F
francesco920
Guest
On the contrary, it seems to me quite presumptuous to assume that those who show the pictures, such as the holy priest Fr. Pavone, haven’t reflected on it.
- Status
N
Newbie2
Guest
Well put.
I have a bit of a problem with the attitude that some seem to have that “this is the way we’re going to do it (fight abortion) and since our mission is so noble, you can’t question our methods and it’s just too bad if young kids get scared or traumatized by graphic images”.
Not that anyone in this thread has posted anything like that, but you know what I mean; there are anti-abortionists that talk like and believe that.
Certainly such images are useful in the fight, but some measure of sensitivity must be used as to where and when using such images.
E
estesbob
Guest
There is no evasiveness-you are offering a solution to a problem that doesnt exist.
So tell us-when you picket abortion clinics which methods do you find best?
E
estesbob
Guest
S
snowfly
Guest
If your talking about trucks with giant posters on them yes some people are grossed out.
The evil has already being committed, the poster is a picture of the murder, not unlike a photographer at a murder crime scene.
With the difference that they won’t be prosecuted for the murder of the baby, but then our own death comes, and we will have to answer for it.
So sorry we can’t sweeten up abortion to make it appear anything that it’s not, abortion according to the Catholic Church is murder.
I think equating a poster with the actual horror of an aborted baby is ridiculous, there wouldn’t be a poster if it hadn’t been murdered.
Not saying you are, just giving one example, here in Ireland I haven’t seen any trucks, we have a post card campaign running with pics of aborted babies, and they do change hearts.
I’m sure for those that have had an abortion and regretted it they would be very hard to look at, but abortion is still on-going.
In time it took me to write this God knows how many have died.
E
estesbob
Guest
About 16,000 children have been killed since this thread began During that time a miniscule number of children got a momentary distant glance at a graphic picture. Rather than face the horror being displayed by these pictures many would rather hide behind their children. I am always suspicous of those who claim to be doing something for “our children”
N
Newbie2
Guest
Is it possible that someone who might otherwise contribute financially or otherwise change their mind if they are turned off by the use of graphic anti-abortion pictures?
Just another thought.
Not to say this happens or should or shouldn’t be justification for not using such pictures, but certainly a plausable scenerio, no?
Just another thought.
Not to say this happens or should or shouldn’t be justification for not using such pictures, but certainly a plausable scenerio, no?
E
estesbob
Guest
Anything is possible but such a person, if they exist, were not to dedicated to the ministry in the first place…Is it possible that someone who might otherwise contribute financially or otherwise change their mind if they are turned off by the use of graphic anti-abortion pictures?
Just another thought.
N
Nino
Guest
Of course it was little Karl Marx who declared…'the end justifies the means!" I notice the writer used the term ‘fetus’ instead of developing baby…that lets the cat outta the bag right there!.In my talks to teens.they seem to believe from the propaganda of the pro-baby killers that its just a blob until the 9th month,the baby has no nerves so it feels no pain etc etc…anything that shows exactly what is happening here is justified…the poor things like to show horror shows on …oh lets say…police ‘brutality’ etc but golly gee.show what happens to a developing baby…sorry using that term…when it is vacummed out of the temporary hosts body…in pieces etc…well we cant have that…when an ‘actress’ like Whoopie can have 3 abortions and still be considered a ‘caring,sensitive’ human …no wonder we see so much evil in what used to be a great nation…One nation under God indeed…please dont send me any Christmas card…(again sorry using the name of CHrist instead of an X) with you hugging a tree…it is the birth of Jesus we celebrate not earth day…
E
estesbob
Guest
One of the reasons some people oppose these pictures is not so much as they dont want to have to explan to their children what the pictures show but dont want to have to explain to their children why the support what the pictures show.
E
Elric
Guest
So people who say that they are “distressed” by these images are just making it up?
What relevence does this have to do with the topic?
E
estesbob
Guest
People can say anything they want. Someone saying they are distressed is not a valid reason to stop showing the pictures.
You are attackng a tried and proven method of limiting abortion-just WANTto know what technIques you use are better. yyou do oppose abortion, dOnt you?
You want peopleto quit usi
S
snowfly
Guest
K
KarenNC
Guest
I am one of the ones who is consistently outspoken against the indiscriminate use of these photos in places where young children are likely to be unless their parents have some prior warning and opportunity to avoid them. I don’t believe you can say that I have ever attempted to deny that the pictures were of babies.
For the record, if you go to almost any of the threads on the use of billboard sized posters of blood covered dismembered and decaptiated dead babies, you will see that the objections are pretty specifically targeted for the most part. It is not “never use these at any time in any place”. It is “use some discretion and please try to adhere to societal norms of not showing these in places where you can reasonably expect that large numbers of children under the age of 7 are going to be, unless you give their parents some reasonable option to avoid them seeing such”.
Not “don’t show them to adults”. Not “don’t show them to teens”. Not “pretend it doesn’t exist”. Not “don’t show them to women considering an abortion”. Not “don’t show them in sex ed classes”.
Simply “don’t rub my young child’s face in pictures of bloody mutilated corpses of babies by the entrance to the toy store”. “Don’t leave them on the tables at the McDonald’s by the play space”. “Don’t presume that your desire to use this particular method in this particular setting trumps my obligation to parent and seek to appropriately protect my preschool or young elementary child from topics that are not developmentally appropriate”.
There are plenty of ways in which one can teach a child long before they are teens that babies are human before they are born and that it is bad to hurt them. My child understood that very adequately before she was 4 years old. It did not require that I show her these huge photos of bloody mutilated corpses of babies. As I have said before, the Catholic Church seems to believe they can certainly adequately instruct their children in both the churches and in Catholic schools about this without even mentioning the word “abortion” until the 5th grade, much less showing 4 and 5 year olds these photos.
“X” is not the English letter “x” is is the Greek letter “chi” and as such an abbreviation of Christ which has been in use since the 15th century by the Church.
etymonline.com/index.php?l=x
*Xmas
“Christmas,” 1551, X’temmas, wherein the X is an abbreviation for Christ in Christmas, from first letter of Gk. Christos “Christ” (see Christ). The earlier way to abbreviate it was Xp- or Xr-, corresponding to “Chr-,” and the form Xres mæsse for “Christmas” appears in the “Anglo-Saxon Chronicle” (c.1100). *
crivoice.org/symbols/xmasorigin.html
*The exact origin of the single letter X for Christ cannot be p(name removed by moderator)ointed with certainty. Some claim that it began in the first century AD along with the other symbols, but evidence is lacking. Others think that it came into widespread use by the thirteenth century along with many other abbreviations and symbols for Christianity and various Christian ideas that were popular in the Middle Ages. However, again, the evidence is sparse.
In any case, by the fifteenth century Xmas emerged as a widely used symbol for Christmas. In 1436 Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press with moveable type. In the early days of printing typesetting was done by hand and was very tedious and expensive. As a result, abbreviations were common. In religious publications, the church began to use the abbreviation C for the word “Christ” to cut down on the cost of the books and pamphlets. From there, the abbreviation moved into general use in newspapers and other publications, and “Xmas” became an accepted way of printing “Christmas” (along with the abbreviations Xian and Xianity). Even Webster’s dictionary acknowledges that the abbreviation Xmas was in common use by the middle of the sixteenth century.
So there is no grand scheme to dilute Christianity by promoting the use of Xmas instead of Christmas. It is not a modern invention to try to convert Christmas into a secular day, nor is it a device to promote the commercialism of the holiday season. Its origin is thoroughly rooted in the heritage of the Church. It is simply another way to say Christmas, drawing on a long history of symbolic abbreviations used in the church. In fact, as with other abbreviations used in common speech or writing (such as Mr. or etc.), the abbreviation “Xmas” should be pronounced “Christmas” just as if the word were written out in full, rather than saying “exmas.”*
K
KarenNC
Guest
Tried certainly. Proven? Really? There have been studies done now that look at the superior effectiveness of this method of using these images (showing them in places where large numbers of small children can reasonably be expected to be gathered without giving their parents the option to avoid such pictures vs. using them in more targeted ways like on websites, at clinics, in pamphlets handed directly to adults, in sex ed classes, on college campuses, at publicized marches and rallies, etc)? I would be glad to look at any new information you might have to bring to the table.
K
KarenNC
Guest
And a great many more oppose these pictures because of a societal norm that the role of all adults (not just parents) is to protect young children from things like graphic photos of mutilated dead bodies. The vast majority of the folks on these boards who have objected to this particular use of this particular form of material has come from folks who are self-described as pro-life, against abortion, Catholic activists, etc.
Their main “crime” seems to be disagreeing with you and one or two other people on the way that adults should interact with young children.
E
estesbob
Guest
Thee have been no studies on the effect on childen from a casual glance at graphic picture of an abortion. The reason is that such an infentesimal number have children have been thus exposed that such a study would be impossible. The people that use them say they are very effective. Everything is just specualtion.
E
Elric
Guest
Actually it is, its one of the reasons that we have censorship laws. There is also placing warnings where these images are being used so that you let people know what is up ahead and they can choose not to see them.
I dont think that is appropiate to insinuate that a whole bunch of people are liars just because they dont condone/agree with what you are doing.
No, I am objecting to the deliberate action of distressing people (adults and children) in inappropiate places (like shopping malls, highways, places where children frequent ect) and for what appears to be no reason (I have never heard of anyone trying to have an abortion in any of these places, not to mention that most of those people would be unable to have an abortion anyway). It is simply unnecessary.
Once again, this isnt relevent to the conversation. What ever my stance on abortion is, it has nothing to do with the morality/decency of using the graphic images being used and where/how they are used.
Dont try to turn this into a pro-abortion vs anti-abortion issue, because it isnt.
E
estesbob
Guest
Your refusal to answer the question speaks volumes.
E
Elric
Guest
You want me to ask aborted babies if people who say that they are “distressed” by these images are just making it up?
Forgive me, but I really dont understand your point.
- Status