rabble wrote:I don't know, Dave. The anti abortionists have been using graphic images of aborted fetuses for decades now (which Meade apparently approves of since he's never complained about it) and I don't think it's been working for them.
Bill of Rights... freedom of speech. Whether you are pro-abortion or anti-abortion, pro-bear arms or anti-bear arms: express yourself - don't repress yourself.
And I disagree on the graphic images not working for "anti-abortionists". The more that people face the grisly reality of abortion, the more who find it abhorrent.
The reason I
personally would not release photos of aborted and/or murdered victims is because it would conflict with my expression of respect for those victims.
Also, if you want to draw comparisons between graphic representations of aborted fetuses, Emmitt Till's corpse, and the murdered children at Newtown, what is most alike is aborted fetuses and Emmitt Till, not the Newtown children.
Everyone is already horrified by the murders at Newtown. Releasing photos of the carnage at Newtown would only serve the ghoulish cynical needs of people like Dave.
Where as, before people actually viewed the graphic results of what was done to human beings like aborted fetuses and Emmitt Till, very few people cared because - out of sight, out of mind