Recently, letters to the editor have expressed objections to an educational campaign by a local pro-life group, which I am part of. >First, please note that children are not our target audience, but it is unavoidable that sometimes children might see the images. >Of course we care about this, but when those who are younger yet are ripped to shreds on a daily basis, shouldn't we be more concerned about the lives of (pre-born) children than the feelings of (born) children? >
The reality is that it is impossible to reach teenagers and adults where no children will ever be present. The reality is also that almost 300 children are killed through abortion each day in Canada. When visual, factual information about this practice is delivered to local homes, it is intellectually dishonest to accuse people of crimes rather than address the issue that was raised. Volunteers distribute these postcards legally and have the same rights as those who deliver mail for political parties or businesses. >Distributing educational materials about social issues does not constitute trespassing, littering, or harassing. >
Further, important distinctions exist between mailing pornographic images to protest pornography, and distributing information and photographic evidence about what abortion does to pre-born Canadians. >With pornography, the pictures themselves are the problem. To use them to protest pornography is illogical. > Abortion images, however, depict the problem: that pre-born babies are legally and brutally killed in this country. >It logically follows that they be used as evidence to show the horrible truth about abortion. >Also, if one would not compare images of past atrocities such as the Holocaust to pornography, why would one compare the evidence of the modern atrocity of abortion to pornography? Although the atrocities are not identical, they are similar in outcome: huge numbers of dead victims who were denied their most basic right because their personhood was based on something other than existence as a human being. The pictures on the postcards show just that. And if it was wrong to deny people's personhood based on ethnicity or skin colour, why should it be OK to deny the pre-born's personhood based on age?
The only plausible reason would be if the pre-born aren't human beings. But they are, as basic science tells us. From the moment of fertilization onward, they are whole, living human beings, just like you and me. That, precisely, is why abortion is always wrong.
Alex vande Bruinhorst