J
jmcrae
Guest
The public display of photographs of dead bodies for advertising and entertainment purposes is against the Catholic religion, is it not? Surely, this would include the unborn child, as well as everyone else.
- Status
J
jmcrae
Guest
It’s much more likely that they were cremated and then the ashes buried somewhere, along with medical waste.
The dignity of the dead is part of the pro-life ethic - we are all created into the image and likeness of God. This is why it is a sin to kill a human being - it is why it is a sin to abuse any human being in any way - and it is why it is a sin to violate the dead.
C
curlycool89
Guest
Funny fact: Louis Riel spent several years in the United States in exile (Montana I believe, it’s been a while), got married there and taught at a school there. So actually, Louis Riel was (if not de jure then de facto) an American. So actually, Louis Riel is closer to America than Vietnam is to Canada.
Ok, simple logical statements time.Good points.
Who’s dignity is being offended?
Are the posters / poster carriers… being offensive to the dignity of the baby pictured?
OR is it offensive to OUR dignity to have to see the posters?
Truth is oft times offensive to our dignity - .
Fact: Aborted child is made in the image and likeness of God as a human being.
Fact: Therefore, that child deserves all rights and dignities of being a child of God.
Do we parade around pictures of those with Alzheimer’s looking confused or people unable to control their own faculties sitting in their own waste? Even better example, do we parade around pictures of teenagers with their brains half on the road after being shot in a gang shoot-out? That’s not just analogues, that’s exactly what we’re doing with graphic images of abortions. And there’s no way we’d every say that we’re not offending someone’s dignity to show them with their brain all over the place or their intestines spilled out.
Yet that’s exactly what we’re doing with these pictures. Does that not make us look hypocritical? Dare I say it, does it not make us look like we are treating the baby with less respect simply because s/he wasn’t born yet?
C
catharina
Guest
Advertising?
Entertainment?
You consider the use of such photos to be
within either of those categories???
I surely don’t.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Are you trying to suggest there aren’t any pro-lifers within the medical schools/ educators / professions??
C’mon
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Have you been reading any links that have been provided?
Question: Why are you so sure these imageries come from some evil person?
Entertainment - advertisement?
FAIR QUESTION: Have you even talked with any pro-lifers carrying these images ?
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Hmmm Did you ever have Driver Training Presented in your schools?
Hypocrisy?
Hippocrates held the belief that the body must be treated as a whole and not just a series of parts.- Pro-abortionist teach it is not!
Hypocrite a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion. 2. : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.
Truth to be hidden? Knowing otherwise?
Truth is not hypocrisy
J
jmcrae
Guest
They are used on advertising posters that promote the pro-life cause. The sole purpose is shock value.
And yes, I work with a young woman who uses these images in her pro-life work, and she freely admits that she is exploiting the images for their shock value - in fact, she has actually used the phrase, “shock them into conversion” in my presence. It is, in fact, from her point of view, a campaign of emotional manipulation. She doesn’t understand what’s wrong with that.
J
jmcrae
Guest
They don’t use actual dead bodies in Driver Training videos - those are plastic models. Same as on CSI - it’s actors with make-up on, and simulated body parts made of foam rubber and plastic jelly. It would be illegal to show an actual dead body on film, other than a news broadcast or war documentary - and even in these cases they are careful to hide any identifying features, or else to obtain permission from the relatives.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
“exploiting the images”; Her words or yours?
I’m sorry, but some of your past comments i.e paraphrased ] “photographers murdering these kids for the photo-op…” leave me to wonder what is factual.
“shock them into conversion” …Well.l.l. yeah… albeit “shock” in my mind, is a poor choice of words as it can be interpreted negatively by the receiver - as evidentially you have done ]. It is true that when faced with “Truth” many of us are “shocked”, as it readjusts our thinking. We may still deny the “truth” BUT we can never again, honestly, admit to ourselves that it hasn’t been presented to us.
Allow me to give you an example. For some 30 years Congress for the most part ] was ignorant of partial birth abortion. In the Clinton administration something happened.
From a letter by By Bishop Kenneth J. Povish July 21, 2001 To Catholic Times.
priestsforlife.org/clippings/2001/01-07-21catholictimes.htm
While you visit the above site, maybe you can find out, for yourself, where some of these images DO come from such as, Center for Bioethical Reform, Trash cans…etc etc…AND some of the conversion testimonies priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/graphicspraise.htm
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Actually…NO.
Once again IMO… you are not stating facts.
The sole purpose is to… present the truth.
As I’ve stated below… Yes, The TRUTH could cause a ‘shock’ to the way we think or cause us to think. BUT is is NOT to “shock” as the goal…It is to present the ignorant with the truth, which IS the goal. An ignorance perpetuated upon humanity by the Pro-abortion industry.
Some quote goes something like this " The greatest deception placed on humankind - was the one… that the devil isn’t real" Sorry not exact wording ] The greatest deception of the abortion industry… is not showing what actually happens to the unborn baby. -kimmie
T
Tigg
Guest
Hi Kimmie:
You are such an excellent debater and have gotten to the heart of the matter!
btw, there’s another thread somewhere that has stated there is one bishop who will now support the march.
C
curlycool89
Guest
As long as your definition of “present the truth” includes “manipulating people like some politician”. Basically, you’re doing the exact same thing pro-abortionists do when they scream about “women’s rights”.
Yes, we need to convince people that it’s a baby, but what you’re basically doing is defiling a body. Somebody said “great debater”. More like great politician. What you had to do in order to get to this point is to sidetrack the argument into something you felt you could win. The objection of the Bishops is about the dignity of the child. Nowhere have you addressed this objection. Ignoring the objection is not going to get you closer convincing people you’re right.
You’re still using them as on object as if they were Lindsey Lohan in an anti-drug commercial. While we may talk about Lindsey and pray that she changes here lifestyle, but it would be an affront to human dignity to put her up on a billboard to try and “shock” people to change. You do not, and can not, use people as objects to reach a goal.
People are children of God and are not to be used as some “sideshow”, no matter what point you are trying to prove. The rule is that “you cannot use an evil means to get to a good ends”. So far all you have concentrated on is the ends. You have not tried to prove to us that the means is not evil.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Ohhh my my surely you understand the ad hominem fallacy here?
Actually no…I’m presenting a defiled body as evidence of truth. You have no evidence that I am not doing otherwise - if so… please produce it.
You seem well bent to make subjective speculative statements without regard to the logical fallacy of doing such.
If nothing else, I do hope that I can, through these posts with you, help you learn if you make a statement as being factual - be prepared to provide some evidence for your statement.
Another attempt at ad hominem.Actually no, again. Would you like to rethink this statement? I have not sidetracked the thread - I have addressed YOUR and OTHERS statements - nothing more or less.
ABSOLUTELY!!!
And no where has anyone supported their claim, within this thread, with evidence. Other than personal opinions / interpretations. You certainly have not - you don’t even defend your statements.
Can you prove this statement please? I think I did address this with post #74 when I said this
In short, can you provide evidence other than your personal opinion - That poster carriers are indeed, being offensive to the dignity of the baby pictured?
Something no one here has so far done. Not even the Bishops who are boycotting.Sorry, once again you are mistaken in logic…For it to be “evil”…It would be up to the Church to declare it as such.
Now do you wish to debate this?
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Hiyas Tigg ~huggers~
Hi Kimmie:
You are such an excellent debater and have gotten to the heart of the matter!
btw, there’s another thread somewhere that has stated there is one bishop who will now support the march.
Thank You
C
curlycool89
Guest
Um, because Archbishop Smith is a Bishop, and you are an anonymous person on the internet. Guess who’s statement carries more weight?ABSOLUTELY!!!
And no where has anyone supported their claim, within this thread, with evidence. Other than personal opinions / interpretations. You certainly have not - you don’t even defend your statements.
No offence, but I trust Archbishop Smith. His credentials include M. Div., S.T.L., S.T.D., and D.D. Simply put, that means his opinion is worth more than yours.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Hmmmmmm… that is called an appeal to authority fallacy.
Yes, He out ranks me.
Has he made it a sin to respectfully carry a picture of an aborted baby?
Do ALL Bishops agree with Him?
Has The Holy Father instructed the Faithful that it’s a sin?
If not - it remains a personal opinion Which BTW I respect ].
AND I need not defend my respectfully carrying a poster of an aborted baby…of course, this requires some logical thought
What I don’t respect, is YOUR attempts to make statements of YOUR personal opinions as factual, or you trying to present His opinion other than what it is. - His opinion
Care to try again?
C
catharina
Guest
kimmie, as usual,Hmmmmmm… that is called an appeal to authority fallacy.
Yes, He out ranks me.
Has he made it a sin to respectfully carry a picture of an aborted baby?
Do ALL Bishops agree with Him?
Has The Holy Father instructed the Faithful that it’s a sin?
If not - it remains a personal opinion Which BTW I respect ].
AND I need not defend my respectfully carrying a poster of an aborted baby…of course, this requires some logical thought
What I don’t respect, is YOUR attempts to make statements of YOUR personal opinions as factual, or you trying to present His opinion other than what it is.
Care to try again?
:hug1:
:clapping::clapping::clapping:
J
joanne123
Guest
Will people be offended sure they will abortion is offensive even to pro-choicers that is why we use the graphic images!!! These Bishops are wrong I do not agree with what they are doing in this situation!!
America Will Not Reject Abortion Until America Sees Abortion! Father Frank Pavone Priests For Life…
America Will Not Reject Abortion Until America Sees Abortion! Father Frank Pavone Priests For Life…
J
jmcrae
Guest
Hers, in fact.
It was in the form of a question, because I, too, am wondering what is factual.
It is a fact that pro-lifers are not legally allowed to be within 50 meters of an abortuary, so, how did a prolifer get into an abortuary with a camera and start flashing pictures?
Did you realize that the victims of Auschwitz and Rwanda, etc., signed permission forms to have their photos used for educational purposes? Did you know that anyone who did not sign, was made to be not recognizable in the photos?
Why do you suppose they had to do that?
Also, why do you suppose it is not allowed, to photograph dead bodies in morgues? (Unless you are a relative of the deceased, of course.)
It is not the image of the dead bodies that is wrong - you can paint a picture of a dead baby, and you can make a plastic model of a dead baby, and you could freely photograph these, with no legal consequences - and it would have exactly the same educational value as photographing actual dead bodies.
It is the violation of that child’s - that real person’s - personal privacy that is at issue, here. And before you say, “They are dead - they don’t care” - remember Tobit, who carefully picked up the dead bodies on the streets of Babylon and gave them decent burials.
Even 4,000 years ago, people were able to recognize that a dead human being is not a “thing” that you can discard, or play with, or photograph - it is a real person, who has a real need for privacy and protection.
- Status