By putting me in Twitter jail, the company now known as X inadvertently acknowledged that abortion is violence.

I recently found that X, formerly Twitter, had locked my account. I allegedly violated X’s rules “against posting media depicting gratuitous gore.” While commenting on modern politics isn’t a pretty business, most people wouldn’t think of it as particularly gory.

At issue were two posts, responding to a politician promoting abortion. In one, I wrote, “This is what she’s sick and tired of people opposing.” The other said, “This is what they mean by ‘abortion rights.’” Both tweets included a picture of a preborn baby who died in a late-term abortion. The photos showed the bodies of aborted preborn babies that pro-life activists recovered from a Washington, D.C. abortion clinic in 2022. That’s my recollection, at least. X won’t let me see the full posts.

The pictures of those babies are the stuff of nightmares, because they show innocent babies viciously killed by an abortionist. In one, a little baby girl has one eye open. Just above it, the top of her forehead is gone. At the time, Dr. Kendra Kolb, a neonatologist, estimated the girl was 28 to 30 weeks along when she was slaughtered, according to Live Action News.

In another picture, a preborn baby girl was ripped into pieces. Kolb believes the girl died from a dilation and evacuation abortion. That’s a barbaric procedure. The abortionist uses a Sopher clamp, basically a footlong pair of scissors with metal jaws, to rip a preborn baby apart. The abortionist can’t see what he’s latching on to, so he grabs blindly. Kolb believed that girl may have been between 26 to 28 weeks along.

Each baby was far enough along to have been viable outside the womb. But abortion ended their lives. That’s the tragic reality of late-term abortion. This fall, Nevada voters are likely to consider whether or not to put abortion to the point of birth in the state constitution. Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, many states around the country have legalized third-trimester abortions.

That means those pictures are part of the political debate. They show the ghastly reality behind generic phrases like “right to choose” or “protect women’s rights.” An aside: Ever notice how it’s supposedly transphobic to note only women get pregnant unless it’s done by someone promoting abortion?

This is why abortion supporters rely on euphemisms. They need a rhetorical veil to disguise a reality so hideous that X doesn’t want users to see it. The pictures I posted rip that covering away.

Ironically, I agree with X. The pictures do show gore. But that’s because I believe abortion is an inherently violent act that ends an innocent human life.

If you accept that premise, then promoting abortion should violate X’s limits on violent content. It defines violent speech as “content that threatens, incites, glorifies, or expresses desire for violence or harm.” But many X users, like those I was responding to, routinely promote abortion.

The hypocrisy is glaring. X wants to claim abortion isn’t violence but that showing the results of an abortion is “violent media.” Logically, you can’t have it both ways.

I’m not sure what will happen with my account. I assume my appeal will be denied. Personally, I’d prefer X to be logically consistent. I’ll gladly delete the photos if the company openly acknowledges that abortion is a violent act.

That’s a long shot, but so was Elon Musk buying Twitter.

COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM