ATTN: GRAPHIC CONTENT – PICTURES OF MUTILATED HUMAN REMAINS (only some approved by THE AP)
I subscribe to AOL. Yes I even pay a subscription to something that was associated with the Huffington Post and is still “of the cloth”. Rather than get into the issues of weaning myself away from the platform I have been with for 30 years (and the tinge of hypocrisy as a conservative for not doing so) it at least gives me a constant update on what the left thinks is news . . . and their spin on everything the liberal media thinks newsworthy.
As my punishment I am faced virtually every time I open it with a variety of ledes to stories referred to as the ‘Today on AOL” feature — invariably with an “open me” picture used as backdrop or to entice the reader to click on the story. Indeed the journalistic talents at the AP and AOL no doubt rely on the “What is a train wreck story worth in clicks without a picture of the train wreck” school of web design.
They have not been shy about posting pictures of the macabre whenever it suits them.
Case in point and the one that triggered me to write this today appeared yesterday . Below is the picture the AP and AOL used to illustrate their report. As I remember it was in the first tier of such featured stories at the time.
Below is how the scrolling feature first appears. By clicking on it at the time one is brought to the full post with the larger picture shown above.
The AP and AOL posted pictures for unfiltered consumption of the remains of human carnage found in Mexico. The remains are determined to be from human sacrifices of human beings brutally killed and their remains further horrifically treated. It is all in the story.
The perps of the above atrocities, the indigenous elites and their followers, were the sort of people Columbus should have been more respectful of, we are told ad nauseam by those who have no compunction against child sacrifice here and now, and who honor celebrate and reward today’s perps of abortion on demand.
However you won’t see the pictures we show below posted by AP or AOL.
It is not impertinent to ask why not — are not such photos relevant to the story about abortion at whatever stage? Why be squeamish about posting them but not the remains shown above? If somehow the AP thinks abortion pictures are inappropriate then how do they justify any pictures of carnage they choose to show relating to war, disease, famine, crime . . .? If the “feeling” is that the pictures we post are not real then surely the AP can use its influence to obtain ‘real’ pictures of human remains after an abortion.
It is almost as if the AP and AOL are engaged in a cover-up or something.
In truth the pictures of human carnage right to life groups sometimes show are either provided by medical personnel or are of bodies thrown out as “clinic” trash or are of “collectables’ or specimens as per the likes of Kermit Gosnell and others. They published to fight the lies and the PR of the so-called caring “abortion providers”, the pollyannish and skewed “picture” of abortion that the AP promotes, the denial of the scope and reality of the abortion license, the too often uncivilized aspects of our society.
Remains of first trimester aborted babies:
Remains of second and third trimester aborted babies:
Today, because of advances in sonograms pictures of intact unborn babies are carried as wallet pics by proud moms and dads. Clips of babies in motion in utero are commonly downloaded to smartphones and proudly shared. But while showing many features, certainly the humanity, sonograms are a bit shadowy. Pictures of the unborn in greater detail using intrauterine fibre optic photography have been available for decades. They were available for years prior to the Roe V Wade decision and even published in popular journals when journalists were not as bent on the abortion license. Other clinical pictures well-showed the fantastic development we all underwent in the womb. Some of those are posted below with approximate original publication dates. The judges knew.
Life Magazine, 1965
Look Magazine 1971 (Roe V Wade and the companion case Doe V Bolton were handed down in 1973)
