My interpretation of Hartouni’s argument is that technology or a visual by itself does not and cannot evoke any emotion. But it is the socially constructed connotations that surround these visual and technological mediums that frame your interpretation and ultimately your emotions when it comes to certain issues. Hartouni focuses on the issues surrounding abortion and the visual culture that are used to argue pro-life and pro-choice positions. Hartouni mentions that the same fetal images that were used in the past by pro- life advocates are now used by pro choice supporters to give off a very different sentiment. “The circulations of fetal images by anti-abortion forces, the routine use of ultrasonography in monitoring pregnancy and labor, the development of widely publicized, culturally valorized, medical techniques in the area of fetal therapy and repair have together worked to shift the terms in which abortion is now framed, understood, experienced, and spoken by those who champion ‘choice’(198).” I thought this was so interesting, yet disturbing that the people who “champion” for the rights of women who want to undergo this abortion procedure use images that show a fetus- not the woman that is the one making the decision. I really thought when that point was brought up in class today, that these pro-choice advocates were copping out…and watering down their position to adhere and gain the support of some people who may not relate to women and having the right to chose what the do with their body. Unfortunately, I thought immediately of how the majority of the people that make these laws and who have historically been the main lawmakers in the past are males. Which are the same people that biologically cannot produce children, and therefore would be more prone to relating to a “free-floating fetus” which is an image that they can associate with, because they take part in that creation process. A picture of a woman attempting to make this decision, on her own, on a bumper sticker would be far less appealing to the opposite sex.
Fetal photography to visually produce the common person and the lawmakers of “yesterday” and “today” is extremely clever. This is especially true when you have a person like General C. Everett Koop who was quoted saying that he knew how a woman would feel when she had a chance to see a visual of what was potentially growing inside of her. Initially, I was a little irritated with a male expressed the appropriate reactions of a woman who was carrying a child after she saw her unborn child and how she SHOULD bond with it. However, after thinking critically I realized that the old man was right! People respond better when they are visually stimulated. I immediately related the phrase “out of sight out of mind,” and realized that a book with pictures touches more people than a dictionary. What I mean by this is that a doctor throwing medical jargon at a 14 year old girl who is pregnant and doesn’t have the capacity to see past what she is doing next weekend making this decision on her own versus if she were to put a visual of what is going on inside of her and associate that little fetus head with a three month old that she babysits for every Friday night. I agree that this can potentially be a way to provoke maternal feelings in some women that wouldn’t necessarily feel that way initially. However, it is not shy of offensive when considering the demand of these feelings for all women who if they don’t feel this way are considered ”callous, hard, or selfish (206).” This negative association with women who chose not to have children at the time on conception is baffling. I absolutely think that pro-choice advocates should embrace the body that carries this fetus and ultimately has the decision and is forced to deal with this reality, the female body.
photos curtesy of:
http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com/images/news2/Pregnant-Teens-See-Their-Future-Life-as-La-Vie-En-Rose-2.jpg
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00627/news-graphics-2006-_627476a.jpg
I like your point that many of the images used by pro-choice advocates exclude images of the mother. Something I find interesting about the whole situation is that generally, when the mother is at the point in her pregnancy to make this decision, the fetus and the pregnancy is invisible to the naked eye in the outside world. The mothers have a constant silent struggle going on inside that others cannot see because the fetus has not grown to the point of making her abdomen bigger. In such a visual world, I think all the advertisements forget that when an abortion decision is being made, the fetus is a small, nearly invisible part of the mother herself.
ReplyDelete