
Vacuum Aspiration (Only) 142,066
Vacuum Aspiration with D and E 9,001
D and E 4,776
Other Surgical 3
Prostaglandins (Only) 793
Prostaglandins with other agents 722
Antiprogesterone with or without Prostaglandin 16,019
Other Medical 219
Combined Methods 80

So lets do some maths here...
I've ignored the Other Surgical, Other Medical and Combined numbers as we don't know exactly what they entailed.

Non-D&E methods ((in your words; "cut into small pieces"))
159632

Methods involving D&E
13777

So...thats 173409 in total.

13777 / 173409=0.07944801

0.07944801 x 100=7.944801

Of all abortions done in 1999 in England and Wales just under 8% were done using D&E.

So tell me again how "everyone who debates knows that that -is- the way it often happens. The fetus is cut into small pieces and sucked out"

I don't often resort to this but...

Do you find sympathy to a woman who cannot obtain an abortion? Point proven.



And i'm sure if any enemy of PETA realizes that pictures of their atrocities (or otherwise) are being circulated, they wouldn't want them out either. And not a great many are fake, I doubt people are photoshopping these to create hype. Alot of them are quite truthful. But you can't disprove their authenticity that easily even if you so wanted to. Their isn't a way to tell once their out of the womb. And their isn't anything wrong with open heart surgery. Open heart surgery, natural birth, life. Abortion, death. Cutting someone open and repairing ventricles doesn't line up with abortion at all.



We're talking about fetii. Not animals. What higher classification of animals exist anyway? They are already animals, so i'd imagine one could assume they are already being maltreated.



I didn't say the decisions of others and I didn't mention anything about to what degree I disagree with it.

Depends on your view point. Open heart surgery is cutting someone open to fix a problem. In the opinion of many Pro-Choicers so is abortion is a way of fixing a a physical problem.

And natural birth makes my stomach churn. That anyone would choose to get pregnant is almost beyond my understanding, that anyone would choose to give birth vaginally, and then without any form of pain relief... that confuses the hell out of me.

My friend recently gave birth ((2 hour true labour after her waters broke...but she was having labour pains for 85 hours)) she told us that the woman in the bed next to her had been in surgery for 4 hours, being stitched up inside and out *shudder* and women choose this?

So you see, actually I do think natural child birth is wrong. But I'm not going to stop someone from doing it ((even if it is long, drawn out and dangerous for both parties)).



I didn't say the decisions of others and I didn't mention anything about to what degree I disagree with it.

That doesn't make sense. I said you cannot derive logic simply from dissaproving of something you see. I agve you an example of something you might see and said you could not claim it was wrong just because you dissaprove of it, or that that disapproval is logical.

OK first of all I'll say I really don't agree with graphic images for the sole reason that I think they have become counterproductive. That said, there is historic reasoning for graphic images.

The most noted is the mother who displayed her son's mutilated body after he was beat to death in a racially motivated crime to demonstrate the abhorant practice of racism. Her display most certainly had a profound influence on those who saw her deceased son. I think the reason these tecniques are no longer usable is because our society has become so accustomed to violent images and has in a sense built a barrior to horror.