The Problem of Pro-Life (pt. 2 - Does It Work?)

 Violent, graphic images are considered the norm of pro-life material. Very little is said in news articles or on social media sites about any other form of pro-life literature. It seems that the graphic images leave the most lasting impression on the public. But are they ethically right? Is this the loving and Biblical way to promote the pro-life agenda? Many would argue that it does not matter that these images offend, as long as they save lives. Randy Alcorn writes,

“Animal rights advocates argue that in order to make their case they must show terrible photographs, such as baby seals being clubbed to death. If there's a place to look at such pictures, isn't there a place to look at pictures of abortions? And if abortion isn't killing babies...then why are these images so disturbing? Was the solution to the Holocaust to ban the disgusting pictures? Or was the solution to end the killing? Is the solution to abortion getting rid of pictures of dead babies? Or is it getting rid of what's making the babies dead?”¹

This statement expresses the feelings of most who would distribute similar violent pro-life material. If this is the fact of abortion, why not distribute it? As one author writes, “To many pro-choice advocates, the imagery is revolting propaganda...While images of violent fetal death work magnificently for pro-lifers as political polemic, the pictures are not polemical in themselves: they are biological facts.”² Their argument is built on the assumption that presenting pictures of biological facts will change the minds or open the eyes of people who would otherwise get an abortion.

If, in fact graphic posters brought an end, or even a significant change to the number of abortions in the area they were distributed, then one would be forced to conclude that this is is an effective way to promote the pro-life agenda. But if, in fact, it is found that shocking and offensive pro-life ads do not alter the number of abortions performed in an area, then one must conclude that they are needlessly angering individuals.

II. Does propaganda work?

How effective is propaganda? Will eye-catching pro-life ads actually serve to change the mind of the public? Propaganda posters played a huge role in World War II, affecting people's emotions and how they viewed the war. Posters in the countries of both the axis and the allies made war look glamourous, and hard work necessary.³ Pictures were used, because pictures are known to be more effective than words. People might forget a newspaper article they read, but most will remember a picture.⁴ The catholic church spends millions each year on printed material with a pro-life message, because they believe it is a way of assuring that the pro-life position is not buried in the middle of a newspaper.⁵

But research suggests that graphic pro-life posters, unlike WWII propaganda, are not being effective. This is primarily because American women of child-bearing age do not typically view the abortion issue within the same moral framework as pro-life activists.

“Our message is not being well-received by this audience because we have made the error of assuming that women, especially those facing the trauma of an unplanned pregnancy, will respond to principles we see as self-evident within our own moral framework, and we have presented our arguments accordingly. This is a miscalculation that has fatally handicapped the pro-life cause.”⁶

Gallup polls indicate that since 1994, the public's opinion on abortion has hardly changed at all, despite the increase in pro-life advertising.⁷ Pro-life protesters are operating on the assumption that people prone to get abortions will see and feel what they see and feel when they look at a certain picture. Randy Alcorn feels that all that is needed to defeat the pro-choice argument is a picture of what inside the womb – even an ultrasound will do. “All arguments vaporize in the face of the unborn child.”⁸ Yet even he acknowledges that “denial remains surprisingly strong,” and writes of how many refuse to believe they are looking at real photographs.⁹ As was noted in my last post, many news articles from across the country report shock and outrage from families receiving pro-life material. It is clear that the most prominent ways of communicating the pro-life cause have angered and not converted the public, because they appeal to the moral framework of the wrong people. In conclusion, pro-life propaganda at first seems like an effective way to spread the word, but in practice proves to be almost entirely fruitless.

Therefore, most pro-life material is unethical. It is fruitless, and only serves to anger those it reaches. It does not love the pregnant mother who it speaks to or protect the child in her womb, but gives a needlessly foul reputation to all pro-lifers. Much like the preacher on the corner of a street with a 'repent or go to hell' sign, pro-life material blinds the eyes of the masses in an attempt to catch the eye of one or two in a million. It is unethical for pro-lifers to attempt to shock an incredibly small percentage of women out of an abortion when they could have used their time and effort to show a true love to a larger percentage of the masses.

1Alcorn (2004), p. 47.

2Wolf (1995), on-line document.

3Hoyt (2008), on-line document.

4Helfland (2012), on-line document.

5O'Connor, on-line document.

6Swope (1998), on-line document.

7Saad (2002), on-line document.

8Alcorn (2004), p. 42.

9Alcorn (2004), p. 43.