The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) shocked students with their anti-abortion images outside of the Palmer Museum of Art on Monday. Some would argue that this practice is inappropriate and outrageous.
While this practice may seem to appear vulgar, it still falls under the First Amendment for freedom of speech and was well within the rights CBR holds -- whether or not the degree of tastefulness is agreeable.
With that said, CBR should use its freedom of speech wisely and choose its wording carefully. The images put on display by the CBR compared abortion to that of the genocide in Darfur and the Holocaust.
The term genocide traditionally describes the extermination of cultural, racial, national or political groups. Unborn babies don't realistically fall into any of these categories, so based upon that description, comparing abortion to genocide is a falsity, and the graphical juxtaposition doesn't equate. It just seems to be a term to add shock value rather than to describe the actual issue.
CBR should also be careful on using this practice so readily.
It's understandable that using these graphic images is an efficient way to snatch people's attention from their normal train of thought, but it does more to ostracize potential supporters than to encourage careful consideration of the matter at hand.
Using these questionable images most likely breeds spite among and alienates passersby, no matter what their stance is on abortion. Even if a dialogue does ensue, based upon the vibe given off by the demonstration, it wouldn't be outlandish to expect defensiveness, considering the offensive nature of the depictions.
This approach to spread awareness of abortion, while a legal medium, is likely detrimental to CBR's cause. It's effective in grasping people's attention but is more likely to be considered a fleeting inconvenience on the way to class instead of an impactful demonstration.
And it gets old. Repeated use of shock-value demonstrations can just desensitize passersby, which would seem counterproductive of CBR's goal.
All in all, the shock value seems simply to draw more attention to the organization and its tactics than to the cause it is promoting.
