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

[boppaid]

People here who want to cover up the truth aren’t supporting the prolife movement, they are supporting the efforts of the prochoice movement, to cover up the truth.

I am quite frankly tired of people being accused of being pro-choice, anti pro-life, or whatever simply because they oppose forcing a parent’s hand at having them see graphic pics of mutilated babies on a billboard. I am not pro abortion, yet I am appalled at the pics. To insinuate that I am pro-abortion because I find your particular tactic repulsive is ridiculous, deceitful and wrong.

Frankly we have abortion in this country because weak people who believe they are prolife haven’t done what was morally and legally necessary to end this atrocity. Prayer, talk, and happy photos won’t end this war, prayer and the truth about abortion will together.

I am not saying that you believe in murdering abortion providers. However, in order to point out how faulty your argument is, I will tell you a true story. A guy I “met” online believed in murdering abortion providers. The ends did justify the means in his opinion. I kid you not, he made a comment almost identical to the one I quote from you above. Um, the logic doesn’t hold for either argument. You may be right…prayer, talk and happy photos may not end abortion. But that doesn’t mean that you use other less desireable tactics.

I don’t get it. You have heard from a mother on here who’s son had to be institutionalized as a DIRECT RESULT of seeing such photos. The child had ;emotional problems and threatened people. However I have yet to hear you or anyone else address this. There are children out there (& adults) who have been diagnosed with autism, biopolar disorder, and schizophrenia. These types of photos are HARMFUL to them. They can also create problems for others. (An example is the person I knew who’s mentally handicapped son was threatening to kill his aunt who had had an abortion after he saw these pics). These pics can cause harm. It is not opinion. Why do that to these children? You’ll say that it might save lives. Yeah, it might. But so might killing an abortion provider. You don’t do that either just because it could save lives. If you don’t murder someone to save an inncoent, why would it be okay to harm an innocent to save an innocent? Makes absolutely no sense. I almost wonder if you’re pulling our leg here, just to get us riled up.

 

[Delphinus85]

I am quite frankly tired of people being accused of being pro-choice, anti pro-life, or whatever simply because they oppose forcing a parent’s hand at having them see graphic pics of mutilated babies on a billboard. I am not pro abortion, yet I am appalled at the pics. To insinuate that I am pro-abortion because I find your particular tactic repulsive is ridiculous, deceitful and wrong.

I am not saying that you believe in murdering abortion providers. However, in order to point out how faulty your argument is, I will tell you a true story. A guy I “met” online believed in murdering abortion providers. The ends did justify the means in his opinion. I kid you not, he made a comment almost identical to the one I quote from you above. Um, the logic doesn’t hold for either argument. You may be right…prayer, talk and happy photos may not end abortion. But that doesn’t mean that you use other less desireable tactics.

I don’t get it. You have heard from a mother on here who’s son had to be institutionalized as a DIRECT RESULT of seeing such photos. The child had ;emotional problems and threatened people. However I have yet to hear you or anyone else address this. There are children out there (& adults) who have been diagnosed with autism, biopolar disorder, and schizophrenia. These types of photos are HARMFUL to them. They can also create problems for others. (An example is the person I knew who’s mentally handicapped son was threatening to kill his aunt who had had an abortion after he saw these pics). These pics can cause harm. It is not opinion. Why do that to these children? You’ll say that it might save lives. Yeah, it might. But so might killing an abortion provider. You don’t do that either just because it could save lives. If you don’t murder someone to save an inncoent, why would it be okay to harm an innocent to save an innocent? Makes absolutely no sense. I almost wonder if you’re pulling our leg here, just to get us riled up.

I agree. I don’t like those signs out there, because I know if I saw something like that as a kid my mother would have had a hard time calming me down, and I’d have nightmares for a month. Even as an ADULT I still have nightmares. I don’t want my kids (someday) seeing that kind of thing. Not until they are old enough to handle it. Putting them up in public where small children can see them is irresponsible. It’s no different than putting up pictures of people having sex to end prostitution in my eyes. People just don’t want their kids exposed to it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I am quite frankly tired of people being accused of being pro-choice, anti pro-life, or whatever simply because they oppose forcing a parent’s hand at having them see graphic pics of mutilated babies on a billboard. I am not pro abortion, yet I am appalled at the pics. To insinuate that I am pro-abortion because I find your particular tactic repulsive is ridiculous, deceitful and wrong.

Good point – read below:

I am not saying that you believe in murdering abortion providers. However, in order to point out how faulty your argument is, I will tell you a true story. A guy I “met” online believed in murdering abortion providers. The ends did justify the means in his opinion. I kid you not, he made a comment almost identical to the one I quote from you above. Um, the logic doesn’t hold for either argument. You may be right…prayer, talk and happy photos may not end abortion. But that doesn’t mean that you use other less desireable tactics.

You’re “not saying” – but youi’re getting very close to it.

I don’t get it. You have heard from a mother on here who’s son had to be institutionalized as a DIRECT RESULT of seeing such photos. The child had ;emotional problems and threatened people. However I have yet to hear you or anyone else address this. There are children out there (& adults) who have been diagnosed with autism, biopolar disorder, and schizophrenia. These types of photos are HARMFUL to them. They can also create problems for others. (An example is the person I knew who’s mentally handicapped son was threatening to kill his aunt who had had an abortion after he saw these pics). These pics can cause harm. It is not opinion. Why do that to these children? You’ll say that it might save lives. Yeah, it might. But so might killing an abortion provider. You don’t do that either just because it could save lives. If you don’t murder someone to save an inncoent, why would it be okay to harm an innocent to save an innocent? Makes absolutely no sense. I almost wonder if you’re pulling our leg here, just to get us riled up.

And I have pointed out that young children react to adults’ reactions, not to what they see.

The crucifix has been offered as an example – realistic crucifixes abound, but children don’t get emotional over them. Why? Because the adults don’t get upset over them.

 

[Linnyo]

Do you know what Vern? You are not worth the words. I am pulling out. I am sick of your extremism. You are not any better than a pro-choicer - just different in your approach! BTW you aren now on ignore and there to stay! Good riddance!

 

[boppaid]

You’re “not saying” – but youi’re getting very close to it.

In my opinion, they are both horrible. However, it goes without saying that murder is obviously WAY worse! Trying to explain which is worse and why, though, wasn’t my point. My point is that just because something works doesn’t mean it is okay to use.

And I have pointed out that young children react to adults’ reactions, not to what they see.

In the instances with the children who are mentally challeneged, that isn’t so. With an autistic, biopolar or schizophrenic child, it often doesn’t matter if the parent reacts “the right way” or not.

The crucifix has been offered as an example – realistic crucifixes abound, but children don’t get emotional over them. Why? Because the adults don’t get upset over them.

I have never, in my 35 years of being a Catholic, seen a gory, bloody crucifix.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Do you know what Vern? You are not worth the words. I am pulling out. I am sick of your extremism. You are not any better than a pro-choicer - just different in your approach! BTW you aren now on ignore and there to stay! Good riddance!

Look in the mirror and see someone else who meets your description.

 

[vern_humphrey]

In my opinion, they are both horrible. However, it goes without saying that murder is obviously WAY worse!

Why don’t you just come out and directly accuse those who oppose you, instead of dancing around it?

Trying to explain which is worse and why, though, wasn’t my point. My point is that just because something works doesn’t mean it is okay to use.

And it doesn’t mean using pictures is wrong.

In the instances with the children who are mentally challeneged, that isn’t so. With an autistic, biopolar or schizophrenic child, it often doesn’t matter if the parent reacts “the right way” or not.

There are people who are thrown into a frenzy by an open (or closed) door, the sight of a cat, and so on.

But when children are upset by a picture, it’s the parents’ reaction that upsets them.

I have never, in my 35 years of being a Catholic, seen a gory, bloody crucifix.

I find that difficult to believe – I’ve seen thousands, on five continents.

Go here; http://www.autom.com/product.jsp?path=-1|304477|304483|17406|157340&id=157184

I could list a thousand or more, if you’d like, in a ny size, from a hundred different vendors of Catholic items.

 

[vern_humphrey]

As an example of how people’s emotions can get away with them, I offer the following:

Out of interest, are you the type that blows up clinics to prevent abortions? Do you consider that to be an acceptable way to save babies? That would save babies but have harmful consequences. I am curious - would you go that far?

And

Do you know what Vern? You are not worth the words. I am pulling out. I am sick of your extremism. You are not any better than a pro-choicer - just different in your approach! BTW you aren now on ignore and there to stay! Good riddance!

Now if people can have such violent, out-of-control emotions that they lash out like this on a public forum, is it not possible that those emotions overcome them in other circumstances?

And that those emotional outbursts would have a negative impact on children?

 

[KarenNC]

Go here; http://www.autom.com/product.jsp?path=-1|304477|304483|17406|157340&id=157184

This is your example of a particularly “gory, bloody crucifix”, equivalent to pictures such as these 100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/? (Warning that the link is very graphic and direct to the photos, use judgement).

 

[Kelly]

This is an example of an image that is processed through the streets of Malta every Good Friday, presumably children see this statue.

cospicuaparish.org.mt/images/goodfriday/Ecce_Homo.jpg

 

[seekerz]

This is an example of an image that is processed through the streets of Malta every Good Friday, presumably children see this statue.

cospicuaparish.org.mt/images/goodfriday/Ecce_Homo.jpg

How does that even compare to the corpses of mutilated/headless babies seen in Karen’s previous post?

Is this an earnest argument or has it become a “fight to death to be proved right” game?

BTW, my grade-schooler is yet to see The Passion (Gibson’s) although he has seen other films of the crucifixion. It moved me deeply, but as a mother, I know he’s just not ready for the graphic detail.

 

[sprout]

I don’t know about ya’ll but I find it just a tad bit sacriligious to be comparing pictures of aborted fetus’ to the images of Christ’s Crucifixion.

IMHO, regardless of how bloody or gory (and none of the images of Christ’s crucifixion provided here come close to being as bloody and gory as the aborted fetuses) the image of Christ on the Cross is salvific.

 

[boppaid]

Why don’t you just come out and directly accuse those who oppose you, instead of dancing around it?

Accuse them of what? Murder? I don’t believe they are. Or do you think I am dancing around the fact they are as bad as murders? If that’s the case, I certainly wouldn’t accuse them of that either, as I do not believe so. In fact, I specifically stated, “In my opinion, they are both horrible. However, it goes without saying that murder is obviously WAY worse!”. How that sounds to you like I’m saying these pics are just as bad I’ll never know!

But when children are upset by a picture, it’s the parents’ reaction that upsets them.

Again, no it’s not. It seems that you truly do not understand mental illness if you believe this.

I find that difficult to believe – I’ve seen thousands, on five continentsGo here; http://www.autom.com/product.jsp?path=-1|304477|304483|17406|157340&id=157184

That’s a bloody gory crucifix? I don’t see any blood there! Compare this autom.com/product.jsp?path=-1|304477|304483|17406|157340&id=157184 to this bellsouthpwp.net/m/a/maryb683/marybrown/graphics/10-weeks.jpg and then try not to laugh out loud at the comparison you just made! Seriously, do you really think it’s as gory of a sight? Truly, I think you’re pulling our legs here. No one could really believe this stuff you say on these boards. I have a hard time thinking you’re for real. I’m not falling for it anymore. I=gullible to have fallen for it this long.

 

[boppaid]

This is your example of a particularly “gory, bloody crucifix”, equivalent to pictures such as these 100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/? (Warning that the link is very graphic and direct to the photos, use judgement).

Ooops. Karen, I posted before I saw your post here. I did the same comparison. I honestly believe he’s pulling our leg.

 

[KarenNC]

This is an example of an image that is processed through the streets of Malta every Good Friday, presumably children see this statue.

cospicuaparish.org.mt/images/goodfriday/Ecce_Homo.jpg

Are we talking about the societal norms of Malta? I was talking about them in the US.

Female circumcision is a societal norm and considered okay for children in some societies. Child labor and child prostitution are considered okay in some societies. Doesn’t mean I think we should be holding them up as great examples to emulate.

 

[KarenNC]

BTW, my grade-schooler is yet to see The Passion (Gibson’s) although he has seen other films of the crucifixion. It moved me deeply, but as a mother, I know he’s just not ready for the graphic detail.

Mel Gibson himself has said that the film is not appropriate for those under 13, so if the film’s maker agrees, doesn’t seem out of line to me to choose to wait.

 

[PLAL]

There has been Pro’s and Con’s about showing the graphic pictures of abortion. I myself think there are times when the pictures need to be shown and times when they should not be shown.

For instance, I like the idea of showing the pictures on college campuses. The target age group is definitely old enough to handle the pictures. I have held these signs during a few Summer Truth Tours. At times when people had stopped at the light, I saw the people look at the signs and their eyes would tear up. I knew these people where either involved in having an abortion or they advised someone to have an abortion or someone they knew had an abortion.

Fr. Pavone shows these pictures on his Priests For Life website. There are thousands of people who wrote to him on his site and told him the pictures changed them from being Pro-Choice to Pro-Life.

priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/graphicspraise.htm

Pro-Life Action League lists comments to objections to showing the graphic pictures…

prolifeaction.org/truth/objections.htm

Jill Stanek brings up the case of Emmett Till for a case to use the graphic pictures…

freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/947446/posts

Anyhow I do agree if we can somehow keep young children from seeing the graphic pictures, then we should do that. During recent Truth Tours there have been warning signs before entering the zone where the graphic pictures are used.

I think the use of warning signs before entering the graphic picture zone is the common ground both sides of the issue can agree on

 

[KarenNC]

I think the use of warning signs before entering the graphic picture zone is the common ground both sides of the issue can agree on

Since PLAL chose to repeat this post on this thread as well as the other one, I will repeat my answer:

As long as those signs are clearly visible and placed far enough in advance of the area that a parent has a reasonable choice to avoid them, then yes, I agree with that. I am not sure how one does this with an airplane towing the pictures overhead or tractor trailer trucks running up and down the highway or around towns.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I think the use of warning signs before entering the graphic picture zone is the common ground both sides of the issue can agree on

I posted the following on the other thread on the identical topic. In Canada we have to have permits to demonstrate. The permits are never denied except where they violate the Hate Propaganda Act. The permits give the police time to organize protection for everyone involved.

Notice of demonstrations are usually provided for the public in the media – maybe not the MSM – but in the media. ‘Warning’ is the job of the media, not the demonstrators.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

How does that even compare to the corpses of mutilated/headless babies seen in Karen’s previous post?

Is this an earnest argument or has it become a “fight to death to be proved right” game?

BTW, my grade-schooler is yet to see The Passion (Gibson’s) although he has seen other films of the crucifixion. It moved me deeply, but as a mother, I know he’s just not ready for the graphic detail.

The decisions you and Karen make as to when and if you prepare yourselves as parents to prepare your children to deal with unpleasant realities of life are one thing. But both of you and several others don’t want to leave it at that. You want to stop others from exercising their right of free speech.

As for characterizing the opposing point of view as a “fight to death to be proved right” game?’: it has been you, Karen, and others who agree with you who have refused to engage in discussion. We have offered different approaches to the question in detail. We have offered references. We have offered reason.

You have offered your OPINION repeated many times over. Some folks who agree with you have offered some very rude putdowns of other posters. Poor Vern has been called some disgraceful names. Philothea has had her integrity challenged; her evidence and conclusions characterized as ‘fantasy.’

You have yet to answer my questions. You have yet to apply the Principle of Double Effect. You have yet to explain to me the social contract, in which you are a participant.

It seems that those opposing the images have framed this as a ‘fight’ while we who support free speech have been patiently posting reason and reference.