Abortion: Whatever works

[mapleoak]

Either the action of showing huge photographs of mutilated blood covered corpses where young children can be reasonably assumed to encounter them without their parent’s prior and express consent is morally appropriate on its own merits or it is not.

It is morally appropriate on its own merits. Does not matter if there are other appropriate ways as well. This does not negate the appropriateness of other actions.

You are arguing two positions. One, that the end justifies the means. I believe that has been adequately addressed. In this situation, it does not, as there are plenty of alternate means available to achieve the end of informing adults that abortion is wrong that do not involve showing huge pictures of blood covered mutilated corpses to 4 and 5 year olds on the way to the toy store or birthday party.

And here you say its not dependent on its own merit, but whether or not there are other means available. If you are trying to justify your argument that it is immoral because of the principle of double effect, then it is flawed reasoning. It cannot be said that because the pictures cause some people distress so therefore they should not be used when something else can be used, for instance a verbal sign that says “abortion is murder”. Guess what! Such a verbal sign causes distress as well. Does that make them immoral to use? How about counseling women outside the abortion clinic. That makes abortion doctors ‘uneasy’. Does that make it immoral? Various other pro-life tactics may hurt pro-abortion folks feelings too. It amounts to saying one cannot do anything to fight abortion, because someone is bound to be offended or even made to feel guilty.

 

[mmch66]

I do not deny the need for both corporal and spiritual acts of mercy. As I stated, I care for individuals whom God sends my way. I also care for the dying because that is what God has called me specifically to do. My corporal works generally deal with the other end of the lifespan, with people who are firghtened and lonely while dying in the hospital. God calls us each to different works.

Gettting back to the original theme of the thread, my original point was that fighting for the unborn should not involve assaults on the spirits of unsuspecting children through the use of horrific images. The abortion issue isn’t just about getting a law passed and it isn’t new. As I’m sure you know, the ancient Christians rescued the babies the Romans left to die. Even if a law is passes abortion won’t end. It is necessary for us as indiviudals and as a Church to testify to the sanctity of life in this pagan society. We are not a Christian nation. Americans worship self, comfort, sex, and money. Practical Christians are a small minority. Until we as a nation recognize that there is more than just the here and now and that an eternal soul is worth more than a career, a boyfriend, or even our own grief at giving up a baby for adoption. In my own unscientifically based opinion, most abortions occur because the mother feels pressured by a man, doesn’t want the inconvenience of a child, or thinks having an abortion will be less difficult than giving the baby up for adoption. Until we learn to die to self and value others there will be no end to abortion. Did you know that many ob/gyn doctors perform abortions in hospitals by scheduling women for D and C’s when they have a positive test? An IUD aborts a fertilized embryo? The pill prevents development of the uterine lining so if an egg happens be be released and fertilized it will not implant? All of these are abortion but if you bring them up no one wants to hear about it.

Back to the original message, please tell me why it is ok to assault my dear son with disturbing images? Other means of protest can be just as effective without harm to innocents. How can you justify assaulting my son to save another? The Church teaches the end does not justify the means.

 

[Newbie2]

And my chldren never saw them. But of course that is ancedotal evidence and proves nothng. however givent the number of abortion clinics and given the number of protestors who use these images the chances of any child seeing one of these pictures is almost non-existent.

My experience is anecdotal? Fine. What are the statistics you use to support the claim that chances of a child seeing one of those pics is “almost non-existent”?

If you’re going to make statistical proof the standard, then start by providing the numbers and studies that support your various proclamations.

Methinks estesbob’s claim would be more credible if he were to say “I think that…” or “In my opinion…”. It would seem that there are no statistics on either side of the discussion, only anecdotal reports, so we’re only dealing with opinions, not “provable” facts.

Still, it seems odd that seekerz’s kid beat the “Infintesimal” odds, no?

 

[mmch66]

It is morally appropriate on its own merits. Does not matter if there are other appropriate ways as well. This does not negate the appropriateness of other actions.

And here you say its not dependent on its own merit, but whether or not there are other means available. If you are trying to justify your argument that it is immoral because of the principle of double effect, then it is flawed reasoning. It cannot be said that because the pictures cause some people distress so therefore they should not be used when something else can be used, for instance a verbal sign that says “abortion is murder”. Guess what! Such a verbal sign causes distress as well. Does that make them immoral to use? How about counseling women outside the abortion clinic. That makes abortion doctors ‘uneasy’. Does that make it immoral? Various other pro-life tactics may hurt pro-abortion folks feelings too. It amounts to saying one cannot do anything to fight abortion, because someone is bound to be offended or even made to feel guilty.

We are not arguing that it is wrong to make the guilty feel bad. We are saying it is wrong to harm our children for the sake of other children when other means of protest are available. You have not yet said why you think it is okay to assault innocents when other means of protest are available. We are talking about our kids, not those who participate in or support abortion. You just admitted that other signs can make them uncomfortable in the quote above. Why not use them instead?

 

[mapleoak]

Other means of protest can be just as effective without harm to innocents.

Harming their innocence refers to giving scandal, not to showing truth. It would be wrong to teach them that abortion is okay.

How can you justify assaulting my son to save another? The Church teaches the end does not justify the means.

If the means was ‘assaulting’, yes the Church teaches that that would be immoral. The means is not assaulting, but displaying pictures. Clarification in terminology used is important.

We are not arguing that it is wrong to make the guilty feel bad. We are saying it is wrong to harm our children for the sake of other children when other means of protest are available. You have not yet said why you think it is okay to assault innocents when other means of protest are available. We are talking about our kids, not those who participate in or support abortion. You just admitted that other signs can make them uncomfortable in the quote above. Why not use them instead?

By your above quote one could say that, since many 5 to 7 year olds are quite capable of reading a sign which says “abortion is murder”, their innocence would be harmed and it amounts to assaulting children, no?

 

[mmch66]

I’m sorry, but you will never convince me that it is okay to show children violent pictures of bloodied infants. I did indeed mean assault when I described my son’s experience. He was assaulted mentally and emotionally by photos used at the March for Life. My 16 year old daughter was also impacted. Although both could easily read all the signs it was the pictures that caused them deep emotional distress. I rather doubt they have the same effect on abortionists since they see them in real life every day. I suspect that the use of the pictures does more to alienate those who support abortion but are not providers of abortion than to change their opinion. They seem to be more a means of inciting pro-life people to greater outrage than to changing the minds of abortion supporters. Bear in mind this last part is my own speculation with no research to back it up.

 

[KarenNC]

What do you do? My guess is very little. Most people who don’t approve of therse images don’t do much. If I am wrong, prove me wrong. Tell me about the sidewalk counseling you do, the crisis pregnancy centers you work at, the praying you do at the abortion mills regularly. Tell me how you who don’t approve of the images personally fight abortion. Most people who complain about graphic images spend more time doing that than fighting abortion.

I have previously refused to engage in exactly this “mine is bigger than yours” contest on the other threads on this subject. They are nothing more than attempts to divert the discussion from the topic. I see no reason to change that policy.

 

[KarenNC]

It is morally appropriate on its own merits. Does not matter if there are other appropriate ways as well. This does not negate the appropriateness of other actions.

I have seen no evidence that showing tractor trailer sized color photographs of bloodied mutilated dismembered corpses of babies in areas frequented by young children is indeed moral.

And here you say its not dependent on its own merit, but whether or not there are other means available. If you are trying to justify your argument that it is immoral because of the principle of double effect, then it is flawed reasoning.

No, it is being argued that this particular tactic employed in this particular way is appropriate because it (theoretically) prevents at least one abortion. That is “the ends justify the means”. You are beginning from a flawed premise, that this particular action is inherently morally appropriate. The principle of double effect does not allow the use of immoral actions to achieve moral ends, regardless of how attached one is to them.

It amounts to saying one cannot do anything to fight abortion, because someone is bound to be offended or even made to feel guilty.

No, it amounts to saying that it is inappropriate to show tractor trailer sized color photographs of bloody dismembered and mutilated babies in places frequented by small children without even token attempts at allowing parents to be aware that such images are going to be displayed.

The only person I see that should be feeling guilty in this context is the person who chooses to display these photographs of blood covered dismembered babies to 4 year olds without their parents’ consent.

 

[KarenNC]

Harming their innocence refers to giving scandal, not to showing truth. It would be wrong to teach them that abortion is okay.

If refusing to show 4 year olds tractor trailer sized full color photographs of the bloody dismembered corpses of babies is the equivalent of teaching them that abortion is okay, then you need to start talking to the Catholic schools and churches who do not plaster these images all over every preschool classroom for. By your standards, they are evidently firmly in the business of teaching children that abortion is okay. As I have said, none of the curriculum I have been able to locate that Catholic churches or schools use even mentions the word “abortion” before the 5th grade, much less shows any indication that it uses such photographs at any point.

If the means was ‘assaulting’, yes the Church teaches that that would be immoral. The means is not assaulting, but displaying pictures. Clarification in terminology used is important.

Content matters.

By your above quote one could say that, since many 5 to 7 year olds are quite capable of reading a sign which says “abortion is murder”, their innocence would be harmed and it amounts to assaulting children, no?

I have provided you with links to educators, psychologists, associations of pediatricians, etc who all agree that there is indeed a difference between words and visual images in terms of the impact that they have on young children. They all also agree that images of violence (and, please, enough with the sophistry that the photo of a dismembered baby is not a picture of violence) are not appropriate for young children.

If you don’t believe there is a difference in the effects of words and pictures, why do you continue to insist on using pictures? No one is arguing about the use of words.

 

[seekerz]

Having children and loving them is the best pro-life example we laymen can give.

+JMJ+

My thoughts exactly, though you’ve stated it better than me. How can we justify hurting some children to save others, then call ourselves pro-life; shouldn’t all life be respected or has God set us an impossible task?

What is even worse is that we energetically try to persuade ourselves and others that no real harm is being done…

 

[Elric]

1. Yes I do
2. Because they work

That isnt a reason. Perhaps you misunderstood the question?

My point was that, I want to know what all of the people who are complaining about these images are doing to combat abortion.

I understood your point, unfortunatly it isnt relevent to this topic. I even suggested that you started your own thread to cover those issues.

People leading the charge and fight against abortion use and promote the use of these images. If you are against these images, what is your exp. fighting abortion? What do you do?

These questions are not relevent to the topic at hand. We are not discussing what people do to fight abortion or what their experience is fighting abortion.

Most people who are against these images are usually very inexperienced and do very little.

This is not relevent to the topic and peoples experience, how the fight abortion or even if they protest abortion has nothing to do with if the practice of using graphic images indiscriminatly is moral or not. Its certainly no reason to dismiss their opinion/belief.

If I am wrong let me know. Tell me what you do.

Its not relevent.

 

[snowfly]

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

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?

For me it’s based on my Catholic upbringing and the Catholic Churches stance on it, and since I’m pro-life I feel it’s my duty to speak out about it whenever abortion raises it’s ugly head.

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 ?

Do you know what tactic is 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?

Yes, we would far rather not have to show gross images of dead babies, but what will happen the person that views them ?

Children of a certain age won’t understand them anyway, it may not take a flinch out of some adults but horrify others.

But for those that are horrified, which is the most horrible, a picture of a dead baby or the fact that it was murdered in the first-place ?

Anyway I place postcard size anti-abortion pictures all-over my hometown, I heard of a woman in England being arrested for posting them up, so any body’s guess what would happen a truck driver.

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.

I’ve read stories of women having a change of heart by looking at posters of aborted babies outside clinics.

It won’t save them all, but in doing nothing we could be complicit in the sin, lukewarm.

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).

To me it’s only the lesser evil if I agree with you that it is the lesser of the two evils, which I don’t.

In a newspaper you see a picture of a dead man lying on the street, are the newspapers the lesser of the two evils for showing it, or are they only bringing the evil committed to our attention ?

My view is, a baby has been disected, the Temple of the Holy Spirit desecrated and here’s a picture of the murder,

There are effective ways to use these images (if you choose to use them) so that people don’t get up set, you don’t have to throw them around indiscriminatly uncaring of who sees them. There just isnt a need for that.

I prefer the postcard size ones, but unfortunately people that you say shouldn’t see them sometimes will.

I suppose the difference for me between a truck-size poster and a postcard, is the difference between watching a horror movie on TV or going to the cinema to see it.

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.

A picture speaks a thousand words, and I make no apology for posting them up.

 

[snowfly]

Well honestly, We watch porngraghy in rated R movies, we see people shot and mutilated and all sorts of sick stuff at movies thats fake and we want to see it. Heck we pay to see it! A good price too! But we see someone show an aborted baby and oh gosh your sick and its so horrible and we exploit them. But it is the reality of it, that is an abortion, its not a movie and you should understand that its real and not some work of a hollywood makeup studio to sway opinoin… In this world of information and mass media, we are all wanting to know the truth, but yet we willfully hide ourselves from it if it doesnt fit are idea of what it should be. The reality of it is that there are dead, aborted, babies, rotting in dumpsters behind abortion clinics. Its the TRUTH.

 

[seekerz]

A person reading your post would gather that there’s no fighting abortion without indiscriminately displaying graphic photos. You have not even attempted to answer the main questions of the OP.

Please don’t misunderstand; this is not to say you’re not welcome or that you don’t have a right to air your views but basic forum rules indicate a need to address the concerns of the thread. Additional concerns may certainly arise, but if you’re not interested in discussing the central questions or issues of the thread, why bother to participate?

 

[KarenNC]

Children of a certain age won’t understand them anyway, it may not take a flinch out of some adults but horrify others.

Define “certain age” for me, please.

In a newspaper you see a picture of a dead man lying on the street, are the newspapers the lesser of the two evils for showing it, or are they only bringing the evil committed to our attention ?

The vast majority of newspapers do not put color photographs of blood covered dismembered bodies on the front page above the fold where they are easily visible to anyone walking by the newsstand precisely because it is deemed inappropriate in our society to do so. Sensational photos such as those, if they are printed at all, are inside the newspaper, where one has to deliberately choose to purchase the paper and open it in order to see them. Not a lot of the under 7 crowd doing that without parental involvement in my neck of the woods.

I suppose the difference for me between a truck-size poster and a postcard, is the difference between watching a horror movie on TV or going to the cinema to see it.

The difference between strewing these photos all over the countryside indiscriminately and your analogy to a horror movie lies in the fact that watching a movie, either on TV or at the cinema, is a volitional act. I have to actually buy a ticket or turn on the TV and choose the program in order to see it. I have to take my child with me to the theater or choose to turn on that show at a time when my child is in the room in order for my child to be exposed to it. I have control over this.

I have no control over whether someone chooses to park this “horror movie” outside my house on the side of a tractor trailer truck, plaster this “horror movie” all over my car at the grocery store, show this “horror movie” beside my car at eye level with my child when I am stuck in traffic and cannot turn off, flies this “horror movie” behind an airplane while I am at the beach, puts this “horror movie” on the table in the family restaurant beside the children’s playspace, etc. It was instead forced on my child without my consent or any act of will on my part.

A picture speaks a thousand words, and I make no apology for posting them up.

It definitely speaks volumes about the person who chooses to show it in a particular situation such as the ones we are discussing. I just wouldn’t want that said about me.

 

[Elric]

I’ve read stories of women having a change of heart by looking at posters of aborted babies outside clinics.

It won’t save them all, but in doing nothing we could be complicit in the sin, lukewarm.

Who said anything about doing nothing?

You dont seem to understand what this topic is about or what people are expressing.

This is NOT a topic against protesting abortion, nobody has even tried to insinuate that you should not oppose abortion.

To me it’s only the lesser evil if I agree with you that it is the lesser of the two evils, which I don’t.

I was only responding to your post, you were the one who brought the phrase up.

But here is the question(s):

Is it wrong/evil to distress someone?

Is it wrong/evil to make someone do something against their wishes?

Is it wrong/evil to take away someones choice?

Is it wrong/evil to deliberatly distress someone?

Is it wrong/evil to show things to children without their parents conscent?

Is it wrong/evil to not consider others?

Now here is the tricky bit. Try to answer these questions at face value, seperate from this issue and then answer them including this issue.

In a newspaper you see a picture of a dead man lying on the street, are the newspapers the lesser of the two evils for showing it, or are they only bringing the evil committed to our attention ?

To be honest, I dont think that I have ever seen what you describe in a newspaper. But no they dont need to show that, I think a written report would be enough. Besides you do have a choice not to get a newspaper (Do they have warnings on the paper of what is inside? If not then they should).

My view is, a baby has been disected, the Temple of the Holy Spirit desecrated and here’s a picture of the murder,

This one is going to lead us off topic.

I prefer the postcard size ones, but unfortunately people that you say shouldn’t see them sometimes will.

That isnt an effective method that I was talking about. Indiscriminatly placeing those pictures everywhere simply compounds the problem.

What were those stories you have read that you mentioned earlier about?

I suppose the difference for me between a truck-size poster and a postcard, is the difference between watching a horror movie on TV or going to the cinema to see it.

But if you dont like horror movies and they scare you either one will have the same result.

A picture speaks a thousand words, and I make no apology for posting them up.

Im sorry but that made no sense with regard to the comment you were replying to at all.

 

[snowfly]

A person reading your post would gather that there’s no fighting abortion without indiscriminately displaying graphic photos. You have not even attempted to answer the main questions of the OP.

I have answered your questions, but you don’t like the answer, that doesn’t mean I haven’t answered.

but controversial ones such as indiscriminate use of graphic images and the recently discussed “aborted baby in a casket” ceremony.

You brought up the subject of graphic images in your original post.

Please don’t misunderstand; this is not to say you’re not welcome or that you don’t have a right to air your views but basic forum rules indicate a need to address the concerns of the thread. Additional concerns may certainly arise, but if you’re not interested in discussing the central questions or issues of the thread, why bother to participate?

I addressed your concerns but you don’t like the answer.

Define “certain age” for me, please.

An age of which they have no understanding of what they’re looking at.

The vast majority of newspapers do not put color photographs of blood covered dismembered bodies on the front page above the fold where they are easily visible to anyone walking by the newsstand precisely because it is deemed inappropriate in our society to do so. Sensational photos such as those, if they are printed at all, are inside the newspaper, where one has to deliberately choose to purchase the paper and open it in order to see them. Not a lot of the under 7 crowd doing that without parental involvement in my neck of the woods.

I’ve seen blood covered corpses on the front of newspapers where I live, mutilated bodies as-well.
I even saw the police pick up body parts in plastic bags first-hand, and fingers hanging from branches.

I’ve seen the terrible pictures from Cambodia and the pictures of the walking skeletons of Auswitch.

We will see these horrors whether we like it or not, and unfortunately children will sometimes see them too.

It was instead forced on my child without my consent or any act of will on my part.

Sorry this has happened to you, I myself wouldn’t go for the truck pics, I’d rather stick to the postcard type ones, sad just the same, then again children can see these too.

It definitely speaks volumes about the person who chooses to show it in a particular situation such as the ones we are discussing. I just wouldn’t want that said about me.

And it speaks even louder of the perpetrators that commit this terrible crime.

 

[snowfly]

Who said anything about doing nothing?

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

You dont seem to understand what this topic is about or what people are expressing.

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

This is NOT a topic against protesting abortion, nobody has even tried to insinuate that you should not oppose abortion.

I know and I never said it was.

But here is the question(s):

Is it wrong/evil to distress someone?

Is it wrong/evil to make someone do something against their wishes?

Is it wrong/evil to take away someones choice?

Is it wrong/evil to deliberatly distress someone?

Is it wrong/evil to show things to children without their parents conscent?

Is it wrong/evil to not consider others?

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

Now here is the tricky bit. Try to answer these questions at face value, seperate from this issue and then answer them including this issue.

Sometimes.

To be honest, I dont think that I have ever seen what you describe in a newspaper. But no they dont need to show that, I think a written report would be enough. Besides you do have a choice not to get a newspaper (Do they have warnings on the paper of what is inside? If not then they should).

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.

This one is going to lead us off topic.

That isnt an effective method that I was talking about. Indiscriminatly placeing those pictures everywhere simply compounds the problem.

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

What were those stories you have read that you mentioned earlier about?

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 ?

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.

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.

But if you dont like horror movies and they scare you either one will have the same result.

I don’t get this, sorry.

Im sorry but that made no sense with regard to the comment you were replying to at all.

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

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.

 

[KarenNC]

An age of which they have no understanding of what they’re looking at.

And that age would be…1, 3, 7, 15? A range is fine.

A three year old can certainly match an object to its picture, showing that she knows that the picture represents a real physical thing. Show a picture of a tree and a baby to most three year olds of your acquaintance and ask them to show you the baby. I bet they can do it.

Personally, my child was able to understand that a picture of a baby was indeed representative of a baby somewhere around the age of two. She could identify the presence of blood as indicating that someone was hurt. She was also able to identify whether the baby was hurt and knew that babies should have all their arms, legs and their head attached to their bodies.

I’ve seen blood covered corpses on the front of newspapers where I live, mutilated bodies as-well.

And it appears that you live in Ireland. There needs to be a basic understanding that the societal norms of what is appropriate in terms of public exhibition of such pictures differs from society to society. The norm for public nudity, for example, in terms of billboards, family television shows, beaches, etc is, as I understand it, quite different in Europe than it is in America. I do not know the standards in Ireland, but they also appear to be different.

I am discussing the use of these photos in America, a society where it is not considered acceptable to show color photos of dismembered corpses on the front of newspapers or magazines that are displayed for the general public. Personally, I think it is intrinsically wrong to display such things where young children are reasonably expected to have access to them, but I do acknowledge that that might be colored by the norms of my society.

I even saw the police pick up body parts in plastic bags first-hand, and fingers hanging from branches.

I’ve seen the terrible pictures from Cambodia and the pictures of the walking skeletons of Auswitch.

We will see these horrors whether we like it or not, and unfortunately children will sometimes see them too.

Do you feel an overwhelming urge to go grab the kindergartners so they wouldn’t miss this educational opportunity? If not, why not?

Is it common to put pictures of Cambodian and Nazi atrocities up by the entrance to the toy store? At the grocery store?

Sorry this has happened to you, I myself wouldn’t go for the truck pics, I’d rather stick to the postcard type ones, sad just the same, then again children can see these too.

Children can see them if you choose to display them or leave them laying around in places that are frequented by children. By leaving them laying around in such places rather than handing them directly to an adult, you are making a deliberate choice to knowingly expose children to them.

And it speaks even louder of the perpetrators that commit this terrible crime.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Make a choice to speak to an appropriate audience and disseminate your information in a responsible way rather than indiscriminately.

 

[KarenNC]

I can’t believe you have never seen a dead mutilated human on the front of a newspaper.

He says he has not. Why would that not be sufficient evidence for you to believe it? The supporters of showing these huge colored photos of dismembered bloody babies in places where young children can see them expect everyone else to say “yes, of course, that’s great, go right ahead” purely on the basis of what they claim other people have said. Why believe one group and not the other on the same basis. At least his has the benefit of being a firsthand statement.

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.

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.

You showed it to a nurse who evidently slept through the prenatal development portion of her biology classes. The last time I looked, nowhere in the world are they giving out nursing degrees to 4 year olds.

**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.” **]/quote]

Show me evidence that photos that were shown in places accessible to young children were more effective than those shown in other ways and I will be more likely to be convinced. These were outside an abortion clinic, not the toy store.

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.

False assumption. This is predicated on the assumption that simply and solely because a person does not believe it is appropriate to introduce the topic of abortion to a preschooler via truck sized color photos of dismembered bloody corpses of babies on the way while on the way to a birthday party that that person must therefore do little or nothing to stop abortion. Others have extended this to accuse anyone who objects to showing these photos where young children can reasonably be expected to encounter them without their parents’ consent as being an active supporter of abortion, and, indeed, even an employee of Planned Parenthood who directly provides abortions on demand. Such assumptions are ludicrous and without basis.