Experienced Pro-lifer's Comments on Use of Graphic Pictures
Here are some insights from Janet Spear we thought might be helpful when debating the use of graphic pictures such as Baby Malachi. The arguments she uses here are intelligent and constructive. Keep up the good work, Janet! - Flip
Just read the "Salisbury (.com)Post" article.
Just yesterday, as I was going into Office Max to get some copying done, a "pro-life but" man in a pickup truck pulled up to my van in passing, and yelled at me as to how sick I was to let children see those pictures; I replied that what is really sick, and abominable in the sight of God, is to let children BE those pictures (yes, it sounds like something Pavone would say, and he probably has) . . . as per Isaiah 1, Proverbs 24:11, James 1:27, etc.
I am occasionally told that there is an especially hot place reserved in hell for me and others who show "those pictures" whereas, in reality, the wrath of God is, according to Scripture, especially hot against those who SUPPRESS THE TRUTH IN UNRIGHTEOUSNESS, not against those who expose the works of darkness. While not on a plane with Scripture, Dante is nearer the mark in opining that 'the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a time of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.'
A couple of notes re: the use of graphic images...
Have you ever wished you could have a transcript of the comments made by the German men, women, AND CHILDREN as they viewed the cartloads of Jewish corpses pulled on carts through the streets of Eastern Europe by the Allies at the end of WWII? I have; I expect that they would prove to be mostly variations on themes we hear in response to showing these photos publicly, with very little new essential material added.
2.) While I think that most adults who complain about these pictures are using their children as "human shields" to hide from dealing constructively with their own complicity in the abortion holocaust, I think that what can be upsetting to children about the aborted baby pictures is that they know something unspeakably, unthinkably, horrible has happened to a BABY; they demand an explanation, and seek assurance that a similar fate will not befall them. If this is given, I think their thoughts naturally turn towards helping it not happen to other children; and that children would, therefore, naturally feel safer with an adult who is actively, and visibly, opposing the violence the pictures expose rather than those showing the pictures. Logical enough.
Getting back to the Salisbury article, I could not help noticing that it did not contain ONE substantial refutation of any of the contents of your tracts, or of anything you or Scott said. That is typical of leftist/anti-Christian vitriol/propaganda in general and especially in print. Why not challenge the author to disprove your message before he starts attacking its messengers?