Friday, October 08, 2010

Incredibly Bad Headline of the Day

MADRID, SPAIN - MARCH 29:  A placard reads 'No...Image by Getty Images via @daylife
From the National Post: "Do graphic anti-abortion posters cross a moral line?"

Cross a moral line?  We're talking about morality again instead of rights, rights, rights?

How can a picture of a real event cross a moral line when the event itself is supposedly entirely without moral implications?

“The students have chosen a low road,” said Mr. Kerr... ”

Yeah? How about the person who had the abortion and provided the graphic images of the bruised, bloodied, dismembered fetus -- what road did she take?

Imagine this headline: "Does this woman's abortion cross a moral line?". Unthinkable. That would be insensitive. That would suggest what she did was wrong. It might even suggest there's something morally wrong with extra-marital sex  So, let's make a moral issue instead about pictures.

As a society we have got our values upside down when we care more about the photo of an abortion than the abortion itself.

Enhanced by Zemanta

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

I've never understood how showing a fact can be bad. I guess that means that showing cancerous lungs on cigarette packs is bad too. Why don't these people complain about that?

It's too bad that abortion can't be all rainbows and daisies.

Abortion is distasteful, awful, gross, etc. Reality is a bitch.

hunter said...

Very good point, why aren't we asking if abortions are moral? (Hint: because EVERYONE knows they aren't) That is the true question, but as long as it is about "my body, my choice", the moral issue is not questioned.

L said...

Yes, these kids were wrong to have graphic signs, but have the right to protest. So, they blew it! Canadian values at work: you can be vociferously against abortion, but you can not just protest in any way you want such that it is gross and offensive. Live and learn kids: you went too far.

Anonymous said...

L:

How do you define "gross?"


Free speech is invariably found to be "offensive" by repressive "progressives." This is especially true if the speaker is opposed to one of many "progressive" ideological sacred cows.

TangoJuliette

ttfn

t.e.&o.e.

Anonymous said...

Since the entire abortion debate is not about rights but rooted firmly in the imposition of the anti-abortion "morals" upon women who may or may not accept that morality for themselves, the moral questions around the behavior of the anti-abortion crowd deserve to be scrutinized - whether that is overly graphic posters, bogus comparisons of abortion to genocide or the assassinations of doctors who provide abortion services to women.

Fetal rights is nothing more than a cheesy attempt to hide the ugly reality of the anti-abortion totalitarians.

RkBall said...

According to the last commenter, when you oppose abortion it's "morals", but when you oppose those who oppose it, it's just plain morals.

Which kind of proves the point I was making.

Either abortion results in the destruction of a unique, innocent human life, or it doesn't. And either that matters, or it doesn't. So if that's not a question of morals as opposed to "morals" I don't know what is.

"... nothing intellectually compelling or challenging.. bald assertions coupled to superstition... woefully pathetic"