Are Explicit Images Legitimate?

One of the best known photographs of all times is the June 1963 picture of a Vietnamese Buddhist monk who lit himself on fire in protest of his government. The photo is graphic, yet it serves to illustrate a point that mere words would never have communicated. It was widely circulated in protest of America’s involvement in Vietnam. Similarly graphic photos have been used to protest wars, animal slaughter practices, nuclear testing, and a wide variety of other controversial topics. Men and women with religious inclinations have not been immune to this practice.

I am a South Dakota citizen preparing to serve the people of the Diocese of Rapid City. In January, I rejoiced that our state legislature passed House Bill 1215, and that shortly thereafter, Mike Rounds, the Governor of the state, signed the bill into law. This legislation makes it a crime to perform an abortion in the State of South Dakota, and doctors convicted of the crime can face a five year prison sentence. This bill, as might be expected, has provoked quite a fire storm among South Dakota voters who, it seems, will likely be asked to vote on whether or not the bill should be allowed to become law in the fall elections.

Debate has been particularly fierce on blogs and other internet forums. On one South Dakota blog, a writer recently submitted links to explicit photos of the remains of those children who have died as a result of abortion. There was a strong visceral reaction to this posting, and many people called for the moderators of the blog to remove the post and/or links, calling them indecent. I will spare you the details of the pictures, but suffice it to say, my stomach churned when I saw them. I think that the entire episode poses an interesting question, however. Can we legitimately use graphic photos, such as those that show the truth of the results of abortion, as a means to convince people of the evil of the practice? In some ways, it seems that we should; abortion is barbaric and pro-abortion people should know what they are supporting. On the other hand, what about the dignity of those whose pictures we are using to achieve our ends? Are we abusing their dignity? What of the innocent children who will also see the photos when we display them? Should they be subjected to such imagery? I’m not sure where I come down on this issue, but it has certainly given me reason to take pause and consider it.