Do we?
Should
there be some ordinance, or at least a respect, that prevents us from being
subjected to such pictures? Do we have the right not to be confronted with
hot-button issues?
The right
to not have to see graphic images, found in the same article of the
Constitution as the right to privacy and separation of church and state, is one
treasured by a number of individuals. It is a good thing we can forfeit this
right when convenient, or else it would be difficult for these individuals to
partake of R-rated movies and M-rated video games.
Why is this
right tied so closely to the right to privacy and the separation of church of
state? Besides the first two being nonexistent as the third is, figments of
creative legislation from the bench, they are also used to justify the same
thing.
The right
to privacy makes it legal for a couple to choose to use abortifacient birth
control; it also gives a mother the sole control over the life or death of her
unborn child. The separation of church and state is justification to pro-choice
proponents who believe, as backed up by Secular Pro-Life, Pro-Life Humanists,
and other non-religious pro-life groups, that abortion is opposed solely on
religious grounds; hence abortion must not be abated or halted because
Christians happen to be against it.
In a
similar way, the right not to be confronted with photos of abortion’s aftermath
are opposed; the first amendment should and must be compromised for our
personal comfort.
During
World War II, there were doubtless German citizens who were made aware of the
atrocities in concentration camps, and said, “I don’t want to see that. It
doesn’t directly affect me, and I shouldn’t have my day interrupted by such
problems.”
Doubtless
during the 1960s, there were people who saw the police brutality on blacks
broadcasted on the news, and thought they shouldn’t have to see it.
The
citizens in Turkey probably said the same thing when confronted with the
Armenian Genocide.
When we
turn on the TV and see starving children or abused animals, do we say, “I have
a right not to see that”? Probably some do. But many understand the purpose-
until we see the problem, until faces are put to the numbers, we don’t fully
understand the suffering and the need for it to stop.
Hence the
Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. Hence the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center
for Nonviolent Social Change in Atlanta, Georgia. Hence the Tsitsernakaberd
memorial in Yerevan, Armenia, and the like museums being built in national
capitals across the world. In these museums, we find photos of the atrocities
that happened. So we better understand them. So we don’t forget them. So they
won’t happen.
This is why
Martin Luther King, Jr. made sure brutal attacks on black people made it to
television, newspapers, and magazines. He stated, "America will never
reject racism until America sees racism." His niece, Alveda King, coined
the quote by saying, "America will never reject abortion until America
sees abortion."
We can
charade all we want and say that presenting facts is enough. Facts are vital,
but facts will not make you stop like a startling picture will. We can hear all
the facts we want, but until we see what they mean, what the result is, they
may never sink in. Or at least not move us to act. And that goes for anything.
Those who say,
“I shouldn’t have to have my day interrupted with pictures of dead babies”, are
often the epitome of hypocrisy. Those who are pro-choice and say this, tell us,
“Yeah it looks like a baby, but I think it should be allowed. I just don’t want
to see it.”
Don’t get
me wrong, I don’t want to see graphic images either. Some are unnecessary. But
some are most necessary. The very fact that we turn away from it is our
God-given consciences telling us there is something wrong with it.
But instead
of saying, “There is something wrong with that, and I’m going to do something
about it,” we say, “There is something wrong with you showing me that, and I’m
going to do something about it.” We lash out at the messenger rather than
receive the message. We are angry about being confronted with abortion rather
than being angry with abortion itself.
What is the
problem? If a fetus is an inferior being, or not alive at all, as pro-choice
advocates claim, why is there something wrong with seeing the images? We’re
just showing you a clump of dead cells. A surgical procedure.
But
something inside says that is wrong, says we don’t want to see that. But the
action itself will attempt to be justified.
Dare I say
that, when a genocide is happening, we do not have the right to go about our
daily lives as if nothing is happening? I dare to say it.
There were
three groups of German citizens during the Holocaust. There were those who knew
what was going on and refused to do anything. There were those who were not
informed, through choice or not. And there were those who were aware of the
horrors and did what they could to stop it, because it was wrong and they knew
it. The Resistance.
When the
Resistance tries to warn you that there are atrocities, you have the right to
turn away, remaining willfully ignorant of what is going on. You can even
become outraged with them. God will judge all our actions in the end.
But don’t
ruin it for those who will have the character to stand up and stand out. There
are many, and they are many in disregard of what you choose to believe, whose
eyes will be opened for the first time to such evil. They will look, they will
reason, and they will choose to believe it is wrong. At least their hearts will
be pricked. Some will even ask what they can do to prevent it. Because our
consciences tell us that that dismembered fetus on the board isn’t just tissue.
It is as human as us.
Just like
the Armenians. Just like the Jews. Just like the blacks.
Some of us
don’t want to be ignorant.
No comments:
Post a Comment