Abortion: Whatever works

[Newbie2]

Waste of time. you just compared dedicated people on the front line of fighting abortion to pornographers. No need to talk further.

Um, no, I did not. Sorry if that’s what you thought.

What I challenged was your assertion “The fact that somebody might be offended is not sufficient grounds to ban anything”.

Personally, I’m not opposed to such signage, but I understand the reasoning of those who are.

 

[seekerz]

There is nothing evil about showing graphic images. The fact that somebody might be offended is not sufficient grounds to ban anything. I am offended by Barney but that doesn’t mean he has to taken off the air

Did you read the post you quoted?
The “somebody” I was referring to who might be offended here, is God!

 

[maryj]

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.

Want to see a nobel ends by justifying the means, how much more graphic could anything be than a Crucifix with our Lord and Savior beaten, scourged and crowned with thorns.

 

[Greg72]

Want to see a nobel ends by justifying the means, how much more graphic could anything be than a Crucifix with our Lord and Savior beaten, scourged and crowned with thorns.

It is for God alone to bring goodness out of such evil.

Do you think that the men who did such things to our Lord had a good end in mind?

Even if they had, is it justifiable to torture and kill a human being (let alone God) if it would save the rest of the world?

I would argue that once we embrace the idea that ends justify means, then we are no longer followers of Christ.

 

[Petergee]

It is for God alone to bring goodness out of such evil.

Do you think that the men who did such things to our Lord had a good end in mind?

Even if they had, is it justifiable to torture and kill a human being (let alone God) if it would save the rest of the world?

I would argue that once we embrace the idea that ends justify means, then we are no longer followers of Christ.

I think you missed the point. Of course Ourl Lord was killed by evil men. But we are talking about whether it is moral to **display pictures of **His death for a noble cause. Just as it is evil men who abort babies. But we are talking about displaying pictures of the babies for a noble cause.

 

[seekerz]

The reason we display our Lord crucified, is to give Him glory for what He has done and to proclaim to the world news of the salvation that was won on the cross. The intention is not to shock people out of sin.

My original post was along the lines of: are we, in using various tactics,* seeking to glorify God *or are we simply focused on saving babies to the exclusion of all other considerations?

 

[estesbob]

The reason we display our Lord crucified, is to give Him glory for what He has done and to proclaim to the world news of the salvation that was won on the cross. The intention is not to shock people out of sin.

My original post was along the lines of: are we, in using various tactics,* seeking to glorify God *or are we simply focused on saving babies to the exclusion of all other considerations?

Saving babies glorifies God

 

[Greg72]

I think you missed the point. Of course Ourl Lord was killed by evil men. But we are talking about whether it is moral to **display pictures of **His death for a noble cause. Just as it is evil men who abort babies. But we are talking about displaying pictures of the babies for a noble cause.

I think that you may be right, Peter. There were a couple of ways to read Mary’s post and I could very well have gotten the wrong idea. In fact, it seems likely. Thank you for the correction, and sorry Mary if I read you wrong.

I still think that the coffin display is way over the top and that care must be exercised with graphic images, but I must admit that a lot of people think that Catholics are morbid for displaying Christ on the cross.

 

[seekerz]

Saving babies glorifies God

We all know that. The question is: Is God glorified by all the means used to achieve a good end?

If I gave lots of money to feed the homeless this Christmas, we might say that would glorify God. But if I held back my workers’ pay or denied my own family life’s necessities in order to raise that money, would He still be glorified?

 

[maryj]

I think that you may be right, Peter. There were a couple of ways to read Mary’s post and I could very well have gotten the wrong idea. In fact, it seems likely. Thank you for the correction, and sorry Mary if I read you wrong.

I still think that the coffin display is way over the top and that care must be exercised with graphic images, but I must admit that a lot of people think that Catholics are morbid for displaying Christ on the cross.

I knew when I hit post reply that it may be taken wrong. No apology necessary. And you hit exactly on my point, many do believe we are morbid for displaying Christ on the cross, and yet it is the most noble of causes.

 

[estesbob]

We all know that. The question is: Is God glorified by all the means used to achieve a good end?

If I gave lots of money to feed the homeless this Christmas, we might say that would glorify God. But if I held back my workers’ pay or denied my own family life’s necessities in order to raise that money, would He still be glorified?

No one here is suggesting any immoral, illicit or any problematic means to save babies. Thus there is no problem

 

[seekerz]

No one here is suggesting any immoral, illicit or any problematic means to save babies. Thus there is no problem

Showing pictures of dismembered babies where young kids can see them and displaying aborted fetuses in ceremonies that are not funerals don’t qualify as at least “problematic”?

Can we automatically assume that God approves of such acts (note that I’m not asking whether He approves of saving babies from abortion) and is that question not worthy of deep reflection?

 

[estesbob]

Showing pictures of dismembered babies where young kids can see them and displaying aborted fetuses in ceremonies that are not funerals don’t qualify as at least “problematic”?

No they are not.

Can we automatically assume that God approves of such acts (note that I’m not asking whether He approves of saving babies from abortion) and is that question not worthy of deep reflection?

If someone is suggesting using an illicit means to try and stop abortion then it would be worthy of deep reflection. Since we have been presented with no such scenarios here its in need of no refelction whatsoever.

 

[Elric]

No they are not.

What exactly do you base this opinin on?

It seems to be based on you doing what pleases you and ignoring what other people have to say or feel about the matter.

If someone is suggesting using an illicit means to try and stop abortion then it would be worthy of deep reflection. Since we have been presented with no such scenarios here its in need of no refelction whatsoever.

Actually you have been presented with such a scenario, your refusal to acknowlage it doesnt mean it is not such a scenario. It suggests a lack of consideration and respect on your part which doesnt help with your point of view (Why should people listen to you or try to unsdertand your point of view when you dont give others that same courtesy?).

 

[estesbob]

What exactly do you base this opinin on?

It seems to be based on you doing what pleases you and ignoring what other people have to say or feel about the matter.

Years of working in the ministry and speaking to sidewalk counselors from all around the country at various seminars I have attended

Actually you have been presented with such a scenario, your refusal to acknowlage it doesnt mean it is not such a scenario. It suggests a lack of consideration and respect on your part which doesnt help with your point of view (Why should people listen to you or try to unsdertand your point of view when you dont give others that same courtesy?).

If you dont like them dont use them.

 

[francesco920]

Of course, showing dismembered babies to young children is not right, but then again it wouldn’t be worse than the images young children see on the computer, video games, movies, etc. I say this not to justify the use of these images around young children, but only to point out that the same people who are responsible for abortion “rights” are the ones who more often than not are responsible for the widespread pornography and violent images that corrupt the youth.

At any rate, showing the results of abortion to those who are no longer young children is perfectly legitimate (in other words there is nothing intrinsically evil about displaying them, unlike displaying pornography) and indeed even necessary. Some may ask, “what if people get offended?” That is a good question. The answer, however, is not that pro-lifers should stop showing the images, but rather that the offended people should join the fight to stop the process that leads to what is seen in the images. That is the point, after all.

The fact is that people have become indifferent towards abortion, which they view as the “termination of a pregnancy” or of “a fetus” or “glob of tissue.” If showing these images helps to get people to realize what is at stake here and motivate them to fight abortion, then it is not only good but necessary.

As to the question posted in the original post, the general rule, as others have pointed out, is that the ends do not justify the means. Therefore, no means that are intrinsically evil can ever be used and means that are unjustified in a particular circumstance cannot be used either, even if the end is good. However, it must be remembered, that many “means” are not intrinsically evil or good, and therefore in some cases may be acceptable, and in others not acceptable, depending on the gravity of the situation. Abortion, being as seriously evil as it is, can be fought using means that in other cases may not be acceptable. This, at least, is my :twocents:

The teachings of the Church must always be the rule.

 

[Elric]

Years of working in the ministry and speaking to sidewalk counselors from all around the country at various seminars I have attended

They dont exactly sound qualified on what people/children find at least “problematic”. They dont like sound an impartial source on the matter and I would even speculate that they are not entirely honest with what they have informed you with.

Why not listen to people who have stated that they were distressed as well as parents who say their children were and professionals who advise against it?

If you dont like them dont use them.

That isnt even an answer.

Pointless evasive statements like that (it wasnt even that relevent to what you were replying to) simply show that you know that there was a valid point made and that you simply cant admit that.

 

[estesbob]

Why not listen to people who have stated that they were distressed as well as parents who say their children were and professionals who advise against it?

I prefer to listen to the people on the front lines.They say it works and works very effectively.

That isnt even an answer.

Pointless evasive statements like that (it wasnt even that relevent to what you were replying to) simply show that you know that there was a valid point made and that you simply cant admit that.

You use whatever methods you find most effective and the rest of us will do like wise .It realy is that simple.

 

[Elric]

I prefer to listen to the people on the front lines.They say it works and works very effectively.

We are not talking about what works effectivly, we are talking about if people (adults and children) find the images “disturbing”, “distressing” ect. To which you keep aserting that they dont, but you cant seem to support that argument or even answer simple questions about it.

I am really concerned about the lack of consideration, the evasivness and dishonesty that you seem to be showing.

You use whatever methods you find most effective and the rest of us will do like wise .It realy is that simple.

Again, this isnt relevent to what you are replying to.

 

[seekerz]

The point here has never been to condemn the use of graphic photos but their indiscriminate use. Some feel this is okay. Some feel it’s wrong. Yet others feel any such graphics are disrespectful to the fetus.

In a situation where Christians cannot agree on a matter, are we not bound to prayerfully reflect on it and seek to discern and to do what pleases God?

To take the attitude that it simply isn’t wrong (therefore no need to relect on whether it pleases God), seems, at the very least, quite presumptuous.