Anti-abortion protest signs - how far is too far?

[boppaid]

Because a 4 year old isn’t having sex, but guess what? If that 4 year old asks the adults around them about abortion we have just put that adult or older child who understands abortion into the situation that might make or break their salvation.

So, are showing the graphic images to 4 year olds a positive thing or a negative one? Again, I feel I’m getting conflicting stances on this by you. (Could be the fault of my interpretation, I realize, so thanks for the clarification! )

I don’t believe you are prolife, your arguments are simply too similar to how abortion supporters work, they’ll say they are prolife but they don’t want these photos shown in public, I think we are much smarter then you give us credit for AND after the evidence I have shown if you care more about feelings and think you are prolife your conscience is seriously in question because feelings aren’t more important then babies being said, if you think so I’d suggest you talk to a professional.

What? Could you cite specifically which arguments indicate I’m not prolife? Did you mean for that to be directed toward me or someone else?

 

[mapleoak]

I believe firmly in the sanctity of all life and I do not advocate abortion as a means of dealing with an inconvenient pregnancy. Abortion is, without exception, the ending of a human life and, also without exception, a tragic situation. I do not believe that it should be made illegal in all the situations that the Catholic Church says it should, for instance in the case of using chemical rather than surgical means for ending an ectopic pregnancy when possible and in the case of medical necessity.

Of course if it is okay to murder in certain situations, then it shouldn’t be illegal. In fact all murder should be legal. Under what basis do you say murder is wrong only when it eliminates an inconvenience?

all I care about are feelings—actually, I have absolutely no interest in your feelings. I care about your actions.

No, you specifically said many times over how you ‘believe’ children will have their feelings hurt.

What does any of this have to do with whether it is appropriate to show giant graphic color photographs of piles of bloody mutilated babies to preschoolers who happen to be passing by the side of the road?

Nothing. They are being shown to the general public. Not specifically ‘targeted’ as you would like to say. What is the real purpose of your diversion to the issue of pre-schoolers?

 

[boppaid]

To repeat what was said earlier:
End - raise public awareness in order to reduce number of abortions.
Means - display graphic photos.
Possible side effect (according to you): Child’s feelings hurt.
It is pretty obvious that the end justifies the means.

I think you’re downplaying effects on children when you say “child’s hurt feelings”. Have these people who feel it’s ‘not a big deal’ because ‘I handled it well, thus every child should/will’ even consulted with a child psychologist before taking it upon themselves to determine it is not harmful to ANY child?

 

[KarenNC]

What do you define as an appropriate audience? Most all of the women who go to have an abortion are not people who rally in a pro-choice day march. They are average people who will not be otherwise reached by handing out leaflets to pro-choice ‘demonstrators’.

I drove around quite a bit yesterday and I am sure a lot of people, including those who may have been considering an abortion. Your method to ‘specifically’ target these people would have been…? Use ESP to determine if someone driving their vehicle is considering an abortion, honk at them until they pull over, run out and hand them a flyer?

Primarily I define appropriate audience as “over the age of 7 at minimum.” The response about the March for Life was directly to Bmmckinney’s statement that even women participating in that would choose an abortion in a crisis pregnancy (not sure how s/he knows that, but I will go with it).

The point is more to specifcally choose methods that can reasonably be assumed not to include preschoolers. Driving billboard trucks around, holding up signs at major street intersections and strewing literature indiscriminately around the general landscape are not such methods. There exist huge amounts of research in the public relations and advertising industries on precisely how to target your specific audience most effectively. If your organizations have enough money to rent and keep gassed up billboard trucks to what appears to be no known level of effectiveness, surely you could afford a consultation.

 

[mapleoak]

Karen, further you seem to like to mention such things as ‘middle ground’ and ‘all or nothing’ to justify your arguments. To say that if one is going to place a bumper sticker on their vehicle, they should also plaster their babies room with wallpaper, is ludicrous and makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[KarenNC]

Actually your the one bashing people for displaying these signs by your hypothesis that children will be scarred for life by seeing them. Support your statement. Also support your assertations that these signs are not effective and while your at it, list those items which you consider to be more effective.

It is the general societal norm, as well as supported by arguments already cited specifically from the Catholic Church, that showing graphic images of violence to young children is neither desirable or beneficial and that what is considered appropriate for teens and adults is not across the board appropriate for preschoolers. Society also has a norm that it is not desirable for young children to receive unwanted and non-age appropriate sex education from random strangers on the street. I have already stated multiple arguments for this.

Hollywood manages to get it and uses rating systems, television manages to get it and has rating systems, video games and music publishers manage to get it and have ratings and labels. Public libraries and bookstores manage to get it and put the children’s books separate from the adult books. Newspapers manage to get it and in general have some concern for the pictures they put on the front page vs. the inside pages or publish at all. Schools manage to get it and have different curricula for older vs. younger children. There are laws that differentiate between what it is appropriate behavior for an adult with a child and for an adult with an adult. The Church seems to get it, based on the works on sexuality that I have cited (vatican.va/roman_curia/po…uality_en.html—
I particularly refer you to numbers 77, 83, 84, 142, and 148).

It is, of course, possible for a parent who so desires to circumvent any and all of these, but that is a matter of choice. It is also possible for others to circumvent and violate these norms, but that usually is not looked upon well by society.

When challenged about going against these societal norms, the justification continues to be “it’s the best way we have to get the word out” and that “if it were not the case, they would gladly never show such images to young children” (though I will agree, IIRC, that you are an across the board advocate of doing so on general principles). I am challenging any of you to show something concrete that such is indeed the case. You must have some basis other than a few anecdotes to think that this method is superior enough to other methods employed by other prolife activists that you are willing to “tolerate” what your own people say are undesirable side effects.

Wrong audience.

I would have thought so as well, but bmmckinney’s experience seems to indicate otherwise:
“BUT it is ok to do so if we are targeting their parents, why? Because many women who have children already end up aborting, even women who march at the March for Life end up aborting in crisis pregnancies only because they didn’t know how awful abortion is.”

And do this how. Unlimited money for pamphlets? Unlimited availability of labor for distribution? Please explain more.

If you do not have unlimited money for pamphlets and unlimited labor for distribution, why in the world are you wasting your time, energy and resources on strategies whose effectiveness you do not know?

Actually it is the general public who need to be educated in such matters. It doesn’t make much sense to preach to the choir.

Again, I am deferring to bmmckinney’s reports that says that such is necessary because the “choir” evidently isn’t learning much from the presence of the graphic posters at the March for Life event that they are attending.

Another way of saying shift the target audience from being the general public to specifically targeting pre-schoolers. Not as effective.

No, in that case, it is just “unintended” that the preschoolers in the class might see the posters because the “intended” target is the teacher. What is the difference between that and the “intended” target being a bus driver and the “unintended” being the kids on the school bus or day care van driving by your signs? What is the threshold concentratrion of the same children beyond which it is no longer acceptable to show these images to them and why does concentration make a difference?

 

[KarenNC]

Karen, further you seem to like to mention such things as ‘middle ground’ and ‘all or nothing’ to justify your arguments. To say that if one is going to place a bumper sticker on their vehicle, they should also plaster their babies room with wallpaper, is ludicrous and makes no sense whatsoever.

I am afraid you are mistaken. I am not framing this argument in terms of all or nothing. It is others who are saying that it is either show these pictures to everyone, all the time, in every place or never show these pictures to anyone at any time in any place. Let’s look at what I actually posted:

"For the 500th time, I have never said in any way that these photos should not be shown to an appropriate audience.

I have absolutely no quarrel with people needing to understand what their actions and choices actually mean, particularly in the case of abortion. I understand why you use those pictures and I have no quarrel with you providing this information directly to anyone considering an abortion or to other adults. If a person is old enough to make the decision to participate in sexual activity, then they are old enough to understand the potential consequences of their behavior. This is in no way the “all or nothing” proposition that you are casting it as. I am saying that you should show some level of basic discrimination in the MANNER in which you show those pictures and the AUDIENCE to which you choose to show them."

and

“Actually, I can see a justification for the appropriateness of displaying these images in the context of a well-publicized prolife march or protest, where people know in advance where you are going to be and what you are going to be doing, and you have a reasonable expectation of them realizing that such material will be there. In this case, you have made reasonable efforts to avoid children coming into contact with the images.”

 

[KarenNC]

What is the real purpose of your diversion to the issue of pre-schoolers?

The real purpose is that it is inappropriate to show these giant color photographs of bloody butchered baby parts to preschoolers and violates both general societal norms and the stated teachings of your own Church.

 

[mapleoak]

Society also has a norm that it is not desirable for young children to receive unwanted and non-age appropriate sex education from random strangers on the street. I have already stated multiple arguments for this.

We are not talking about sex education.

Hollywood manages to get it and uses rating systems, television manages to get it and has rating systems, video games and music publishers manage to get it and have ratings and labels.

I think your concept of what makes something ‘x’ rated is probably misguided here. Are you really saying that these photos are appropriate for ‘restricted audiences’ only. Hollywood takes what is naturally shocking or that which ascribes to the desires of the flesh and perverts it. There is a huge difference between the two. An anti abortion sign is not the same as a hedonistic display.

I am challenging any of you to show something concrete that such is indeed the case. You must have some basis other than a few anecdotes to think that this method is superior enough to other methods employed by other prolife activists that you are willing to “tolerate” what your own people say are undesirable side effects.

It is not an anectode. It is a demonstrable action. I can promote a public message on a daily basis, with no expense other than the initial cost of the bumper stickers. Whether it is superior to other methods or even the best method is not being claimed. It is rather silly to seek out the best tool and make it the only tool. It is just one of the many ‘weapons’ in the arsenal needed to wage the pro-life fight.
Where have I said there are ‘undesirable’ side effects.

If you do not have unlimited money for pamphlets and unlimited labor for distribution, why in the world are you wasting your time, energy and resources on strategies whose effectiveness you do not know?

Which strategy is ineffective? Bumper stickers are very cheap, do not require additional labor, and are highly effective. You are the one questioning their effectiveness - prove they are ineffective.

 

[KarenNC]

We are not talking about sex education.

Abortion is not related to sex education?

I think your concept of what makes something ‘x’ rated is probably misguided here. Are you really saying that these photos are appropriate for ‘restricted audiences’ only. Hollywood takes what is naturally shocking or that which ascribes to the desires of the flesh and perverts it. There is a huge difference between the two. An anti abortion sign is not the same as a hedonistic display.

I am not restricting myself to “x” ratings. There is a range of possibilities between “appropriate for all ages” and “pornographic.” This has nothing to do with “hedonistic display” or “desires of the flesh.” I am talking about levels of violence.

mpaa.org/FlmRat_Ratings.asp

esrb.org/ratings/principles_guidlines.jsp

cuyamaca.edu/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/anecdotal.asp (my emphasis added)

"There is, of course, nothing wrong with presenting representative cases to illustrate an inductive conclusion properly drawn from a fair sample. The representative case serves to put a human face on what would otherwise be just a mass of cold statistics. However, it is the inductive argument as a whole (i.e. all those cold statistics) that justifies the conclusion. The anecdote merely illustrates and humanizes the properly drawn conclusion.

The fallacy of Anecdotal Evidence mimics this legitimate use of illustrative story-telling. It presents us with a case that puts a human face upon a conclusion. The fallacy of Anecdotal Evidence errs, however, in using the single case in place of the properly conducted study. The fallacy implies that the anecdote is illustrating a properly drawn conclusion, when in fact it is attempting to replace the proper inductive argument altogether.

In some ways this fallacy is similar to Uncharacteristic Sample and also to Hasty Generalization. Like Uncharacteristic Sample, the sample is not adequately diverse, and so is unrepresentative of the class it is chosen to represent. Like Hasty Generalization, the sample is (usually) too small to support a general conclusion. However, I treat this as a separate fallacy in the Circularity category. The implication of an anecdote is that it is just one representative instance, and that many other instances could be cited as well. If this presumption is true (and often it isn’t), then the reasoning is neither hasty nor uncharacteristic. However, it is still circular, since the anecdote is offered as a “sample” only because it supports the desired conclusion."

Whether it is superior to other methods or even the best method is not being claimed.

*"For 35 years and longer we have tried other arrows to defeat the beast but we have found they are unable to pierce the armor of the beast.

However I will argue to you that most people probably don’t use this arrow correctly. There is only one group who seems to get it right: abortionNrg."

“What is really sad Karen is that if you were in charge of the abortionNrg group, not a single baby of the hundreds if not thousands who have been saved from abortion would be alive today, not a 1! Can you honestly live with that fact? That your selfishness is so great that it would have led to lives being lost just because you want to shelter a 4 year old?”

"There is a reason that prolife people have lost confidence in those groups because they simply aren’t making any difference. Abortion is worse today then it has ever been and instead of you spending your energy trying to save babies you are complaining about children seeing these photos, you are responsible as well for the good you might have done that God wanted you to do if you are indeed prolife if you had only put your current energy into saving lives instead of saving feelings.

This isn’t an issue for you or people like you. No one like you or those who think like you have ever been victorious in any previous injustice, the proof is in the pudding as it were and you should consider this. And the fact that you are also responsible for those you might guilt trip into not doing what is necessary to save babies because of your falicious and foolish arguments about children’s feelings. I do care about the feelings that are upset by young children by these photos I really do, but they mean nothing compared to the lives that would be saved but weren’t simply because people are too risk adverse to show these photos which would lead to more unborn babies being saved and souls saved as well."*

Bumper stickers are very cheap, do not require additional labor, and are highly effective.

How do you know? Upon what do you base your claim that they are effective?

 

[mapleoak]

How do you know? Upon what do you base your claim that they are effective?

Is that the best you can do? Come on. I asked you to support your claim that they are ineffective (after all you are the one bashing them) and you respond by asking me to support my claim?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Abortion is not related to sex education?

No. Murder is not related to sex education.

 

[bmmckinney]

Karen,

If you can provide tangible evidence that a child is scared for life or has any permanent damage from seeing these photos in any circumstances then prove it.

If not all you are is a hypocrit because I have provided countless evidence of women who saved their babies from nothing less then these gruesome photos on the sides of trucks or in other areas.

 

[bmmckinney]

To avoid double posting… on this page if you scroll down you will hear what people with functioning consciences say about these trucks.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=170857&page=12

 

[KarenNC]

If you can provide tangible evidence that a child is scared for life or has any permanent damage from seeing these photos in any circumstances then prove it.

If not all you are is a hypocrit because I have provided countless evidence of women who saved their babies from nothing less then these gruesome photos on the sides of trucks or in other areas.

You have provided a handful of anecdotes…period.

If you truly want to have a shadow of a chance to change my mind on whether the benefits of these particular tactics outweigh the concerns over going in the face of every societal expectation about the appropriate role of adults in protecting young children from images of graphic violence without their parents’ consent, bring out the studies that show:

1. a statistically significant greater number of women chose not to have abortions when they saw these images versus the number of women who chose not to have an abortion based on any other prolife message received in any other way,

and, most importantly for my point

1. that a statistically significant greater number of women chose not to have an abortion when they saw these images on the tractor trailer trucks, cards at restaurants or signs on the roadside (ie venues in which young children also see them) versus the number of women who chose not to have an abortion when they saw these same images in another way (ie from a card mailed to their home, handed directly to them, cards left on a table or in a restroom in a bar, etc).

 

[KarenNC]

No. Murder is not related to sex education.

Explain abortion without also explaining pregnancy, sexual intercourse, relationships between men and women, parent and child, childbirth, etc.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Explain abortion without also explaining pregnancy, sexual intercourse, relationships between men and women, parent and child, childbirth, etc.

I have a 4-year old granddaughter who knew her baby sister was in her mother’s tummy. She had no idea how Baby Sam got there and never asked.

You don’t need to explain pregnancy, sexual intercourse, relationships between men and women, parent and child, childbirth, etc. to make children understand that murder is wrong.

 

[KarenNC]

I have a 4-year old granddaughter who knew her baby sister was in her mother’s tummy. She had no idea how Baby Sam got there and never asked.

You don’t need to explain pregnancy, sexual intercourse, relationships between men and women, parent and child, childbirth, etc. to make children understand that murder is wrong.

I also don’t have to explain abortion to make children understand that murder is wrong.

How and when did you explain abortion to her?

 

[KarenNC]

To avoid double posting… on this page if you scroll down you will hear what people with functioning consciences say about these trucks.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=170857&page=12

More anecdotes and yet another ad hominem attack as a bonus. Okay. And???

 

[vern_humphrey]

I also don’t have to explain abortion to make children understand that murder is wrong.

The subject is abortion, therefore we must explain that abortion was wrong.

How and when did you explain abortion to her?

Her mother explained it to her when she was about 3, saying, “Some people kill babies before they are born,”