Tuesday, October 13, 2009

How exactly do we use those images of aborted fetuses?

by Gracie Remington

The New York Times' Lens blog has an interesting and unsettling piece on the production of images of aborted fetuses, featuring an interview with Monica Migliorino Miller, a theology professor at Madonna University and the director of Citizens for a Pro-Life Society, who has been salvaging discarded fetuses and photographing them since 1988. Initially motivated by journalistic ideals ("We felt it was very important to make a record of the reality of abortion"), she has adapted her ideas of what is appropriate for use in the anti-abortion movement over time, and no longer believes that images featuring blood or organs are acceptable; additionally, she argues against the use of graphic images when attempting to involve children in the anti-abortion movement.

The article features interesting commentary from leaders on both sides of the abortion issue, and provides valuable insight into the various principles at work in the visual battle over a woman's right to an abortion. A highly recommended read.


At October 19, 2009 at 7:54 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

The shit that gets me about this gruesome rhetoric is, how the hell is the pro-choice movement supposed to counter it? I suppose the equivalent counter to the bloody fetus is the woman bleeding to death, possibly dead, from an illegal abortion, but that's too "inflammatory." I can just imagine the whining anti-choicers. "We'd much rather see CUTE dead things than real dead things. They're just dead women; no big deal." We seem to be more affected by dead fetuses than by frickin' Iraqi civilian casualties with limbs blown off or Rwandan genocide victims chopped up with machetes. It makes me wonder wtf is wrong with people. We're deeply affected by an image of a fetus, which HARDLY suffers, but we're immune to images of REAL SUFFERING.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home