Abortion: Whatever works

[snowfly]

There is no point in answering anymore of your questions, I agree with Fr Frank Pavone on this one, others do not, so we know where each-other stand, so for me now the debating is pointless.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Elric]

I did, the fact is many pro-lifers do nothing.

Relevence?

I do understand, it’s whether the tactics for protesting abortion are justified.

Just the ones involving the indiscriminate use of the graphic images in question.

I know and I never said it was.

Ok then.

To all the above the answer is “sometimes” and NO I’m not going through everyone to explain.

Why not?

Sometimes.

WHy sometimes?

No where I live they would need the warning on the shop door not to enter in the first place.
I can’t believe you have never seen a dead mutilated human on the front of a newspaper.

I am sorry if I sound unbelieveable, but then again I cant believe that you pass out these graphic images indiscrimantly.

No it doesn’t compound the problem, the problem is well compounded with the mass slaughter of millions of tiny souls.

Actually that is a different problem.

When you place the images as you do, it does show a lack of consideration for others (especally those who may not want to see such images) and you are removing their choice of if they want to see them as well as parents choice in if they want hteir children to see them. It is compounding the problem.

Are you talking about women who have had a change of heart outside abortion clinics because they saw exactly what an aborted baby looked like ?

Thats the one. It appears that would be the place for such images, rather than them being used indiscriminatly.

I can tell you I showed a picture of an aborted baby to a nurse and she was so shocked, “I didn’t know it was so well formed” she exclaimed.

Good for you, but that wasnt done in an indiscriminate way.

She was pro-choice, and now she is pro-life, all because the veil was torn from her eyes. Now I ask you, a nurse not knowing what an aborted baby looks like is unbelievable.

Well she really should have known better, being a nurse.

I don’t get this, sorry.

A person who is scared of horror movies is going to be scared no matter if they see it on TV or at the cinema. I hope that you were not suggesting that we make people (including children) watch horror movies?

So it is true, were are divided by a common language.

Apparently so?

Fr Frank Pavone, " should we use graphic images" ?

**Graphic images of abortion have saved lives. One example is a letter I have from Violet Sherringford of New Jersey, who went to an abortion facility and found pro-life protesters there. “The posters they displayed, though very graphic, did succeed in bringing me back to reality and in conveying the horrible mutilation and dismemberment inflicted on the unborn child… I decided to have the baby. It was the best decision I ever will make.” **

It seems to me, furthermore, that if we find it difficult to explain images of abortion to our children we will find it even more difficult to explain why we didn’t do more to stop abortion itself.

Your point?

 

[jfhh]

This is going to be worded as carefully as possible so as not to cause offense or seem accusatory because that is definitely not my intention.

It’s just something I believe this is something worth pondering, so that our efforts to end abortion remain on track. Well, with a deep breath, here goes:

Sometimes, in reading through threads on the pro-life fight some appear to be saying that whatever works, to save even one life is justified. To paraphrase: “If X can save even one life then X should be done” regardless of any reservations expressed. Let it be understood here that X is not meant to cover illegal acts, but controversial ones such as indiscriminate use of graphic images and the recently discussed “aborted baby in a casket” ceremony.

My question is, does the idea of a tactic being justifed if it saves lives, spring from the concept that saving even one life pleases God? Or is its justification based solely on the value of the life being saved?

To be very clear: we all know that abortion offends God, so in trying to stop it,are we saying that God is pleased with us saving the babies regardless of method or is the focus solely on stopping violence to the fetus, without much thought to whether the tactic itself might be pleasing to God ?

Further, where does the rest of humanity figure into this. Specifically, in trying to please God and save babies, does the effect of our tactics on other people matter at all and if so how much?

Thank you for this post.

It has helped me in think about how I go about some things in my life unrelated to abortion.

On the issue of abortion, I believe threatening women and doctors and nurses with jail or worse is not the best “tactic” if you will to persuade women to not abort and to defend innocent life. I think more than trying to “defend” life a la a knight defending a castle, we should think of it as trying to cultivate respect and love for life as a poet may do. We should try to encourage women and others to love their children and embryonic children. I think when we focus on love, everything else falls into place.

Some say in an ideal society abortion would be illegal. That may be under one definitino of “ideal.” But in a true ideal society, any law against abortion would be as though it weren’t even there. In a true ideal society, people would freely not because of fear of punishment, but out of perfect love, do the right thing and do it always. I think it is this true ideal society we should aim for even though it is not possible, we should aim or strive for it, yearn for it and work to get as close to it as possible. I’m not sure that criminalizing abortion is the way to do that.

Some moral crimes have to be stopped by the force of law b/c otherwise society does not function at all. Society still plugs along with abortion rampant. THat’s not to say that abortion is not an enormity. It is. But it gives us more than one valid option IMO to address it.

The option I prefer is changing hearts and minds. I feel that, on balance, criminalization of abortion does more harm than good in the long term. It may do more good in the short term by some measures, but in the long term, we want people to freely love each other.

Pro-life criminalization won’t accomplish that; it will only coerce acts respecting objectively life; it won’t inspire acts from people who truly in their hearts love life.

 

[vera_dicere]

People show images of the holocaust, of mountains of innocent men, women and children, emaciated, gassed, burnt, shot, beaten et cetera to push the point of how evil what the Nazis did was.

There are images of black people hanging from trees surrounded by KKK members.

Images of bodies in Dafur and other war torn regions.

As a child, I remember seeing on the news an image of a dead woman with her dead baby laying in her arms, covered in vomit and faeces - they had been victims of Saddam’s gas attack.

Such things are horrible, but its not so much the voilation of the dead that’s the point, rather - look these people died from evil actions carried out by evil people. I view their images as the horrific truth of evil, but also as a benefit to those who view it. Sort of how violating a body to harvest organs to save lives.

I’ve met women who have not had abortions because they saw images of aborted foeti. As much as I feel sorry for the dignity of the person in those images, that their life was ended brutally, that maybe their death hasn’t been in vain and that showing the world the horror of their final moments might wake up the rest of us to the fact that such actions must be stopped.

 

[jfhh]

Showing images to people who want to see them is fine. Pushing it on people is analagous to rape IMO. When I was a little more prudish some friends of mine used to play pranks on me and force me to see or glance at images I was prudish about or morally objected to. They were doing it for fun but it wasn’t right. You may be doing it to save lives, which is a more noble motive, but it still isn’t right. Forcing someone to look at an image is not only similar to rape but is similar to torture. It’s a violation of the respect we should have for someone’s wishes – in not seeing an image.

 

[elts1956]

But is it simply a choice between a greater and a lesser evil or are there alternative methods which are not evil at all?

Where does God fit into all of this? We know that all sin (venial or otherwise) offends Him. So is it reasonable to say, “Okay Lord, I know you might be offended by this, but right now saving babies is more important?”

Why don’t you check with priests for life, or life site . I think one of the priests there says people won’t know what abortion is until they see it and encourages people to show those disgusting, but true to life pictures.

Oh yes, we should protect the sensitivities of those living in la la land about the realities of abortion. Funny they can support it, but not live it even by seeing the pictures.

 

[elts1956]

But that’s exactly the problem, the ‘criteria’ I see increasingly being used are:

-does it work to save lives, even one
-has it been proven to offend anybody
-does it make people realize the horror of abortion
-will it shock people into making the right decisions

…and so on

What are the objective moral criteria to be used for specific methods and why can’t Catholics seem to all agree (if indeed the criteria are objective)?/QUOTE

Please clarify your idea of “offend” anyone.

 

[elts1956]

But that’s exactly the problem, the ‘criteria’ I see increasingly being used are:

-does it work to save lives, even one
-has it been proven to offend anybody
-does it make people realize the horror of abortion
-will it shock people into making the right decisions

…and so on

What are the objective moral criteria to be used for specific methods and why can’t Catholics seem to all agree (if indeed the criteria are objective)?

No one’s denying the truth of abortion. The question is: are all tactics justified simply by the fact that they may be effective?

I know I’m gonna get eaten alive for this, but sometimes it’s seems like we’re placing concern for the creature before concern with the Creator.

We should be hearing people asking, does this method glorify God; not is this method showing the truth of what’s happening to babies?

I wonder if those who are pro choice, or who voted for Obama ask themselves this?

 

[elts1956]

So am I correct in understanding you to say that the noble end (saving lives) is what justifies the means (grossing people out)?

If not, I apologize for misunderstanding.

If yes, then please explain how that lines up against Church
teachings.

You may be interested in seeing what Fr. Frank Pavone has to say.

priestsforlife.org/images/index.htm

Photos in the dynamics of social reform
Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director, Priests for Life
An intriguing question
I recently asked a representative of a major secular news network, “Why not show the American people what an abortion is?” He was intrigued by the question, and we had a good discussion about it. He suggested I should continue asking it, privately and publicly.
I intend to.
Ask any audience around the country whether they have seen any kind of surgery on television. Almost all will raise their hands. But if you ask that same audience how many have seen an abortion on those same networks, none raise their hands. Yet abortion is the single most frequently performed surgery in America. Some claim it is legitimate medicine, and in fact an integral part of women’s health. But look at it? Take it out from under the veil of euphemism and abstract language? No way.
Still, there is an even more fundamental and troublesome question to ask, and that is, Why do so many people who oppose abortion also oppose letting it be seen for what it is?
Certainly, showing images of an abortion, and what an abortion does to a baby, has to be done in ways that properly prepare the audience for what they are about to see, and place the matter in the context of the compassionate care which the Church gives to those who are guilty of an abortion. One of the most well-known videos of abortion footage is called “The Harder Truth” (a revision of the previous “Hard Truth”). It comes with a manual which gives clear instructions about how to prepare the audience for viewing. People are told, for example, that they are not being asked to watch anything that they don’t want to see. They are invited to avert their eyes, and the video has no narration, so that people do not even have to hear anything they don’t want to hear. (The video, incidentally, has been used with great effect in Churches.)
Yet even with all that in place, there is still a great deal of resistance to the notion that we should expose the evil for what it is, bringing it into the light of day for the naked eye to see.
A heresy: we have to be liked to be successful

 

[elts1956]

So am I correct in understanding you to say that the noble end (saving lives) is what justifies the means (grossing people out)?

If not, I apologize for misunderstanding.

If yes, then please explain how that lines up against Church teachings.

Father Frank Pavone, cont:

Part of the resistance, to be sure, is one of those ever-ancient, ever-new heresies: we have to be liked to be successful. I have heard numerous times that we can’t show graphic photos, because, essentially, they will turn people against us, and then we won’t be able to persuade them of our message.
But on what concrete evidence is it assumed that initial anger at the messenger prevents the message from being delivered? Moreover, is it true that the viewer will always be angry at the messenger? Suffice it to say here that the experience of those who consistently use these graphic images is that the message does get through whether the viewer is angry or not, and that once the image gets in the head, it’s impossible to get it out.
Our Lord simply did not follow the doctrine that successful ministry requires being liked. In fact, He promised that fidelity to Him (that is, “success” in being His disciples) would guarantee persecution. It is wrong, of course, to use such a guarantee as an excuse for imprudence, insensitivity, or lack of preparation. But to ignore this promise of the Lord is to risk severing our ministry from the only context in which it ultimately makes any sense: the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.
Our success will depend more on whether we are respected than liked. Respect flows not from doing what the other finds pleasing, but from what is seen as consistent with principle, courageous, and immune from the temptation to change with the wind.
That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ…
When we ask to “be made worthy of the promises of Christ,” it would be well to remember that one of those promises is that we will be hated on account of Him. Some of the Scriptural bases for this truth are as follows:
“All men will hate you because of me . . . .” (Matt. 10:22); “Blessed are you when men hate you … because of the Son of Man.” (Luke 6:22); “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake.” (Matthew 5:10); “Woe unto you when all men speak well of you for their fathers did the same to the false prophets.” (Luke 6:26); “A servant is not greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you …” (John 15:20); “Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world, makes himself an enemy of God.” (James 4:4).
One, indivisible Gospel
Some may object, however, that these promises of persecution have nothing to do with showing images of abortion, but rather with proclaiming the Gospel of salvation. Yet such an objection is ill-founded, because it makes too much of a distinction between Gospel salvation and opposition to injustice. The Gospel makes it clear that the love of God cannot survive in our hearts if we exclude our neighbor from that love (see 1 John 3:17; Matthew 25:31-46), and that to follow Christ to salvation means to carry out what He has commanded us, first among which is to avoid the shedding of innocent blood (see Matthew 19:18)
Proclaiming the good demands exposing evil (Ephesians 5:11) As Pope John Paul II has enunciated at great length in Evangelium Vitae, there is a particular urgency in our day to focus on sins against life itself, and particularly the sins of abortion and euthanasia. The Church has asserted that her teaching on these matters is “unchanged and unchangeable” (Paul VI, Humanae Vitae (25 July 1968), 14; John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995), 62). At the same time, pro-abortion forces declare that the “right to choose” is absolute, and that there will be “no turning back.” The formula for an intense and long-lasting struggle is in place. We cannot retreat from it, and have nowhere to go but forward in the great task of transforming society. The United States bishops have called for urgent, priority attention to abortion as “the fundamental human rights issue of our day” (Resolution on Abortion, November 7, 1989; see also Pastoral Plan for Pro-life Activities: A Reaffirmation, 1985; Living the Gospel of Life, 1998). In short, there is only one, indivisible Gospel. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the Gospel of Life.

 

[elts1956]

So am I correct in understanding you to say that the noble end (saving lives) is what justifies the means (grossing people out)?

If not, I apologize for misunderstanding.

If yes, then please explain how that lines up against Church teachings.

priestsforlife.org/images/index.htm
Photos in the dynamics of social reform
Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director, Priests for Life
An intriguing question
I recently asked a representative of a major secular news network, “Why not show the American people what an abortion is?” He was intrigued by the question, and we had a good discussion about it. He suggested I should continue asking it, privately and publicly.
I intend to.
Ask any audience around the country whether they have seen any kind of surgery on television. Almost all will raise their hands. But if you ask that same audience how many have seen an abortion on those same networks, none raise their hands. Yet abortion is the single most frequently performed surgery in America. Some claim it is legitimate medicine, and in fact an integral part of women’s health. But look at it? Take it out from under the veil of euphemism and abstract language? No way.
Still, there is an even more fundamental and troublesome question to ask, and that is, Why do so many people who oppose abortion also oppose letting it be seen for what it is?
Certainly, showing images of an abortion, and what an abortion does to a baby, has to be done in ways that properly prepare the audience for what they are about to see, and place the matter in the context of the compassionate care which the Church gives to those who are guilty of an abortion. One of the most well-known videos of abortion footage is called “The Harder Truth” (a revision of the previous “Hard Truth”). It comes with a manual which gives clear instructions about how to prepare the audience for viewing. People are told, for example, that they are not being asked to watch anything that they don’t want to see. They are invited to avert their eyes, and the video has no narration, so that people do not even have to hear anything they don’t want to hear. (The video, incidentally, has been used with great effect in Churches.)
Yet even with all that in place, there is still a great deal of resistance to the notion that we should expose the evil for what it is, bringing it into the light of day for the naked eye to see.
A heresy: we have to be liked to be successful

 

[elts1956]

But that’s exactly the problem, the ‘criteria’ I see increasingly being used are:

-does it work to save lives, even one
-has it been proven to offend anybody
-does it make people realize the horror of abortion
-will it shock people into making the right decisions

…and so on

What are the objective moral criteria to be used for specific methods and why can’t Catholics seem to all agree (if indeed the criteria are objective)?

You “may” be interested to see what Father Frank Pavone has to say in regard to showing graphic images of abortion.

priestsforlife.org/images/index.htm

Photos in the dynamics of social reform
Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director, Priests for Life
An intriguing question
I recently asked a representative of a major secular news network, “Why not show the American people what an abortion is?” He was intrigued by the question, and we had a good discussion about it. He suggested I should continue asking it, privately and publicly.
I intend to.
Ask any audience around the country whether they have seen any kind of surgery on television. Almost all will raise their hands. But if you ask that same audience how many have seen an abortion on those same networks, none raise their hands. Yet abortion is the single most frequently performed surgery in America. Some claim it is legitimate medicine, and in fact an integral part of women’s health. But look at it? Take it out from under the veil of euphemism and abstract language? No way.
Still, there is an even more fundamental and troublesome question to ask, and that is, Why do so many people who oppose abortion also oppose letting it be seen for what it is?
Certainly, showing images of an abortion, and what an abortion does to a baby, has to be done in ways that properly prepare the audience for what they are about to see, and place the matter in the context of the compassionate care which the Church gives to those who are guilty of an abortion. One of the most well-known videos of abortion footage is called “The Harder Truth” (a revision of the previous “Hard Truth”). It comes with a manual which gives clear instructions about how to prepare the audience for viewing. People are told, for example, that they are not being asked to watch anything that they don’t want to see. They are invited to avert their eyes, and the video has no narration, so that people do not even have to hear anything they don’t want to hear. (The video, incidentally, has been used with great effect in Churches.)
Yet even with all that in place, there is still a great deal of resistance to the notion that we should expose the evil for what it is, bringing it into the light of day for the naked eye to see.
A heresy: we have to be liked to be successful
Part of the resistance, to be sure, is one of those ever-ancient, ever-new heresies: we have to be liked to be successful. I have heard numerous times that we can’t show graphic photos, because, essentially, they will turn people against us, and then we won’t be able to persuade them of our message.
But on what concrete evidence is it assumed that initial anger at the messenger prevents the message from being delivered? Moreover, is it true that the viewer will always be angry at the messenger? Suffice it to say here that the experience of those who consistently use these graphic images is that the message does get through whether the viewer is angry or not, and that once the image gets in the head, it’s impossible to get it out.
Our Lord simply did not follow the doctrine that successful ministry requires being liked. In fact, He promised that fidelity to Him (that is, “success” in being His disciples) would guarantee persecution. It is wrong, of course, to use such a guarantee as an excuse for imprudence, insensitivity, or lack of preparation. But to ignore this promise of the Lord is to risk severing our ministry from the only context in which it ultimately makes any sense: the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.
Our success will depend more on whether we are respected than liked. Respect flows not from doing what the other finds pleasing, but from what is seen as consistent with principle, courageous, and immune from the temptation to change with the wind.
That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ…
When we ask to “be made worthy of the promises of Christ,” it would be well to remember that one of those promises is that we will be hated on account of Him. Some of the Scriptural bases for this truth are as follows:
“All men will hate you because of me . . . .” (Matt. 10:22); “Blessed are you when men hate you … because of the Son of Man.” (Luke 6:22); “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake.” (Matthew 5:10); “Woe unto you when all men speak well of you for their fathers did the same to the false prophets.” (Luke 6:26); “A servant is not greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you …” (John 15:20); “Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world, makes himself an enemy of God.” (James 4:4).
One, indivisible Gospel

 

[elts1956]

But that’s exactly the problem, the ‘criteria’ I see increasingly being used are:

-does it work to save lives, even one
-has it been proven to offend anybody
-does it make people realize the horror of abortion
-will it shock people into making the right decisions

…and so on

What are the objective moral criteria to be used for specific methods and why can’t Catholics seem to all agree (if indeed the criteria are objective)?

Father Frank Pavone cont.
One, indivisible Gospel
Some may object, however, that these promises of persecution have nothing to do with showing images of abortion, but rather with proclaiming the Gospel of salvation. Yet such an objection is ill-founded, because it makes too much of a distinction between Gospel salvation and opposition to injustice. The Gospel makes it clear that the love of God cannot survive in our hearts if we exclude our neighbor from that love (see 1 John 3:17; Matthew 25:31-46), and that to follow Christ to salvation means to carry out what He has commanded us, first among which is to avoid the shedding of innocent blood (see Matthew 19:18)
Proclaiming the good demands exposing evil (Ephesians 5:11) As Pope John Paul II has enunciated at great length in Evangelium Vitae, there is a particular urgency in our day to focus on sins against life itself, and particularly the sins of abortion and euthanasia. The Church has asserted that her teaching on these matters is “unchanged and unchangeable” (Paul VI, Humanae Vitae (25 July 1968), 14; John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995), 62). At the same time, pro-abortion forces declare that the “right to choose” is absolute, and that there will be “no turning back.” The formula for an intense and long-lasting struggle is in place. We cannot retreat from it, and have nowhere to go but forward in the great task of transforming society. The United States bishops have called for urgent, priority attention to abortion as “the fundamental human rights issue of our day” (Resolution on Abortion, November 7, 1989; see also Pastoral Plan for Pro-life Activities: A Reaffirmation, 1985; Living the Gospel of Life, 1998). In short, there is only one, indivisible Gospel. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the Gospel of Life.
Learning from other social reform movements
If we study social reform movements, we find that they always exposed the injustice they were fighting, and that this was an integral key to their success.
The civil rights movement was galvanized, for example, when the 14-year-old boy, Emmett Till, was killed and thrown in the Tallahatchie River. Authorities wanted to bury the body quickly, but his mother insisted on an open casket funeral so the world could see what was done to her boy. Black Americans everywhere saw the mutilated corpse when the photo was carried in Jet magazine.

 

[elts1956]

Father Frank Pavone cont.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was guided by the philosophy he expressed in his famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail, in which he wrote, “Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.”
As long as segregation was hidden under the veils of euphemism, or was discussed in words alone, it could not galvanize the opposition required to overcome it. But when the injustice of it was brought before the TV cameras of America as our black brothers and sisters were attacked with dogs, hoses, and other forms of violence, people saw the evil that words alone could not convey.
In the Library of Congress there is an exhibit of about five thousand photographs taken by Lewis Hine in the midst of another struggle for justice. He used these photographs to combat industrial exploitation of children. He said to those who complained, “Perhaps you are weary of child labor pictures. Well, so are the rest of us. But we propose to make you and the whole country so sick and tired of the whole business that when the time for action comes, child labor abuses will be creatures of the past.”
Government officials have been well aware of the power of photos for social change. President Woodrow Wilson ensured that no photos of the World War I battlefield carnage ever reached the public. These same suppressed photos were later used by isolationists trying to keep the United States out of Word War II. President Franklin D. Roosevelt set up a special section of Farm Security Administration to use ¼ million photos to sell his New Deal programs.
Educators likewise are not unaware of the need to graphically portray injustice. Just look at the way the movie “Schindler’s List” has been used to educate the young about the holocaust. Some have objected that such a graphic portrayal of such violence may in fact hurt children psychologically. Yet liberals who support the use of the film claim that greater weight must be given to the need to prevent such violence in the first place.
The LA Times (July 8, 1995) reported an effort at Jefferson High School to stop street violence. Freshmen were shown slide after slide of victims blown apart by bullets.
In the courtroom, photographic evidence holds a critical place. “There are no charts, no words, that can convey what these photographs can,” argued prosecutor Brian Kelberg in a dispute over whether photos of the slashed murder victims could be shown to O.J. Simpson’s jurors. The defense had argued that the photos were too distressing and sickening, and should not be shown. Charts and diagrams were suggested as an alternative. But the judge allowed the photos.
Examples can be multiplied, from the efforts to make people aware of famines and starvation, to the horrors of the Vietnam war, to the efforts of environmentalists and animal-rights activists to awaken the public to the abuse of other living creatures.
Isn’t it time to summon the courage to expose the injustice we are fighting in abortion, in the same way that successful social reform movements of the past have done?
A conclusion without the evidence
The word abortion has lost practically all its meaning. Not even the most vivid description, in words alone, can adequately convey the horror of this act of violence. Abortion is sugar-coated by rhetoric which hides its gruesome nature. What a pro-life person has in mind when he speaks about abortion and what the average American has in mind when he hears the word are two very different things.
One of the key reasons the pro-life movement is not making more progress is that we so often assert before the public that abortion is an act of violence, but do not produce the evidence which would lead people to this conclusion. Photographic evidence is the most trusted source of information in any discipline. It transcends language and logic, and goes straight to the heart, where people are motivated to take action, instead of merely to the head, where people passively entertain all sorts of concepts without any commitment necessarily following.
People absorb impressions rather than substance. Although a photo is just a slice of reality, if it is the right slice, it captures the distilled essence of an event in a way that nothing else can. A photo is even more powerful than a video, since it is the difference between 30 images per second vs. one image for 30 seconds.
The First Amendment has a price
The fact that the use of such images is disturbing does not mean such use is wrong. The free-speech rights guaranteed under the First Amendment apply even to speech which is disturbing, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld (see The Right to Protest, ACLU: Gora et al.). Such disturbance is part of the price we pay for freedom. People might also be disturbed, annoyed, and upset by the blaring sirens of an ambulance rushing through the neighborhood. Yet the noise serves a purpose: People’s lives are at stake, and the ambulance must be given the right of way.
Conclusion: Our Ministry and social reform

 

[elts1956]

Father Frank Pavone cont. display of graphic abortion pictures. As a result of careful study of the dynamics of social reform, a number of significant sectors of the pro-life movement are about to launch major initiatives to show the public, in ways that have not been done before, the photographic reality of the violence of abortion. This will impact the Church; this will challenge the priesthood. We are called and ordained to be prophets of justice. When the greatest injustice in our midst is exposed, we need to be ready to respond. May we respond not with cowardice which dismisses the need to expose the injustice, but rather with the courage to learn from social reform movements of the past, and to reject the heresy that we need to be liked to be successful.
For more information, visit the website www.abortionNo.org

So our genteel society survived the graphic pictures of many social issues. What makes abortion any different?

 

[elts1956]

Good OP.

What about lying about the effects of abortion to help end abortion? Would God be pleased?

I can’t think of anything specific, but for example manufacturing “credible” research results that says abortion causes 76% of biological fathers to commit suicide once they’ve learned that their baby was aborted.

Silly example, I know…can’t think of anything better right now.

If every person who voted for bo in this election had seen one, or two pictures of aborted babies, the effect would have been soul searing. Unfortunatley, for some, these pictures are too much for their delicate constitutions and they refuse to acknowledge the fact, the babies in these pictures are little human beings and just can’t “stand” to look at them.

 

[elts1956]

Good OP.

What about lying about the effects of abortion to help end abortion? Would God be pleased?

I can’t think of anything specific, but for example manufacturing “credible” research results that says abortion causes 76% of biological fathers to commit suicide once they’ve learned that their baby was aborted.

Silly example, I know…can’t think of anything better right now.

If every person who voted for bo in this election had seen one, or two pictures of aborted babies, the effect would have been soul searing. Unfortunately, for some, these pictures are too much for their delicate constitutions and they refuse to acknowledge the fact, the babies in these pictures are little human beings and just can’t “stand” to look at them.

 

[elts1956]

Good OP.

What about lying about the effects of abortion to help end abortion? Would God be pleased?

I can’t think of anything specific, but for example manufacturing “credible” research results that says abortion causes 76% of biological fathers to commit suicide once they’ve learned that their baby was aborted.

Silly example, I know…can’t think of anything better right now.

But are our standards of decency those of the secular crowd or are they perhaps a tad higher?

Apparently there is little difference between “our” standards of decency and those of the so called secular crowd, because bo is in office.