PRESS RELEASE OCTOBER 4-6, 2013
CITIZENS FOR A PRO-LIFE SOCIETY
PRO-LIFE LEADER URGES NEW DISCUSSION ON USE OF “GRAPHIC IMAGES” IN PRO-LIFE WORK
The
use of graphic images of abortion victims in pro-life work has in more
recent decades become a point of conflict and debate within the pro-life
movement itself, especially the public display of such images. Monica
Migliorino Miller’s recently published article is an unprecedented
comprehensive examination of this issue. Published in the September 2013
New Oxford Review it is now available on the NOR website for a limited time at: http://www.newoxfordreview.
But is also permanently posted at: www.prolifesociety.com
The author has herself retrieved
hundreds of aborted babies from trash containers and spent hundreds of
hours photographing the bodies. Miller argues strongly that photos of
abortion victims play a vital role in the efforts of the right-to-life
movement to establish respect for the lives of the unborn and abolish
the injustice of abortion. Among other areas of discussion Miller
provides a history of the use of these images in the pro-life movement.
However, she urges that the time has come for the movement to evaluate
which photos of abortion victims are most effective. This means
pro-lifers should be more critical and sophisticated in the selection of
photos displayed in public, in literature and educational materials.
She states: “Not all abortion victim photos are equal” and goes on to
explain that it is a mistake that the “gorier and bloodier the image,
the more effective it will be in depicting the injustice of abortion.”
Miller agrees that abortion victim
photos will innately contain graphic elements, but argues that such
aspects of the photos must be secondary to the subject of the abortion
victims presented in the photos. To the viewer of a “graphic image” the
abortion victim must be immediately recognizably human. Miller explains:
“Blood and extraneous uterine matter
should not overwhelm the aborted baby in the photo. Indeed even a kind
of mathematical ratio can be used to evaluate the usefulness of a
graphic image. If the blood and gore is more than or even equal to the
actual baby—such a photo should be set aside in favor of an image in
which the actual human victim is primary. It is not only or primarily
the violence of abortion that pro-lifers should display to the world,
but the actual hidden and silent human victim of abortion will be the
focus of the more effective images.” Miller continues:
“The
viewer of the image of an aborted baby should be able to identify with
the victim — not simply be shocked or repulsed by the blood-drenched
image. The photo should provoke pathos, pity, sorrow, and a response to
the injustice done to the baby, whose humanity is obvious in the midst
of the tragedy and violence. To the majority of viewers whom pro-lifers
are trying to reach, that first glance is the most important — indeed,
it might not just be the first glance but the only glance — and thus its impact in drawing the viewer into the humanity of the victim cannot be squandered.”
Miller also urges that the pro-life
movement drop the term “graphic images” when referring to photos of
aborted babies. Many abortion photos—even effective ones are indeed
extremely “graphic images”—but the term itself does not capture or
encompass the essence of this type of photography. She states: “The
movement needs to stop using that term. Instead we should refer to these
pictures as “abortion victim photos” or “abortion victim photography.”
Distinctions exist between a graphic
image that instantly repulses the viewer, an image with an appropriate
proportion of extraneous graphic elements, and photos of abortion
victims that certainly are disturbing, but in which the blood and gore
is nearly absent. Miller’s article calls for a deeper appreciation for
these distinctions and states: “Those who oppose the use of ‘graphic
images’ need not necessarily oppose photos of abortion victims per se.
Whatever side one may take in the debate, given that a difference
exists between an excessively graphic image and an image of an abortion
victim — between a repulsive image and a disturbing image— pro-lifers
who object to the use of all abortion-victim photography should reexamine and move beyond that objection.”
Miller states: “There are many great
pro-lifers who are dedicated to the display of abortion victim photos.
What they do is essential to the movement. Their work should be
supported and encouraged. I simply want to urge those of us on the front
lines to look at abortion victim photos in a new way—to not be
threatened or afraid to re-evaluate what we are doing and urge the
selection of photos in which the tragic victim of abortion ‘however
graphic’ is primary and obvious.”
The New Oxford Review Article covers the following topics:
1) History of the use of these images in the pro-life movement
2) Summary of the recent debate
3) Responses to the objections as to their use
4) Why we need to stop using the term “graphic images” and instead use the term “abortion victim photos”
5) Why not all abortion images are equal in their effectiveness and how to judge a bad photo versus a good one
6) The ethics of abortion victim photography
7) When and where to use the photos
For more information contact: Monica Migliorino Miller 248 444-9096
