Below is a link to a post on Whirlpool, an Australian discussion site devoted to internet issues. xFOADx, the poster, sent a link to an anti-abortion site to the ACMA. The site contains pictures of aborted foetuses, making its point in using graphic pictures. Don't click on the link in the Whirlpool post if you have a weak stomach.

The ACMA is the public body that decides how films, books and other media are rated (G, MA15+, R and so on). They are also the body that maintains the list of prohibited internet sites. As required by current law, the ACMA examined the site submitted by xFOADx, and decided the site contained prohibited content. Consequently Australian "Family Friendly" ISP's have been notified and will now prevent subscribers from seeing the site.

The rest of us who did not decide to use a "family friendly" ISP can continue to see the anti-abortion site, for now. However should the mandatory filtering proposal come into force it will be filtered for all Australians.

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1123716&p=35#r685

Using graphic images of aborted fetus is an emotional cheap trick and really says alot about the depths anti-abortionists are prepared to stoop to blackmail people into following their personal dogma.

If someone held a negative view of heart-bypass surgery and promoted that view with images of someone undergoing that procedure, it might dissuade a few folk from undergoing it too.

To the disadvantage of those of us who believe it is exclusively the personal of the pregnant woman, it is very difficult to find dramatic and graphic images of someone exercising such choice, it just does not have the emotional impact.

I suppose the nearest we could get is someone being burnt as a heretic, that’s what used to happen to anyone who dared go against the commands of the Pope.

As to the issue of censorship and filtering. Whilst I consider the approach of anti-abortionists immoral and playing to the lowest common denominator of reasoning, I will always support their right to freely publish what they want and join them in any protest to the unwarranted interference by ACMA.

I did not become a heretic with the intention of replacing the Pope and the College of Cardinals with St Kevin and the ACMA.

So many religious anti abortionists are also anti contraception.
With overpopulation now threatening the Earth I wonder why God does not
make human fertility switchable (off/on) by simple choice.
Looks to me like evolution is in charge.

Like Col Rouge, I consider this shock-and-awe approach by anti-choice advocates immoral and misleading, but it should be permitted in a society that values free speech.

It's very interesting, however, that the factions that would force these images on women are the same ones which ruthlessly suppress photos of the coffins of dead soldiers returning from Iraq, even pressuring employers to sack people who dare to publicise the fact that their compatriots are dying in a war (www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4807865).

The message is clear: pregnant women should see pictures of mangled foetuses in order to make an informed choice on abortion, but the public should never see pictures of dead soldiers in case they make an informed decision on their country's wars. In a way it's better if AbortionTV remains available because it serves as a stark reminder of the religious Right's hypocrisy.

Also, to my understanding, the foetus images aren't from elective abortions but from near-term stillbirths and breech births which killed the neonate and had to be dissected for removal without killing the mother. But that would be another of those inconvenient truths.

I'm with Col and Sancho.

If these pictures of the murdered and mutilated unborn prevent one more killing then it is worth pasting everywhere. Col Rouges analogy with heart surgery is nothing short of pathetic.