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

[iamrefreshed]

Well people are not going to stop showing graphic pictures of abortion. If you really want the graphic pictures to end, then you really need to get involved in the Pro-Life Movement so we can put an end to legalized abortion!

Showing graphic pictures of abortion may not be for you. Leave that work to those who want to do it. But there are other things you can do like…

1. Get Project Gabriel started in your Parish.
2. Start a Catholic Crisis Pregnancy Center in your community.
3. Fast & Pray for the end of abortion. This is the most important!

4.Start 24-Hour Perpetual Adoration in your Parish if you don’t already have it. Sign up for at least an hour each week for Eucharistic Adoration in your Parish. Pray for the end of abortion!

1. Pray at the Abortuary nearest to you.
2. Have Abstinence-Only Education Speakers to speak at your schools (like Jason Evert, Christopher West, Fr. Thomas Loya).
3. Promote and Vote for Pro-Life Candidates.
4. Start a Youth For Life Group.
5. If you have a large family, go to the park with all the kids & have fun with them. Others will witness the value of being open to life.

These are a few of the many things you can do to help the Pro-Life Movement! There are many others. I just listed a few.

If you are not already involved in Pro-Life, then your already half dead.

I think the big issue is here is why you feel the need to tell those who don’t like the indiscriminate use of the pictures what they can do to help stop abortion?

What makes you think they are not doing so already?

Because they don’t like the photos? (Please answer, I’m curious)

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think the big issue is here is why you feel the need to tell those who don’t like the indiscriminate use of the pictures what they can do to help stop abortion?

What makes you think they are not doing so already?

Because they don’t like the photos? (Please answer, I’m curious)

My experience in these three threads – all attacking those who use the photos – is that the opposition is purely emotional.

 

[seekerz]

My experience in these three threads – all attacking those who use the photos – is that the opposition is purely emotional.

That may be, but those agreeing to the appropriate use of these photos (with measures taken to protect the innocence of young children) are basing their opinions on concerns for the welfare of children.

Personally, I will also add, my opinions are also based on the fact that teaching young children respect for God and the life He created, does not require use of such photos and that such education is more appropriate at a young age than opening them up to the horrors of abortion.

By the way, I believe I have learned on one of these threads that these pictures are displayed for the express purpose of eliciting an emotional response.

 

[vern_humphrey]

That may be, but those agreeing to the appropriate use of these photos (with measures taken to protect the innocence of young children) are basing their opinions on concerns for the welfare of children.

No, I think many who say they are concerned for the children are really projecting their own reactions on the children.

Consider this post:

5yr old: “Eek; ugh”
Bus attendant: “What’s wrong honey?”
5yr old pointing toward ad: “Did a monster get that baby? Is it dead?”
Bus attendant: “Shh, honey. Don’t be scared. It’s just a picture”
5yr old crying:“My mommy has a baby in her tummy, I don’t want monsters to get it!”
Bus attendant: “Shh, honey. You’ll be home soon and Mommy can explain it to you then.”
5yr old hysterical now: “Waah, waah, I want my Mommy. I want to go home…”

The underlying assumption is that the parent has entrusted the child to an unqualified person – and that’s okay.

Personally, I will also add, my opinions are also based on the fact that teaching young children respect for God and the life He created, does not require use of such photos and that such education is more appropriate at a young age than opening them up to the horrors of abortion.

I have repeatedly invited those who oppose using the photos to give details of “another way” and show how it accomplishes the same thing.

By the way, I believe I have learned on one of these threads that these pictures are displayed for the express purpose of eliciting an emotional response.

And a brass band played “Whoda Thunkit!”

Did you read my posts on affective learning?

 

[seekerz]

No, I think many who say they are concerned for the children are really projecting their own reactions on the children.

Consider this post:

The underlying assumption is that the parent has entrusted the child to an unqualified person – and that’s okay.

I have repeatedly invited those who oppose using the photos to give details of “another way” and show how it accomplishes the same thing.

And a brass band played “Whoda Thunkit!”

Did you read my posts on affective learning?

So putting my child in the care of a bus attendant in irresponsible or do I have a duty to make sure that the attendant on a public school bus is pro-life and willing to educate 5yr olds on what these pictures mean?

If the parent is not present and the child is confronted with such graphics while sitting alone on a bus seat, whose emotions are being projected onto her?

I have repeatedly posted my ideas of appropriate pro-life education for 5yr olds: teach them that God is love and that all power over life (from the time He begins creating a person in the womb) belongs to Him. At that age, no other details are necessary, in my opinion. I am yet to understand how that approach is somehow deficient.

I’m an adult and my intimate understanding of pro-life issues (including abortion) are no defense against the reaction elicited when I see those photos. This being the case, I don’t believe that any preparation on this earth can prepare small children to not gag at the sight and what good does that do anyone?

I certainly am not willing to experiment on my child to see whether any preparation method really is effective because this kind of exposure is*** not necessary*** for his development as a Christian and is totally avoidable without infringing anyone’s rights to show these photos to adults.

 

[vern_humphrey]

So putting my child in the care of a bus attendant in irresponsible or do I have a duty to make sure that the attendant on a public school bus is pro-life and willing to educate 5yr olds on what these pictures mean?

Putting your child in the care of anyone whom you have reason to believe is unqualified to care for the child is irresponsible.

Do you disagree with that?

If the parent is not present and the child is confronted with such graphics while sitting alone on a bus seat, whose emotions are being projected onto her?

Your “confused” image is quite appropriate – since the scenario you postulated was an** imaginary** one.

I have repeatedly posted my ideas of appropriate pro-life education for 5yr olds: teach them that God is love and that all power over life (from the time He begins creating a person in the womb) belongs to Him. At that age, no other details are necessary, in my opinion. I am yet to understand how that approach is somehow deficient.

What is the abortion rate in America today?

The abortion rate – and the almost 35 years of struggle against abortion – show us that a multi-prong approach is needed. If it were not so, we would have prevailed and eliminated abortion long ago.

I’m an adult and my intimate understanding of pro-life issues (including abortion) are no defense against the reaction elicited when I see those photos.

And that is my point. It is the adult’s reaction which sparks the child’s reaction – not the photos themselves.

This being the case, I don’t believe that any preparation on this earth can prepare small children to not gag at the sight and what good does that do anyone?

The chidren don’t “gag at the sight.” If they gag, it is at the parents reaction.

I certainly am not willing to experiment on my child to see whether any preparation method really is effective because this kind of exposure is*** not necessary*** for his development as a Christian and is totally avoidable without infringing anyone’s rights to show these photos to adults.

And that justifies attacks on other Catholics who are working to end abortion?

 

[boppaid]

Putting your child in the care of anyone whom you have reason to believe is unqualified to care for the child is irresponsible.

Somehow I think the public schools would oppose letting a parent interview all the employees to find out their political and pro-life stance.

 

[holly_potter]

1. is photojournalism not factual?
2. who did Fr Pavone hope to reach with the posters?

1. yes, photojournalism is factual (a picture is worth a thousand words)
2. He hoped to reach the widest audience

However, photojournalism evokes an emotional response, and I’ve found that people who see these pictures usually get angry (instead of sad for all the unborn babies). And that’s not exactly the emotion we want to get, because anger just makes them more stubborn, more oblivious to our cause. They get angry at the pictures, and since we hold the picutres, they get angry at us.

I know I know, people who think shouldn’t reach that conclusion. But most people just see the cause-effect, they don’t really think Just like a single sign of pain causes the pain-receptor barriers to close, a single graphic picture causes the mind close off agaisnt it.

Besides, you wouldn’t want other graphic images to be displayed to just anybody. Most people can’t handle them. You woudn’t want stripteasers walking down Main Square, or the bloodiest scenes of Gladiator shown during rush hour traffic.

That’s why we’re approaching it fron a different angle. Sure, we’ll still use pictures, but non-graphic kinds. Pictures from inside the womb. Look! At 10 weeks, you can see the fingers! “Wow, it looks just like a miniature baby” Did you know that the baby has brain waves by 14 weeks? That it’s heart is beating long before the first trimester abortions? “But that means…”

That’s the kind of response you want to get. That will win over the most people over the long run, and be more effective and enduring than “shock” therapy. And we want to have an enduring pro-life legacy.

After all, that is all our goals, right?

Now, I’m not saying “no post-abortion pictures” I’m just saying that there’s a time and place for those, just like there’s a time and place for “Passion of the Christ” and a time and place for Holocaust photos.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Somehow I think the public schools would oppose letting a parent interview all the employees to find out their political and pro-life stance.

And?

If you cannot tell the qualifications of someone who will have your child’s life in his or her hands, do you just walk away and trust to luck? Is that good parenting?

In point of fact, you do have a right to question the suitability and qualifications of school personnel and to meet with the school administration and the school board on this issue – and if they don’t satisfy you, you have the right and duty to pull your child out of the public school and provide for their education by other means.

 

[vern_humphrey]

1. yes, photojournalism is factual (a picture is worth a thousand words)
2. He hoped to reach the widest audience

However, photojournalism evokes an emotional response, and I’ve found that people who see these pictures usually get angry (instead of sad for all the unborn babies). And that’s not exactly the emotion we want to get, because anger just makes them more stubborn, more oblivious to our cause. They get angry at the pictures, and since we hold the picutres, they get angry at us.

But this is only “what I think” reasoning. Do you have any hard data to back that up?

The people who actually use these photos have said they have had success in dissuading women from having abortions. Assuming they are telling the truth, would we not be pitting a known life saved against a theoretical counter-reaction?

 

[seekerz]

And that justifies attacks on other Catholics who are working to end abortion?

As on a previous thread, I will again ask: where did I attack anyone? Point it out so I may apologize if necessary.

Unless of course you consider anyone who posts an opinion different from yours as an ‘attacker’?

 

[seekerz]

And?

If you cannot tell the qualifications of someone who will have your child’s life in his or her hands, do you just walk away and trust to luck? Is that good parenting?

In point of fact, you do have a right to question the suitability and qualifications of school personnel and to meet with the school administration and the school board on this issue – and if they don’t satisfy you, you have the right and duty to pull your child out of the public school and provide for their education by other means.

Are you seriously saying that public school personnel should be expected to explain pro-life issues?

Everyone should be so blessed that they can afford to private or home schooling. Would you have me bankrupt myself to allow your version of freedom of speech?

 

[KarenNC]

That’s how it should be, but that’s not how I have found it to be. The attacks on those who use these images have been vicious and bitter.

How does calling somone an agent of Satan, accusing them of posting under a variety of different names to lie about about their position, saying they are “posing as a caring mommy just to stir up trouble,” etc qualify as if not “vicious and bitter?”

Can we get back to discussing facts rather than hurt feelings, since you have a great objection to such a topic?

 

[vern_humphrey]

How does calling somone an agent of Satan, accusing them of posting under a variety of different names to lie about about their position, saying they are “posing as a caring mommy just to stir up trouble,” etc qualify as if not “vicious and bitter?”

The same way this does:

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?

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!

Once again, you are forcing me to have a conversation with my four year old about something that she does not have the experience or knowledge to comprehend.

“Why did the mommy not want her baby?”

“Because she was gang-raped, honey.”

“What’s gang-rape?”

So, you see, abortion is that act that you are portraying, but I am left with trying to explain all the actions that preceed the abortion.

Unless you want to make it easy for me and post gang-rape pictures.

Can we get back to discussing facts rather than hurt feelings, since you have a great objection to such a topic?

I repeat – no one has started a thread attacking those who oppose using these images. But there are three threads attacking people working in the prolife movement for using them.

 

[KarenNC]

The same way this does:

OK, so folks have called both of us names and accused us of unsavory things. We are both equally victims. Can we let it go now? Don’t I remember a certain poster chastising me about bringing up what someone said to me in another thread because it didn’t apply to the folks on this one?

I repeat – no one has started a thread attacking those who oppose using these images. But there are three threads attacking people working in the prolife movement for using them.

Then by all means rectify the situation and start such if that is what you want to see.

Disagreement is not attack. Failing to accept arguments without sufficient logical basis is not attack.

I have seen no thread entitled “attack people who show huge photos of mutilated babies to preschoolers.” I have seen threads raising the topic of the appropriateness of the use of graphic images of mutilated babies. That is what people are discussing.

There have perhaps been individual posts and particular posters that attacked people on either side, as we have already determined. If you have been on the boards more than an hour, that such exist should not be a major surprise. I have been called more names and accused of more unsavory things on these boards in the last 8 months than in the last at minimum 10 years. The remedy for that is to alert the moderator when you believe someone is acting uncivilly. They can then deal with the individual poster responsible appropriately and in proportion to the situation.

Frankly, I don’t recall a single post in which I attacked the “people working in the prolife movement.” I have and continue to object to the practice of using these photos indiscriminately and without any reasonable basis for doing so instead of in other, more socially acceptable and appropriate ways.

 

[seekerz]

The same way this does:

I repeat – no one has started a thread attacking those who oppose using these images. But there are three threads attacking people working in the prolife movement for using them.

The same way this does:

I repeat – no one has started a thread attacking those who oppose using these images. But there are three threads attacking people working in the prolife movement for using them.

Here we go again; Vern why don’t you start a thread specifically dedicated to listing all those who “attacked” you…? (You guys should know better).

Otherwise, contact the moderators. That way, the rest of us can get back to the topic at hand…

 

[estesbob]

There have been close at 2000 post on three different threads on this subject. I personally believe every one of them was set upto allow pro-choice people to try and take the moral high ground. Many ,many pro-life adherents have been suckered into this debate.

 

[seekerz]

There have been close at 2000 post on three different threads on this subject. I personally believe every one of them was set upto allow pro-choice people to try and take the moral high ground. Many ,many pro-life adherents have been suckered into this debate.

Hi Estebob. Missed ya, or have you been here all along…?

 

[estesbob]

Hi Estebob. Missed ya, or have you been here all along…?

Naw I just came over here to stir things up. Frankly I’m tired of talking about it. I think we can all agree that after 2000 posts we are not going to reach any kind of agreement It just appears now that we all want in the last word.

Perhaps we should talk what we do agree on-that this evil must be brought to an end.We can disagree on tactics. but should not disagree on the goal.

 

[KarenNC]

The same way this does:

Quote:
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!

Yes, and what did you reply to it?

Post 384

Vern’s reply:
Look in the mirror and see someone else who meets your description.

You’ve now contributed your share of insults and joined in. Happy?