Alberta bishops boycott March for Life over graphic images

[kimmielittle]

Actually, as the one arguing in favour of something, it is up to you to show evidence. You are the one who’s saying that these inspire conversion, so you have to prove it. That’s just ordinary rules of debate. That, and you obviously can’t prove a negative (duh).

ACTUALLY no You made those statements - not I - I addressed Your statements…care to defend them?

OR are they just your subjective speculations?

 

[kimmielittle]

Actually, I’m from Canada. We mostly skim over Vietnam (nothing more than a footnote really in a unit on the Cold War).

That’s sad IMHO

 

[kimmielittle]

And what do you mean by “conversion”?

Well the word conversion is fairly simple don’ta think

Conversion 6
Definition: A spiritual and moral change attending a change of belief with conviction

ardictionary.com/Conversion/11767

 

[Tigg]

You’re not getting the problem. People know what happens in an abortion, all they need to do is think a tiny bit. You need to convince people that the baby is a human being…

If people don’t think a fetus is human, why would they then pay any more attention?

I used to mistakenly believe that anyone who would try to justify an abortion could not think in terms of a baby, but rather could only picture some sort of unformed, vague cluster of cells. The short video below has shown me the error of my belief. Please listen to the young girl who says, “I would abort the baby.” She does NOT say fetus. Also reflect on the other comments from these very lost souls to understand the chilling reality pro-lifers face who actually fight in the trenches.

catholicvote.org/index.php

 

[catharina]

Actually, as the one arguing in favour of something, it is up to you to show evidence. You are the one who’s saying that these inspire conversion, so you have to prove it. That’s just ordinary rules of debate. That, and you obviously can’t prove a negative (duh).

Actually, I’m from Canada. We mostly skim over Vietnam (nothing more than a footnote really in a unit on the Cold War).

And what do you mean by “conversion”? I’m guessing you mean people all the sudden thought “geez, napalm is bad”. The comparison doesn’t work. People will think “napalm is bad” because they see it affecting a real person. The problem is that most people don’t think a fetus is actually a person (when it’s just a baby in-utero), so it’s not going to work.

You’re not getting the problem. People know what happens in an abortion, all they need to do is think a tiny bit. You need to convince people that the baby is a human being.

The analogy that I’ve heard others use is animal rights groups who use pictures of tortured or maimed animals. They try to pull at the heart strings, but most people ignore them. If people don’t think a fetus is human, why would they then pay any more attention?

That’s the other problem. At least the animal ones at least try to pull at the heartstring (which, from a perspective of trying to manipulate people, works very good). The only emotion that people from GAP and the like try to express is shame. That’s not going to work on anyone who’s not already religious, and to be perfectly frank those are the people we need to convert most.

From a marketing perspective, it’s an absolute disaster. What would actually work a lot better is to just wholesale copy what groups like the ASPCA do. The message “You’re All Killers” isn’t going to work on a very large part (if any) of the population. Change the message to “Help Us Safe these Poor, Unwanted Babies”. It’s like what diCaprio’s character says in Inception: positive emotions are more powerful than negative emotions. People get a kick out of doing something they think is good (they’re called endorphins).

Hard to understand your objections but it you’re asking
for proof that photos can change public perception, here’s a few links.

Sorry that Vietnam was of no interest to Canadians (acc to you, i.e.),
but in fact these photos did cause world opinion to take a dramatic shift.

[news.bbc.co.uk/local/manchester/hi/people_and_places/newsid_8574000/8574449.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/manchester/hi/people_and_places/newsid_8574000/8574449.stm)

Even caption included under pic in above link note:
"The image won a Pulitzer Prize for AP photographer, Nick Ut and changed attitudes towards the Vietnam War across the world."

wellesley.edu/Polisci/wj/Vietnam/ThreeImages/brady.html
teaching suggestions for an American college, Wellesley

[teachers.gov.uk/teachingandlearning/assemblies/index.cfm?mode=searchdisplay&id=147&history=keyword](http://www.teachers.gov.uk/teachingandlearning/assemblies/index.cfm?mode=searchdisplay&id=147&history=keyword)
teaching suggestions for UK edu system

Now, re animals rights’ groups - I know nothing.
Also regarding anything di Caprio did or didn’t say,
in or out of character, I know nothing.

Re both (animal rights and di Caprio) - I simply don’t care.

I’m guessing/hoping you consider ‘change of heart’ as conversion.
Who knows?
These photos linked above changed the world’s view of one war.

 

[catharina]

I used to mistakenly believe that anyone who would try to justify an abortion could not think in terms of a baby, but rather could only picture some sort of unformed, vague cluster of cells. The short video below has shown me the error of my belief. Please listen to the young girl who says, “I would abort the baby.” She does NOT say fetus. Also reflect on the other comments from these very lost souls to understand the chilling reality pro-lifers face who actually fight in the trenches.

catholicvote.org/index.php

Thanks, tigg.
I watched it.
So horribly grim.

 

[kimmielittle]

Actually, I’m from Canada. We mostly skim over Vietnam (nothing more than a footnote really in a unit on the Cold War).

Did they teach you about The Pulitzer Prize?

Pulitzer Prize winning AP photographer, Huyng Cong Nick Ut, is evidence of the cruelty of war toward child victims, and became a symbol of civilian suffering in the Vietnam War.-

 

[kimmielittle]

Here might be some information you might not be aware of as a Canadian

There were no Veterans Administration Centers in Canada to assist the returning men or the families of those who had died in Vietnam. The Royal Canadian Legion did not welcome these men as they did men from other wars. This began to change with the completion of the Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial in Washington, DC.

Canadian Vietnam Veterans began to form their own organizations in 1986. There are now groups in most major Canadian cities but it is a loose coalition. Canada also has six men who are not accounted for. They are listed as MIA’s, though it is believed that some of these men are POW’s.

For almost thirty years, Canadian Vietnam Veterans fought to have a memorial dedicated to those who never returned from the jungles of a country half way around the world. They raised money and a portable wall, much like The Wall in Washington. The Vets traveled across the country educating their fellow countrymen on the Vietnam War. The horrors endured by these men where beyond imagination.

Finally, the Canadian government listened to its Vietnam Vets. In 1995, the North Wall found a permanent home in Windsor, Ontario. It is a great tribute to those Canadians who served and sacrificed all for what they believed in.

The North Wall is a beautiful memorial. If you are in the area, be sure to view the names on the North Wall and spend a moment remembering those whom never returned.

essortment.com/canadas-involvement-vietnam-war-21583.html

 

[jmcrae]

Weak bishops, afraid to offend the murderers of the unborn.

I think that in your zeal to promote propaganda, you have forgotten whose dignity you are supposed to be protecting. Our duty toward the dead is to see that their bodies are treated with respect, and that they receive a decent burial - not to exploit them for political gain.

 

[catharina]

I think that in your zeal to promote propaganda, you have forgotten whose dignity you are supposed to be protecting. Our duty toward the dead is to see that their bodies are treated with respect, and that they receive a decent burial - not to exploit them for political gain.

Jim, hope I don’t seem to be of two minds re this issue but,
in fact, I agree with you about respect for the dead. However I will
continue to disagree with those who dispute the power of photos
to change public sentiment. (If the “babies” I know, that is, canonical
infants under the age of 7 yrs, saw such pics, I’m sure they’d have
lasting nightmares as a result of that exposure.)

 

[kimmielittle]

I think that in your zeal to promote propaganda,

Promote propaganda OR promote the truth? I think, maybe. a better word?

 

[jmcrae]

Jim, hope I don’t seem to be of two minds re this issue but,
in fact, I agree with you about respect for the dead. However I will
continue to disagree with those who dispute the power of photos
to change public sentiment.

Of course it’s very powerful. Keep in mind that the photographer who took the photo of Kim Phuc made sure to know who he was photographing - that’s how we know her name. Nothing can be published without consent from the people being photographed.

But, how did these unborn children give consent to be photographed? (And who was standing around snapping pictures instead of grabbing the knife and taking it away from the abortionist?)

(If the “babies” I know, that is, canonical
infants under the age of 7 yrs, saw such pics, I’m sure they’d have
lasting nightmares as a result of that exposure.)

Well, that is the intent, isn’t it? They are parading these photos up and down the streets in front of day care centres, play grounds, and kindergartens, here in Calgary, for the precise purpose of horrifying the children and making them ask, Mummy, what is that?

 

[Holly3278]

Personally, I disagree with the Alberta bishops on this. I don’t see how using graphic images of aborted babies could be disrespecting their dignity.

 

[jmcrae]

Personally, I disagree with the Alberta bishops on this. I don’t see how using graphic images of aborted babies could be disrespecting their dignity.

Really? Do you think that you would enjoy having giant pictures of yourself paraded around the city, if you were naked and beaten up? (Hypothetically. I sincerely hope that no one ever does such a thing to you.)

If not, then consider that we are to do unto others, as we would be done to.

 

[kimmielittle]

But, how did these unborn children give consent to be photographed? The other question is, were these kids murdered by the photographer, simply for the photo-op? Because, how would a pro-life photographer get into a working abortuary and take pictures? Seems unlikely.

Hmmmmmm…abortionist have kept unborn murdered babies in jars and freezers…for decades…haven’t you heard?

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – Abortion practitioners who have recently come under fire from state health departments for violating health and safety codes have an odd similarity. They both were found, after investigations of their abortion centers, to have kept the bodies of dead babies from abortions stored in jars.

As LifeNews.com reported last week, the Maryland medical licenses of George Shepard, Jr., of Delaware and Nicola I. Riley of Utah, were suspended.

lifenews.com/2010/09/06/state-5422/

OR Google aborted babies in jars

Your stretch of “photographers murdering these kids for the photo-op is nonsense” IMO

Medical Schools also have the pictures

 

[kimmielittle]

Really? Do you think that you would enjoy having giant pictures of yourself paraded around the city, if you were naked and beaten up? (Hypothetically. I sincerely hope that no one ever does such a thing to you.)

If not, then consider that we are to do unto others, as we would be done to.

Consider this: Would that murdered baby not be crying out to stop the madness? Would that baby… while being murdered not try everything to stop it?

Should they not be heard…kept silent… as the pro-abortionist wish?

 

[catharina]

Of course it’s very powerful. Keep in mind that the photographer who took the photo of Kim Phuc made sure to know who he was photographing - that’s how we know her name. Nothing can be published without consent from the people being photographed.

But, how did these unborn children give consent to be photographed? (And who was standing around snapping pictures instead of grabbing the knife and taking it away from the abortionist?)

Jim, two things:

1. here in the States, these babies are most often photgraphed in trash piles.
   It’s not even uncommon. It’s the norm.
2. anytime I’ve been part of pro-life demos, there ar NO pics of slaughtered babies.

 

[kimmielittle]

As for me : Until the madness stops:

I think every aborted baby should bear a name. First and last - not just “Baby Doe”

I think proof of funeral and burial place be required BEFORE any abortion

 

[kimmielittle]

The vast majority of abortions are Abortions for “convenience sake”.

Abortions of convenience will only stop - When it’s made inconvenient… to murder our own -
This may entail suffering some inconveniences of our own - kimmie

Maybe, The Bishops could have asked people with such posters - “To please name the baby depicted” and held a Mass after for them?

Too inconvenient? Easier to just not participate? I dono

 

[curlycool89]

ACTUALLY no You made those statements - not I - I addressed Your statements…care to defend them?

No, according to even science, it’s up to the person making a positive claim to prove it, unless the person making a negative claim is making it against an established theorem (“established” means hundreds of years, books full of evidence supporting it, multiple thesis’ written on it, ect.). The idea that GAP/others cause conversion is not an established theory nor a fact (and it’s only been around for what, <5 years?). If there’s been some conversions, there should be evidence for that (same thing I ask people who hate Harry Potter to do, present the evidence. It shouldn’t be hard).

I used to mistakenly believe that anyone who would try to justify an abortion could not think in terms of a baby, but rather could only picture some sort of unformed, vague cluster of cells. The short video below has shown me the error of my belief. Please listen to the young girl who says, “I would abort the baby.” She does NOT say fetus. Also reflect on the other comments from these very lost souls to understand the chilling reality pro-lifers face who actually fight in the trenches.

catholicvote.org/index.php

In that case, it’s even less likely to work then. You’re just telling people what they already know. Graphic images don’t give them any reason why they should think differently.

Hard to understand your objections but it you’re asking
for proof that photos can change public perception, here’s a few links.

Sorry that Vietnam was of no interest to Canadians (acc to you, i.e.),
but in fact these photos did cause world opinion to take a dramatic shift.

[news.bbc.co.uk/local/manchester/hi/people_and_places/newsid_8574000/8574449.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/manchester/hi/people_and_places/newsid_8574000/8574449.stm)

Even caption included under pic in above link note:
"The image won a Pulitzer Prize for AP photographer, Nick Ut and changed attitudes towards the Vietnam War across the world."

wellesley.edu/Polisci/wj/Vietnam/ThreeImages/brady.html
teaching suggestions for an American college, Wellesley

[teachers.gov.uk/teachingandlearning/assemblies/index.cfm?mode=searchdisplay&id=147&history=keyword](http://www.teachers.gov.uk/teachingandlearning/assemblies/index.cfm?mode=searchdisplay&id=147&history=keyword)
teaching suggestions for UK edu system

Now, re animals rights’ groups - I know nothing.
Also regarding anything di Caprio did or didn’t say,
in or out of character, I know nothing.

Re both (animal rights and di Caprio) - I simply don’t care.

I’m guessing/hoping you consider ‘change of heart’ as conversion.
Who knows?
These photos linked above changed the world’s view of one war.

You’re not understanding the differentiation again. Pictures will only change someone’s mind if they already are thinking that way.

Let’s take an example. Person A supports War X. Person A also already opposes slaughter of innocent civilians. If Person A finds out that slaughter of innocent civillians is happening in War X, they’re probably going to change their mind and oppose War X.

Person A seeing a graphic image of an abortion doesn’t have a reason to change their mind. You show them video of a sonogram of the baby moving and then a graphic image, then maybe they think for a second.

Did they teach you about The Pulitzer Prize?

I’m an engineer. In all honesty, The Pulitzer Prize interests me about as much as contemporary art (which in none), or the Oscars (who mange to year after year make the worst decisions about who gets an award). Basically, I don’t care.

And no, we didn’t take it in school. We were too busy learning about actual history in history class (particularly what happened before and including WWI, which in many ways is much more interesting than what’s happened in the last 70 years. Probably why I read historical fiction set in the Middle Ages).

Maybe, The Bishops could have asked people with such posters - “To please name the baby depicted” and held a Mass after for them?

Too inconvenient? Easier to just not participate? I dono

They have tried to work with the people who organize the March and those others with the graphic images to no avail. The people with the graphic images aren’t actually a part of the march. Maybe I should have made that known. The March takes place on the street, while the people with the graphic images stand on the sidewalk in what would be the “observers/watchers” section. They’re not actually a part of the march. They’re more like people who show up at a march to promote their own thing.

The Masses (a vigil the night before, and the morning after the march) are both still on. The bishops are also not opposing people taking part in the march.