Abortion: Whatever works

[Elric]

Your refusal to answer the question speaks volumes.

Speaks volumes hey?

I honestly thought that is spoke “That question isnt relevent to the topic at hand”. I would hardly consider that “volumes”.

I suppose it also says that I am able to have a debate and stick to the topic of the debate and that I am able to seperate issues such as using graphic images of dismembered unborns that distress people, the act of of protesting abortion and the issue of abortion itself. You on the other hand, even with your years of being on the frontline, seem incapable of doing that.

All you seem able to do is try and change the subject because you cant defend your own statements and then try to discredit someone with your own speculation with something that isnt even relevent to the topic at hand.

You wont even answer questions that are relevent to the topic.

 

[estesbob]

Speaks volumes hey?

I honestly thought that is spoke “That question isnt relevent to the topic at hand”. I would hardly consider that “volumes”.

I suppose it also says that I am able to have a debate and stick to the topic of the debate and that I am able to seperate issues such as using graphic images of dismembered unborns that distress people, the act of of protesting abortion and the issue of abortion itself. You on the other hand, even with your years of being on the frontline, seem incapable of doing that.

All you seem able to do is try and change the subject because you cant defend your own statements and then try to discredit someone with your own speculation with something that isnt even relevent to the topic at hand.

You wont even answer questions that are relevent to the topic.

You support abortion. Obviously that colors your view. As I mentioned before the pictures must really distress those who support abortion as it reminds them of jjust what it is they support Having to explain to their children why they support what the pictures depict must be even more distressing.

 

[snowfly]

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.

Sacrcasm.

 

[estesbob]

Sacrcasm.

I got it-it does appear there is much more distress over showing these pictures than there is over what they depict.

 

[Elric]

You support abortion.

Actually I dont. But here is the thing, that isnt relevent to the topic at hand. What I support has no bearing on this at all.

Obviously that colors your view.

Um no it doesnt. But I really dont think that you should be judging people in such a way, considering the statements that you have made.

As I mentioned before the pictures must really distress those who support abortion as it reminds them of jjust what it is they support

There probably are people like that, just like there are people who get “tickled pink” when they distress someone.

But not every person is the way that you believe that they are, for a start people without children cant be that way. There are plenty of reasons for someone to be distressed by these pictures that dont even involve their stance on abortion.

But I thought it was your opinion that people dont get distressed by these images?

Having to explain to their children why they support what the pictures depict must be even more distressing.

Actually having to explain to their children what the image was (before they feel that their children are ready in particular) can be quite distressing.

 

[Elric]

Sacrcasm.

No I got that, I just dont get why.

It seemed like an absurd thing to state, like you were implying that I am against protesting abortion and I condone abortion. All that based on my opposition to displaying garphic images of dismembered unborns the way that it is being done at the moment or one form of protesting abortion.

I mean, what a conclusion to jump to.

 

[seekerz]

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.

The point of this post was to initiate such a reflection. I do not know Fr. Pavone personally, or what his stand is
on any matter.

Besides, estebob was the one who stated that no such reflection was necessary:

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***.

If you want to discuss these matters with Fr Pavone, by all means go ahead and do so. As far as I’m aware, this particular discussion has not mentioned or included the padre.

Incidentally, to my knowledge, only one person in the Catholic Church teach infallibly and even he can only do so under certain circumstances.

 

[seekerz]

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.

Has anyone made that equation? It might help to read the original post.

 

[snowfly]

No I got that, I just dont get why.

It seemed like an absurd thing to state, like you were implying that I am against protesting abortion and I condone abortion. All that based on my opposition to displaying garphic images of dismembered unborns the way that it is being done at the moment or one form of protesting abortion.

I mean, what a conclusion to jump to.

You know what, I never said you were against protesting abortion, but “Out of sight is out of mind” and if these images however graphic stop murdering babies, then which is the lesser evil.

Not saying that those that show them are evil, just trying to keep you happy so you won’t say I’m unreasonable.

Has anyone made that equation? It might help to read the original post.

Might help if you read post #44. it’s like an analogy.

 

[seekerz]

I notice the writer used the term ‘fetus’ instead of developing baby…that lets the cat outta the bag right there!.

If by the writer, you are referring to the OP (me) then please explain why the use of the correct scientific name of the baby at that stage) would have any sinister implication.

Are you homo sapiens? Or are you not?..

Pro-abortion people are educating themselves to be defenders of their so-called rights. They understand basic embryologic facts and scientific terms. Isn’t it time we armed ourselves likewise, to fight for the truth?

 

[seekerz]

You know what, I never said you were against protesting abortion, but “Out of sight is out of mind” and if these images however graphic stop murdering babies, then which is the lesser evil.

Not saying that those that show them are evil, just trying to keep you happy so you won’t say I’m unreasonable.

Might help if you read post #44. it’s like an analogy.

That was what I read and I’m still confused by the statement and your response to my question…

 

[Elric]

You know what, I never said you were against protesting abortion

I never stated that you did.

but “Out of sight is out of mind” and if these images however graphic stop murdering babies, then which is the lesser evil.

Out of sight out of mind?

Couple of things here:

1, The graphic signs dont appear to be stopping the murder of babies, abortion is still legal and still happens. But it does appear to get people to not support your cause and in some cases this falls back on those who dont use graphic images and they lose support as well. It is counter productive.

2, You are not really in a position to use the “lesser evil” if you are claiming to take the moral high ground. If you choose to follow the moral high ground, then you cant lower yourself to using the “lesser evil” (you dont even try to warn people of the graphic content ahead to recapture some of the moral high ground).

There are effective ways to use these images (if you choose to use them) so that people dont get up set, you dont have to throw them around indiscriminatly uncaring of who sees them. There just isnt a need for that.

Not saying that those that show them are evil, just trying to keep you happy so you won’t say I’m unreasonable.

With condescending remarks like that and absurd attempts at sarcasm, you are being unreasonable.

With the way that some react and behave, its like they couldnt protest abortion without these graphic images. Its sad that suposedly inteligent people seem unable to think of other means to stand by their beliefs and are unable to argue their case without trying to change the subject or be condescending.

 

[mapleoak]

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”.

It has not been adequately demonstrated that displaying these photos in places where children under the age of seven are likely to encounter them is morally wrong. Not specific or targeted areas of seven year olds, as this would be of little benefit. However showing them to the general populations (which include seven year olds and younger) is highly beneficial because they contain a great deal of the ‘intended’ audience. To be morally problematic, it needs to be shown how having to explain to something to your child when he asks a question is wrong. That is a part of good parenting.

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.

In what way do pro-abortion parents educate their children about babies being human?

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.

But how will the pro abortion parents of children be informed by your 4 year old having an adequate understanding?

 

[mapleoak]

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.

It gets mentioned over and over that all adults have a norm for wanting to protect their young children. “Protect” them from graphic photos? as if they are ‘dangerous’!

 

[mapleoak]

No, I am objecting to the deliberate action of distressing people (adults and children) in inappropiate places

But they are appropriate places. What makes you say they aren’t?

(like shopping malls, highways, places where children frequent ect) and for what appears to be no reason

But there is a reason, believe it or not. That is to educate, inform, and instruct.

(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.

But people that have abortions do go shopping, do they not? (not to mention some people who can’t have abortions, do support them, perform them, will consider having an abortion, etc.) None of this pertains to the morality of displaying the pictures themselves.

 

[KarenNC]

But they are appropriate places. What makes you say they aren’t?
But there is a reason, believe it or not. That is to educate, inform, and instruct.
But people that have abortions do go shopping, do they not? (not to mention some people who can’t have abortions, do support them, perform them, will consider having an abortion, etc.) None of this pertains to the morality of displaying the pictures themselves.

According to the statistics below (from a group who advocates the use of these photos in as many places as possible and who is frequently cited in these discussions by those who choose to use this method indiscriminately), almost a third of the women who have abortions are Catholic.

abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
Who’s having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as “Born-again/Evangelical”.

Why then are the Catholics who are in favor of this method not plastering these photos across every sanctuary and Catholic school every week? The “general public” includes Catholics who attends services, goes to meetings, etc there frequently. There is even a demonstrable, statistically supported argument for their specific use in Catholic churches based on the above numbers.

Parking the trucks outside their own churches on Sunday morning or outside the local Catholic elementary school as parents are dropping off and picking up their kids? The “intended audience” wouldn’t be the children, of course, it would be the parents and teachers. You don’t have to have a specific curriculum, just park the truck by the entrance or put up the posters in the cafeteria or hallways. Any brief glimpse the child may have would only be an “acceptable, unintended consequence” after all.

I have yet over the many months in which I have participated in these discussions to see anyone saying, “Yes, we have these pictures all over my parish church and parish hall. We show them at Mass, post them in the hallways, park the trucks outside the front entrance when they aren’t sent somewhere else.”

If the Church truly considers showing these photos in places where young children will view them to be morally neutral, then what would be the objection to any of the above? If it is no different than showing a crucifix, well, that shouldn’t be a problem as there are crucifixes all over the above settings. I sincerely doubt it is because the Catholic Church “supports abortion”.

 

[KarenNC]

It gets mentioned over and over that all adults have a norm for wanting to protect their young children. “Protect” them from graphic photos? as if they are ‘dangerous’!

I know that mapleoak and estesbob have repeatedly dismissed the following information, but I offer it for the sake of others. As we have discussed, these are graphic photographs of real dead bodies frequently clearly recognizable as blood covered dismembered and or decapitated or otherwise mutilated babies. They are very akin to showing victims of war, only in this case, close to the child’s age or the age of the child’s younger sibling or relative or that of a friend.

webmd.com/parenting/guide…ds-differently
Ideally, say the experts, it’s best to avoid exposing very young children to violent images altogether.

“For children under 6, it’s realistic to shield them a fair amount,” says Nadine Kaslow, PhD, a psychologist in Emory University’s department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences.

That includes what they overhear from their parents’ conversations. “Monitor your conversations,” Kaslow cautions adults.

webmd.com/parenting/guide…erently?page=3
Reduce Excessive Exposure at Any Age
Most experts agree that children, regardless of age, should not be exposed to an excessive amount of violent images. Seeing a bomb explode is one thing. Watching it detonate repeatedly can make a single incident seem much grander in scale, particularly to an audience of young children.

nctsnet.org/nctsn_assets/…_about_war.pdf

For younger children, parents should serve as a buffer or “protective shield” against unnecessary information, including conversations or disagreements between adults, as well as media coverage and images related to war.

kff.org/entmedia/upload/K…d-the-News.pdf
Guidelines for Journalists
Following are some suggestions for coverage of
tragic or traumatic events, from experts at New York
University’s Child Study Center*:
• Provide a warning about graphic content
…
Limit size, amount and repetition of graphic
content
• Limit use of intense graphics in news promotions
or front pages…"

aboutourkids.org/aboutour…ive_media.html

familyinfoserv.com/pdf/graphicviolence.pdf

life.familyeducation.com/comm…war/36261.html
"Children under seven need special considerations:
Keep them away from television news. Commercial programming may be interrupted by frightening news bulletins. Horrific images can cause nightmares and may awaken other fears and anxieties and they may need comforting. "

pediatrics.aappublications.or…ull/113/6/1771

etc, etc, etc.

 

[seekerz]

It looks like the questions in my original post will never be dealt with head-on by proponents of the various tactics. I see all kinds of side-issues being brought up, but the central questions here are being side-stepped:

In working to end abortion, are any and all legal means moral? How do we decide if a particular method is moral? Does it matter if these methods offend some?

I guess a good question to add is: who determines whether something is an offence, the one at the receiving end or the doer of the act?

 

[KarenNC]

It has not been adequately demonstrated that displaying these photos in places where children under the age of seven are likely to encounter them is morally wrong.

What criteria would you accept as “adequate”?

To be morally problematic, it needs to be shown how having to explain to something to your child when he asks a question is wrong. That is a part of good parenting.

It is not the question that the child asks that is morally problematic, it is the behavior of the adult in question standing on the street corner or driving the truck that prompted the question. I can think of a great many things that are morally problematic that might prompt a question.

Yes, good parenting is being able to do damage control. That does not make it morally acceptable for someone else to choose to knowingly and intentionally behave in such a way as to inflict that damage in the first place.

In what way do pro-abortion parents educate their children about babies being human?

You are going to have to make up your mind. Is your intention in the use of these photographs to educate children or is it not?

 

[mapleoak]

Ideally, say the experts, it’s best to avoid exposing very young children to violent images altogether.

and the reason?

“For children under 6, it’s realistic to shield them a fair amount,” says Nadine Kaslow, PhD, a psychologist in Emory University’s department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences.

and the reason?

For younger children, parents should serve as a buffer or “protective shield” against unnecessary information, including conversations or disagreements between adults, as well as media coverage and images related to war.

and the reason?

Limit size, amount and repetition of graphic
content
• Limit use of intense graphics in news promotions
or front pages…"

and the reason…?

"Children under seven need special considerations:
Keep them away from television news. Commercial programming may be interrupted by frightening news bulletins. Horrific images can cause nightmares and may awaken other fears and anxieties and they may need comforting. "

I wonder how I made it out okay with all the things I have seen and was told as a kid. Nightmares are a fact of life and children have them from time to time. No harm done. Can you support that photos of aborted babies cause nightmares in children? I know of know one who has ever said their children have suffered nightmares about abortion, nor have I ever seen a report on the number children suffering from nightmares from being afraid of abortion.