Let's start with the first story from yesterday, a report of a woman that was arrested for yelling obscenities at a pro-life demonstration on the University of Buffalo (SUNY) campus. And later in the day I came across this article commenting on the way images of blood, violence, and injury are quite popular when the cause is accident or terrorism, but when it is abortion it is avoided or banned.
I think the instructor being arrested asks a good question in between her vulgar tirades, "What makes what I am saying profane but what they are showing not profane?" I think it is a valid question, particularly because as someone that is pro-life when I try to answer that question I find myself confronting a difficult fact: The images of abortion, being pictures of the extremely profane act of taking innocent life are more profane than what this woman was yelling.
Other than denying God's existence or other blasphemy against God, I can't think of anything definitely more profane than abortion. A completely defenseless, totally innocent life is snuffed out because another finds their existence to be inconvenient. Maybe the mother is forced to the decision by others, maybe she feels forced by circumstances, but ultimately, someone sees that tiny human being as something that can be judged convenient or inconvenient and denied the dignity of being human, despite every bit of science and reason to the contrary. So, here we have one of the most profane acts imaginable, and the results captured in photos and video. That imagery is inevitably profane. The abortion was not subjectively wrong, it was objectively wrong, so the image is a representation of an objective wrong, it conveys something objectively wrong and carries a significant amount of the profanity. I can't argue with the UB instructor when she says those images are profane. They are.
But her speech? The words she was using and the context lead me to say they were profane. But, the trouble with words is that they are not objectively profane. Words can have multiple meanings and the context and intent can significantly change the meaning. Some words, in some contexts, uttered with a particular intent are good, while used in a different context with a different intent are profane. The best example I can think of to illustrate this point is the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Clearly, the way I used his name just now is perfectly acceptable and good. If I were to say, "Jesus, I love you and thank you for all that I have," it would be not only good and acceptable but something to be encouraged. Similarly, if I find myself in a difficult situation and whisper, "Jesus help me," that would be good and noble. But, if it is one of those mornings, I stubbed my toe walking across the bedroom, the kids are fighting and yelling and one of them comes running into the room and spills juice on the floor and on my shirt and I yell his name? Yep, profane, wrong. But, what if when I had stubbed my toe I kind of whispered, "Jesus". You might think it was profane, but what if the thought in my mind at the time was that I was asking Him for help and just saying His name quietly as a short vocal prayer? See, the intent makes a huge difference. Words aren't objectively good or bad, they just are, it's how we use them that defines their merit...
So, I have something objectively profane (image of abortion) vs. something subjectively profane (her language). Yes, in the context and intent I think it is safe to say that her language was profane. But, why should she be arrested for being profane while profane images were allowed to be displayed?
Of course, if we think about it long enough we can see why she should have been taken away while the students were allowed to continue. It has to do with the fact that there in the first amendment along with the freedom of speech is the right to "peaceably" assemble. Sedately displaying images of abortion was peaceable, what she was doing was disturbing the peace. The profanity wasn't really the issue, it was more that she was being disruptive and doing so in a manner that can tend to incite violence.
But, once I got through that train of thought I started to puzzle over her response. Her actions seem to indicate that she finds images of abortion to be more disturbing and profane than the words she was using. She is opposed to pictures of aborted babies but supports the right to drop "f-bombs". Now, here I'm going to make an assumption, that the instructor is pro-choice, I think everyone that has viewed this assumes that to be true, and it well may be. But I think it is important for me to note that nothing I have read or seen has told me that is definitely the case, it is just an assumed fact. But, under that assumption, we are looking at a person that thinks abortion is a right, that it is not something that should be illegal, that it is not something evil and profane, it is as much a right to be celebrated as is freedom of speech, religion, or due process. But, the pictures of it are profane? As a pro-lifer, that makes a lot of sense to me, profane act captured on film creates profane image. But positive right captured on film is profane imagery?
Some people are squeamish about the sight of blood and bones and internal organs. I understand that. But, if the images had been presented by the Med School, or Lung Association, or some other agency showing surgical, life-saving procedures would she respond with the same vitriol decrying those images as profane? Would there be a lot of people agreeing with her that, "Yes, pictures of life-saving surgery are profane"? I think we all know that the reaction would be more of an understanding, "I know some people are squeamish or uncomfortable with blood, but these are images of something good."
But, something causes her and other pro-choice supporters to react quite strongly to images of abortion. Not just a, "I can't stand the sight of blood response," but a much deeper revulsion at the profane nature of the images. A response I understand and agree with. So, there's the part of me that says pro-life demonstrators should not use images that we know and recognize as profane. But, part of me sees reactions like this and thinks, no, we need to use them. The other side argues that there is nothing inherently wrong, immoral, profane, or evil in abortion, nothing that justifies laws denying a woman "rights to her body". But, when they see the images their reaction betrays the dishonesty in their position. Inside, some part of them recognizes that the images are profane. But their logic and argumentation says that there should be nothing profane in those images. Maybe, for the sake of argument we concede their point that there is nothing "profane" about abortion and show the images to open the door to discussion or deeper thought about the truth of abortion.
The second article hints at the line of thought here. It notes that people pretty freely share pictures of Kevin Ware's leg breaking or the injuries that occurred in the Boston bombings. But, share pictures of abortions and you may be censored, and you can rest assured that news outlets will self-censor abortion imagery (like images from the Gosnell "clinic") while showing imagery from war zones, terror attacks, and accident scenes. In the case of an injury like Ware's I can see that the aforementioned difference exists, his injury is not the result of an evil act so it is neutral imagery compared to abortion imagery being of evil. But, that doesn't explain the different response when it comes to images from events like the Boston bombing. That imagery is the result of evil as surely as abortion imagery. So, it's not simply that the imagery is profane that causes the response. What is different?
This one took me awhile, I had to try and put myself in the shoes of a pro-choice advocate, because my response to images of terror attacks is pretty similar to my response to abortion imagery, one of revulsion and questioning the need for showing the results of evil so graphically. No qualitative difference in my response, unlike the response I see in so many that support abortion, decry the imagery, but then share photos of bombings. Trying to understand what might be going on in their mind it struck me... When I look at photos of violence, abortion or terrorism, what I see are the results of someone else's evil behavior. Behavior I oppose, speak against, and do not support or tolerate. The pro-choice person sharing a picture of the Boston bombing? They know they had nothing to do with the bombing. But, when they see the abortion imagery, they know they have supported someone's right to commit that evil. At a minimum they accept it as a legitimate right of another to do that to a baby, they bear some sense of guilt. And the more vocal and active they have been in defending or fighting for the "right to abortion" the more they see themselves partially responsible for abortions taking place.
While we don't like seeing the evil others cause, we really hate to acknowledge the evil we commit, support, or have done nothing to curtail...
