The media censorship double standard of abortion

[livingwordunity]

This week in the news was a front page article about a teen that got his arm chewed off by an alligator in Florida. It graphically described how it happened and how he got the bleeding to stop.

Those who favor abortion always say that it’s not a baby. It would be easy to prove them wrong if pictures and/or graphic descriptions of what an abortion actually is would be allowed to be shown in the media without getting censored out right away.

If the people who say it’s not a baby really believe it, why are they so afraid to see the pictures of it unless they don’t believe their own lies?

 

[Jeanne_S]

It’s called denial…

 

[aragonjohn1]

it does not make much sense but articles like this help understand their perspective a little

• philvaz.com/apologetics/p9.htm

Shalom
God Bless

 

[Rainaldo]

This week in the news was a front page article about a teen that got his arm chewed off by an alligator in Florida. It graphically described how it happened and how he got the bleeding to stop.

Those who favor abortion always say that it’s not a baby. It would be easy to prove them wrong if pictures and/or graphic descriptions of what an abortion actually is would be allowed to be shown in the media without getting censored out right away.

If the people who say it’s not a baby really believe it, why are they so afraid to see the pictures of it unless they don’t believe their own lies?

They will respond with, “Yes but it can’t think, can’t feel pain”, etc. And if you prove that it can, they will just say, “Well, it’s not a legal person and therefore does not have the right to life”. If you establish that it does have the right to life, they will say “Some killings are justified”.

Besides, grossing people out with pictures eventually loses its shock value. What difference do you think all those anti-abortion sidewalk protesters have made, with their huge posters of bloody fetus parts?

It’s worth your while to research the history, not of abortion per se, but of the arguments in favor of it, especially over the last fifty or more years. You will see that the justifications shift the moment the earlier justification is exposed as nonsense.

It’s the same kind of shifting that you see when you catch someone who knows he is guilty - they start with an excuse, then shift to arguing technical points.

There is no arguing and no convincing someone who hates an unqualified good.

 

[St_Francis]

I have had small children and so can understand why people would not want graphic pictures shown publicly, and I also think that showing pictures of living babies in the womb, now that we can take them, would be more effective. I think that they would get people to think more about what is really going on.

I always thought that as long as we are forced to teach kids sex ed, showing them pictures of babies in the womb would be a really good idea!