Wednesday, October 14, 2009

New York Times Publishes Photos of Aborted Babies

Color me impressed that the left-leaning New York Times showed pictures of retrieved aborted babies along with the story of the photographer who took the pictures.

“A theology professor at Madonna University and the director of Citizens for a Pro-Life Society, she said she had firsthand experience retrieving fetuses after abortions and photographing them. When we met two days later in her university office, she handed me proof: a series of 4-by-6-inch prints that she shot, which have been turned into portraits by Stephen McGee.

“The first image in the pile gave me a clue to the source. It showed a cardboard box with six or seven large, sealed plastic bags with something red inside. There were names on the bags in black ink and, on the box, there was a date written with felt-tip marker: Feb. 27, 1988.

“Mrs. Migliorino Miller said this was one of the many boxes filled with fetuses that she, her husband and several others pulled 21 years ago from a loading dock in Northbrook, Ill., a suburb of Chicago. Acting on a tip, between February and September of 1988, she said they retrieved around 4,000 fetuses that had been shipped there from a dozen or so abortion clinics nationwide. (A protracted lawsuit tied to their efforts ended in 2003.)

“Last year, she said she found 23 fetuses in trash-hauling bins outside two Michigan abortion clinics, leading to a state investigation of the companies’ removal procedures; in 1987, she said a tip led her to a Chicago alley with dozens of boxed-up fetuses in a trash-hauling bin…That was when she took her first fetal pictures. She described her initial motivation as journalistic. “We felt it was very important to make a record of the reality of abortion,” she said.

“The process was a challenge: the fetuses, hard to handle; the scent of the formaldehyde solution, enough to burn the nose. Shooting could only be done up close. She recalled renting expensive macro lenses to get within millimeters of the fetuses.

“She pointed to one of her snapshots showing a tiny hand with visible wrinkles. ‘In order to get that detail,’ she said, ‘you need to get a camera right on top of that.’”

When people say that pro-life people ought to shut about child killing and adopt “unwanted” babies or give these women more money to take care of their kids, it’s absolutely maddening. Permissiveness, not personal responsibility, selflessness, and sacrifice, is always the focus.


Red October 14, 2009 at 3:16 PM  

I just could not imagine any of it. That takes an iron gut to photograph and document what boils down to an ongoing holocaust.

Linda October 14, 2009 at 3:21 PM  

It won't matter that the pictures are taken, because people still won't believe. Our country has killed more babies than people who died in the wars. Those poor, precious, babies never had a chance.

This will be the end of America!

The Right Guy October 14, 2009 at 3:38 PM  

I consider myself right libertarian, and somewhat objectivist and I don't think you have to be selfless and sacrificing to be responsible or for that matter to be pro-life. In fact I can make a damn good argument against abortion without mentioning god, Jesus or any other higher authority. When people have to stoop to the shock value of photographs of fetuses to get people to agree with their position, then they are appealing to emotion and not rational thinking. Even if the position is correct philosophically, it's the wrong way to get there.

On another note, considering where these photos were taken, I would guess that someone didn't want to be punished with a baby.

Opus #6 October 14, 2009 at 3:46 PM  

I disagree that showing photos is stooping to shock value.

What is more truthful about death that a picture of the dead. Indeed, death cries for help, justice. How can death cry when it is swept away with the trash. Every murder victim, and every abortion victim leaves behind a dead body. That is sometimes the only evidence of the crime. Exposing the crime for its ugliness is a tribute to the dead, a vindication of their suffering.

The Right Guy October 14, 2009 at 3:52 PM  

It has to do with intent. I have friends on facebook that are born agains and vehemently pro-life. One in particular likes to post such pictures. While true, she is trying to appeal to emotions in her argument, and not rational thought. I think it is a cheap method of persuasion.

About This Blog

This blog is about my opinions and world view.  I am a conservative, evangelical Christian.  Generally speaking, if you post a comment, I'll allow you to express your view.  However, if you say something hateful, untruthful, or just generally something I don't like, I may remove it.

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by 2008

Back to TOP