SOB’s Grins & Grumps

Everything Between Heaven and Earth and Beyond

  • Copyrights and Contact

    Henric C. Jensen
    All images and Artwork are
    © 2006-2018 Henric C. Jensen

  • April 2007
    S M T W T F S
  • Categories

  • Meta

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

Archive for April 30th, 2007

Right-Wing Religious Death Porn

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on April 30, 2007

My Comments on the issue of publishing highly graphic images of aborted children.Those images are also unethical – disrespectful of the children in question. What’s more, they only have one purpose – to play into the viewer’s emotions. While I agree that abortions shouldn’t be the norm, there actually are instances where they are needed.

Besides, there is a huge difference between abortion and the death penalty, which I am also against – the death penalty is a collective impersonal decision, while an abortion is a individual and personal decision, that is between the woman and her G-d. Instead of getting on our moral high horses, we should leave any judgements of right or wrong to G-d as we really don’t know the whole truth behind a decision to have an abortion.

“That someone seeks to salve their own conscience by denying the utter horror of the reality of abortion and saying it’s only between God and only one other person.”

Whose conscience are you talking about here, [name of opponent] – as far as I am concerned, there is only one conscience involved in the decision to have an abortion, and that is ultimately the woman deciding to have the abortion – and that is between her and G-d, no matter what you say about it.

Who’s been denying anything?

Not me. It does however seem to me that you are denying the fact that abortions are sometimes needed for the social, emotional and physical survival of the mother. But then of course, perhaps you do not consider the woman particularly important, so that in a scenario where there is need her life does not take precedence over that of an unborn?

“Sorry Dov – but you’re speaking utter crap…”

So it’s utter crap to expect people not to use highly sentsitive images as leverage in their attempt to force people to bend to their religious whip? As Ketutar said, there really is no need for this kind of “Death Porn”, other than to rile up emotions and manipulate people.

“There is NOT only One person and God involved.”

Ultimately it is between the Mother and G-d, and only He can judge the reasons, circumstances and emotions involved – did I say that I think she will not be judged by G-d? No, I did not, but I also believe that G-d is far beyond you and me in Compassion, Understanding and Mercy, so that His Judgement is Absolutely Fair.

“By your words YOU are disrespecting those babies’ Fathers also.”

Actually, I am not disrespecting the Fathers – but when all is said and done, the fathers have very little to say about their unborn children, as they are not the one physically pregnant. I also thouroughly believe that a father should have a say, and if you had read what I have said on the abortion issue f.i in HRN you would know this.

“AND condoning the actions of the other people who put it in their own hands to kill those babies, for the mothers. That’s NOT One person and God.”

Well, the medical professionals are ultimately there, not to kill those babies, but to assist the mother so she won’t have to have the abortion done with a coat hanger in a back alley and most likely become a second casualty in a tragedy. Most countries have a “conscientious objector’s ” clause in their abortion legislation, so that medical personnell can make a decision not to perform abortions or any other medical procedure their beliefs object to. I know this is not the case in the US – but that can easily be remedied through amending the legislation.

“Do you also want to deny the Holocaust?”

Now you are being ridiculous, and you know it…

Then another guy comes in, post a enlarged version of the thumbnails I had originally objected to – and this self-righteous, hypocritical and fundamentalist (yes, he is a “born-again” Xian) moron says:

“Putting a Face on The DebateWhen so many argue in favor of partial birth abortion, a picture is worth 10,000 words. It is only right for all to see just what it is that is being debated. It is important to show just what it is that pro-choice is asking to choose.

This is a very sanitised photo of the aftermath of a Partial Birth Abortion. This is what so called freedom of choice is choosing every day.

If someone is pro-choice, they should be able to look at this photo with pride and declare, yes that’s what I stand for. That is an example of my personal values and my life view. They should be proud of such a photo.”

The thing with this self-righteous toad is that he is completely missing my point, which the other guy wasn’t, he just disagreed with me, but this guy makes it about abortion as such, which it never was when I came into the thread.

Which is very clear from this comment:

“Why is it OK to post pictures of dead dogs, cats, warpictures, dead adults, concentration camps, etc ? BUT not dead babies? Does it offend and upset peoples emotions? So do the others!”

Yes, [name] they do – which is why I am opposed to those too – what have I been opposing the most in Human Rights Network? Posting of highly graphic and insensitive Pictures that does nothing to further the point of a discussion except rile people up and manipulate them emotionally. In fact the people most prone to do this in HRN have all been blocked partly because they use these tactics.

Now, you not need to agree with me – and I do not need to agree with you – after all this is a discussion forum, chances are that people will at one point or other disagree with each other.

Just as it is your right to think the way you do, and share that with the rest of us, so it is my right to present my opinion – and for whatever it’s worth – that was all I did. I addressed the issue of those pictures in my first post – I didn’t address the issue of abortion, because that I have no issue with. I took issue with the images posted, because they are highly graphic, and because as such they are intended to manipulate emotions, just like any other pictures of the same graphic nature.

Now, the first guy – here in green text, is a nice guy who just happened to disagree with me – the other one, here in red text is a self-righteous schmuck with a schlemiel the size of an ant…a typical representative of the Religious Right. (A)mmmoral Majority.


Posted in Human Rights | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

%d bloggers like this: