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

[KarenNC]

Karen what you aren’t getting the understanding is that your 4 year old seeing these photos is an unintended positive effect of trying to reach the public at large. The reason it is beneficial is because it puts you as a parent in a position to explain that love is good and violence is wrong when a child would react to these photos.

You are absolutely 100% correct. I am not understanding that is is positive or beneficial for a 4 year old to see these sorts of graphic images of mutilated, bloody parts of babies, that it teaches them about love, the sanctity of life, that babies are human before they are born or that your exposing them to such is actually “unintended.”

“Unintended” is when you have these signs in front of an abortion clinic aimed at the people entering and someone decides to bring their 4 year old with them to wait while they have the abortion or chooses to take a family stroll by the clinic they know is there.

“Unintended” is when the card or pamphlet accidentally drops out of your hand while you are handing it directly to an adult and falls to the ground in front of the child or the parent hands it to the child and says “here, look at this, it will do you good.”

“Unintended” is leaving these cards in restrooms in bars and someone decides to bring their 4 year old with them for a night of drinking.

“Unintended” is when a three year old wanders into a middle school or late elementary school sex education class.

“Unintended” is when a 3 year old is given unsupervised access to the internet and happens on your site.

“Unintended” is when a 4 year old grabs the mail out of her parent’s hand and tears open the envelope that contains the pictures on materials inside.

“Unintended” is when something happens despite your best reasonable efforts to be sure it will not happen.

Driving trucks with these images on their sides through city streets, holding up large pictures on public thoroughfares, leaving cards with these pictures on tables in McDonalds, in public restrooms in the mall, in the waiting rooms of dentists who also treat children or literature with this on the cover on cars containing booster seats in the grocery store parking lot is not “unintended,” it is “unconcerned about who sees these.”

When one is aware that something is happening as a result of one’s actions and not only persists in the actions that caused the effect but seeks to expand those same actions unchanged, it is no longer unintended. Your entire campaign is based on exactly this premise—that no-one can “unintentionally” choose to end the life of a human child through abortion once one is made aware that it is a human child.

Amazingly, I and millions of other people seem to find it possible to explain that love is good and violence is wrong without this. We even seem to find it possible to explain to our preschoolers that babies are human, and to show them what they look like as they grow in the womb without showing these particular graphic photos of mounds of bloody dead mutilated babies.

If I and these folks COULD miraculously shield those children from these images but not their parents at the same time we would. But we can’t.

No one is asking for “miraculous,” simply applying reasonable common sense (see above). There are techniques of distributing these photos that have a much greater chance of them being seen by young children than other techniques.

You didn’t address the issue that none of the babies saved from abortion would be alive today if you had your way in that organization.

Actually, I addressed it very directly.

“The complete and entire strategy of this organization hinges upon its ability to put these images (blown up to the size of the side of a truck) in front of 3 and 4 year olds? That if they wait until a kid is even 10 years old, every one of them will rush out to have abortions? That every one of those abortions averted was the result of the person seeing those images at 4 years old? How can that be? The very story you quoted was of an abortion averted because a woman first saw these images at age 28.”

Where are the statistics showing a correlation with the age of a woman seeing these images and her choosing abortion, with the dramatic increase occurring if the images are seen after age 7? Where are the studies showing that people who are 10 or older cannot benefit from seeing these pictures? Where are the studies showing that a person is incapable of taking in new information after the age of 7, or of changing their actions based on that new information?

Where are the stories of women who said “if only I had seen these pictures when I was three rather than when I was ten I would have been able to change my opinion on abortion, but by ten it was too late?” "

continued

 

[KarenNC]

Abortion is worse today then it has ever been

That is not what the statistics gathered by the CDC show.
cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm

"Overall, the annual number of legal induced abortions in the United States increased gradually from 1973 to 1990 (peak point) and then generally declined thereafter (Figure 1). In 2003, a total of 848,163 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC by 49 reporting areas. This change represents a 0.7% decline from 2002, for which 49 areas reported 854,122 legal induced abortions (Tables 1 and 2).

The national legal induced abortion ratio increased from 196 per 1,000 live births in 1973 (the first year that 52 areas reported) to 358 per 1,000 in 1979 and remained nearly stable through 1981 (Figure 1, Table 2). The ratio peaked at 364 per 1,000 in 1984 and since then has demonstrated a generally steady decline. In 2003, the abortion ratio was 241 per 1,000 in 49 reporting areas and 243 for the same 47 reporting areas for which data were available since 1998 (Table 2).

The national legal induced abortion rate increased from 14 per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years in 1973 to 25 per 1,000 in 1980. The rate remained stable at 23–24 per 1,000 during the 1980s and early 1990s and at 20–21 per 1,000 during 1994–1997. The abortion rate remained unchanged at 17 per 1,000 during 1998–1999 and at 16 per 1,000 during 2000–2002, both overall and in the same 47 reporting areas. In 2003, the abortion rate remained unchanged overall at 16 per 1,000 and decreased to 15 per 1,000 in the 47 reporting areas. "

This isn’t an issue for you or people like you.

Really? The issue of abortion and the welfare of children is not an “issue for people like me”? That’s interesting.

For which people is it an issue, then, exactly?

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.

“Like me?” Exactly what are people “like me” or who “think like me”? Be as precise as you like.

I do care about the feelings that are upset by young children by these photos I really do

Actions speak louder than words.

, but **they mean nothing **

and that is exactly what these particular actions say, loud and clear.

people are too risk adverse to show these photos which would lead to more unborn babies being saved and souls saved as well.

You keep saying that these photos are the sole way to avert abortion. Please cite the studies (based on actual data rather than anecdotes, please) that show that these photos and these photos alone are superior to other factors and techniques used by prolife organizations.

The CDC (in the same report cited above) offers a few factors that might be influencing it, but even they do not say “this one thing is the reason” because there is not the data to support such a statement.

"The overall declines in the reported abortion ratio and rate over time might reflect multiple factors, including a decrease in the number of unintended pregnancies (8); a shift in the age distribution of women toward the older and less fertile ages (9); reduced or limited access to abortion services, including the passage of abortion laws that affect adolescents (e.g., parental consent or notification laws and mandatory waiting periods) (10–14); and changes in contraceptive practices, including increased use of contraceptives (e.g., condoms and, among young women, increased use of long-acting hormonal contraceptive methods that were introduced in the early 1990s) (15–20). "

I have never, not once, said that it is wrong to show these photos to the appropriate audiences. In fact, I have repeatedly said that these photos have a place in the discussion.

I have continually said that it is wrong to choose to show these photos to preschoolers and young elementary aged children by putting them prominently in places where such children are likely to be, such as malls, public roads, dentist office waiting rooms, on cars in grocery store parking lots with booster seats clearly visible in the back, on tables in public restaurants, etc.

 

[bmmckinney]

Perhaps it is easy for those of us who have never been aborted to say graphic abortion photos should not be shown.

Perhaps it is easy when you are not the one being dismissed as a “blob of tissue” and disdainfully viewed as a “clump of cells”; it is easy when you are not subjected to dismemberment, disembowelment, and decapitation; it is easy when you aren’t the one to endure poisoning by saline that will burn your skin; it is easy when potassium chloride isn’t injected into your heart to murder you.

But when you imagine that baby being attacked but unable to escape; when you comprehend a baby being in a safe place only to have it invaded by a stranger who will kill her; when that baby cannot defend herself; when you catch a glimpse of her body parts being ripped off piece by piece; when you realize that what you know about this baby’s plight, most people do not—then you will understand why we use pictures.

This is the story of the aborted unborn.

This is the story that must be told. Their cries cannot be heard—their screams are silent.

But their victimization can be seen.

It is the images of their terrible suffering that give voice to their cries and pierce the heart of anyone with a functioning conscience.

 

[KarenNC]

Perhaps it is easy for those of us who have never been aborted to say graphic abortion photos should not be shown.

Perhaps it is easy when you are not the one being dismissed as a “blob of tissue” and disdainfully viewed as a “clump of cells”; it is easy when you are not subjected to dismemberment, disembowelment, and decapitation; it is easy when you aren’t the one to endure poisoning by saline that will burn your skin; it is easy when potassium chloride isn’t injected into your heart to murder you.

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.

I am saying (but evidently some cannot hear) that this knowledge does not need to be shared with 2-7 year olds via graphic photographs on the side of the road because there are better, more appropriate ways to teach this age group about the value of life. 2-7 year olds are not engaging in sexual activity (or even close to doing so) and are not the ones deciding on whether or not to have an abortion. If a parent feels the need for their child of this age to see these photos, go for it, send them a boxful and let them go to town.

 

[bmmckinney]

The fact that parents may complain is not grounds to avoid communicating an important message. Addressing a controversial subject such as abortion, even without visuals, may result in some parents complaining. When people disagree on a subject it is inevitable that they will communicate their concerns. This issue is not “will people complain?” but is instead “is this message a truth that people need to know?”

If we claim that the unborn are human and that abortion kills those humans and if we expect to be taken seriously by the culture at large, then we have to ask ourselves: are we responding to the plight of the unborn as we would if they were born? For example, if 2-year-olds were being killed at local hospitals, paid for by our tax dollars, with some of your involvement, would you withhold the most compelling evidence of the toddlers’ deaths? Why are we holding a double standard when it comes to exposing the injustice directed towards the most weak and vulnerable of human beings?

 

[KarenNC]

If we claim that the unborn are human and that abortion kills those humans and if we expect to be taken seriously by the culture at large, then we have to ask ourselves: are we responding to the plight of the unborn as we would if they were born? For example, if 2-year-olds were being killed at local hospitals, paid for by our tax dollars, with some of your involvement, would you withhold the most compelling evidence of the toddlers’ deaths? Why are we holding a double standard when it comes to exposing the injustice directed towards the most weak and vulnerable of human beings?

What double standard?

I am sure I could find equally graphic and bloody photos available of two year old children being killed and dismembered in wars, terrorist activity, killed by their parents, etc if I wanted to do so. I don’t want those images on the table at McDonalds or driving around town on the side of a truck for other two or three year olds to see, either. This in no way means that I am therefore naive, blind, too stupid to know that such happens, support child abuse or killing children in war or terrorist activity or any of the other equivalent things that you and others are claiming I am.

Give the information to those who can do something about it.

 

[bmmckinney]

***Keep in mind that abortion supporters are lying to our children when they claim abortion is a mere “choice.” Why would we facilitate this lie by refusing to show the strongest evidence we have to the contrary? That, however, is exactly what abortion supporters want us to do. ***

**The following are words from Dr. King’s niece who is a leader with Silent No More, an international post-abortion group that Fr. Pavone of Priests for Life is the spiritual director of.
For many years, I have been an outspoken advocate for the unborn child, because in a culture of abortion, the child is like a slave. The new civil rights movement of our time is the pro-life movement, and as I seek to preserve the dream of my uncle, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and of my father, Rev. A.D. King (Martin’s brother), I ask the question, ‘How can the dream survive if we murder the children?’ I grew up seeing these two great men fight for the equal rights of their people.
But equality is not something you can see. What you can see are people. My uncle knew that the ugly reality of segregation had to be seen visually by the American public. He therefore organized events at which the eyes of the media could broadcast the way our people were treated when water hoses and dogs were unleashed on their peaceful marches. People responded to those images, not simply to abstract concepts of ‘segregation’ and ‘equality.’
Likewise, people—and especially African Americans—respond to the disturbing images of aborted children. Sure, some people get angry when we show them. But everyone who fights injustice has to be ready to pay a price. My uncle did, and so did my Dad. So does everyone who has the courage to show the ugly reality of abortion. Don’t be afraid to do so. Many people are grateful. As a woman who has had two abortions, I am grateful that the truth is being shown, so that others can avoid this pain in the first place.
**

 

[KarenNC]

The following are words from Dr. King’s niece who is a leader with Silent No More, an international post-abortion group that Fr. Pavone of Priests for Life is the spiritual director of.
For many years, I have been an outspoken advocate for the unborn child, because in a culture of abortion, the child is like a slave. The new civil rights movement of our time is the pro-life movement, and as I seek to preserve the dream of my uncle, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and of my father, Rev. A.D. King (Martin’s brother), I ask the question, ‘How can the dream survive if we murder the children?’ I grew up seeing these two great men fight for the equal rights of their people.

Interesting. I wonder if she is equally familar with her uncle’s Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood or the speech he wrote for his acceptance (which was read by his wife)?

plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/the-reverend-martin-luther-king-jr.htm

 

[bmmckinney]

Prolifers against the showing of these photos will state that there are different ways of going about our message, that it creates a phinatical view, they will argue the delivery, the view of these so called prolifers completely contradicts the history of social reform that has proven effective. Most prolife people have no idea of the specifics of the history of social reform, they don’t understand that social reformers are never EVER liked and are always unpopular, because they are always confronting a culture that does not want to know more about an injustice for which they bare some responsibility, so this idea that we can be liked and effective is foolish at best and eerily similar to the aims of the prochoice movement- to be liked, being liked in the past has never been successful in overturning any other form of injustice, covering up abortion is not an effective way of convincing people that abortion is an evil that should be unlawful and always unthinkable.

 

[KarenNC]

Most prolife people have no idea of the specifics of the history of social reform, they don’t understand that social reformers are never EVER liked and are always unpopular, because they are always confronting a culture that does not want to know more about an injustice for which they bare some responsibility, so this idea that we can be liked and effective is foolish at best and eerily similar to the aims of the prochoice movement- to be liked, being liked in the past has never been successful in overturning any other form of injustice, covering up abortion is not an effective way of convincing people that abortion is an evil that should be unlawful and always unthinkable.

Frankly, I don’t give a fig whether you are liked or not. I am asking you to be responsible and exercise judgement in showing these images in areas where you know full well 2-7 year olds are likely to be. I am asking you to respect your own Church’s teaching on providing sexual information to young children in cooperation with, rather than opposition to, their parents.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_08121995_human-sexuality_en.html

I particularly refer you to numbers 77, 83, 84, 142, and 148.

 

[bmmckinney]

So apparently Karen you aren’t Catholic, not prolife, and you don’t care about unborn babies who die from abortion, all you care about are feelings and not hurting people who are born. At least its clear to us now.

Do you work for Planned Parenthood?

 

[KarenNC]

So apparently Karen you aren’t Catholic, not prolife, and you don’t care about unborn babies who die from abortion, all you care about are feelings and not hurting people who are born. At least its clear to us now.

Do you work for Planned Parenthood?

Let’s see:
not Catholic—never claimed to be

not prolife—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.

don’t care about unborn babies who die from abortion—exactly what have I said that has lead you to that conclusion? Be as specific as you like.

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

I care about not hurting people who are born—guilty as charged. Not hurting others is pretty high up on my list of ethical behavior.

do I work for Planned Parenthood—nope, never have. What exactly lead you to that conclusion? Again, specifics would be appreciated.

And my mother never wore army boots.

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?

Shall we go back to your attempts at an actual defense and justification of your actions or is all you have left ad hominem attacks?

 

[bmmckinney]

Karen,

As someone who has dealt with thousands of prochoice people in debates I am not quite sure whether to believe you.

After presented with all the evidence you still show classic signs of someone who is pretending to be prolife, if I am wrong that could be the case but I’d be surprised.

Look we all care about your 4 year olds feelings, thats a good thing. But when feelings have to get hurt to save the lives of babies who will be murdered we should always always choose lives over feelings.

What you haven’t come to terms with is that many women who have seen the trucks driving around cities and schools in circles have chosen not to have abortions. I witnessed this first hand in St. Louis where two women saw the truck I was driving right as they were walking into Planned Parenthood and they couldn’t kill their baby.

In South Dakota I drove around a junior/senior high school and that day a girl who found out later she was pregnant only attributed her keeping the baby to my truck, nothing else. That very day many young children saw my truck. They were bused over to the older school and as soon as I saw them get off their busses I hightailed it out of there, I felt terrible! BUT look what happened almost the same time, another girl saw these photos and didn’t murder her child. It is a worthwhile trade off.

Now it makes no sense to show young children these photos who are 4 years old. 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.

I wouldn’t show these photos to a classroom of 4 year olds but if I could expose their teacher to it I would because that’s who we need to focus on, every adult and child who can understand and needs to know. None of those children will be scared for life, otherwise we would have been sued before and that won’t happen.

 

[KarenNC]

As someone who has dealt with thousands of prochoice people in debates I am not quite sure whether to believe you.

After presented with all the evidence you still show classic signs of someone who is pretending to be prolife, if I am wrong that could be the case but I’d be surprised.

What evidence? So far I have been presented with some anecdotal stories and your opinion. I have not seen any evidence that supports your contentions that a) these images do a significantly better job of preventing abortions than any other method or b) that the delivery system which chooses to expose young children to these images is significantly more effective than other delivery methods in doing so.

I am “pretending” nothing. Would those “classic signs” consist of disagreeing with you and your choice of actions, perhaps?

Now it makes no sense to show young children these photos who are 4 years old. 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.

I maintain that the ends do not always justify the means.

Then hand every woman who attends the March for Life one of your pamphlets or graphic business cards. Hand a card directly to their parents. Mail it to their houses (but use envelopes without the pictures on the outside, please). Hand one to every adult woman that you meet if you like. I am not sure, however, exactly how effective you think it is to show these images to the general public if your images can’t adequately educate those who already agree with you enough to be participating in a March for Life.

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.

I wouldn’t show these photos to a classroom of 4 year olds but if I could expose their teacher to it I would because that’s who we need to focus on, every adult and child who can understand and needs to know. None of those children will be scared for life, otherwise we would have been sued before and that won’t happen.

Why is it okay to show it to them individually or in groups who may be driving by your signs, but not in a group in a classroom? What is the difference in hauling in one of the posters to one of the classrooms where 20-30 children will see it in order to “expose” the teacher to it and driving a truck around the city or holding up signs by the roadside so that hundreds of children see it in order to “expose” their parents to it?

Is your standard for appropriate behavior really based on whether or not you are likely to be sued for it?

 

[boppaid]

BMmckinney, these statements seem to contradict each other:

Karen what you aren’t getting the understanding is that your 4 year old seeing these photos is an unintended **positive effect **of trying to reach the public at large. The reason it is beneficial is because it puts you as a parent in a position to explain that love is good and violence is wrong when a child would react to these photos.

.

If I and these folks COULD miraculously sheild those children from these images but not their parents at the same time we would. But we can’t.

So, you say that a 4 year old seeing these images is a positive effect; an opportunity for explanation, yet you go on to say that if you could shield these images from children, then you would. Huh? Why would you shield them from something you believe is positive?

 

[bmmckinney]

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.

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.

 

[KarenNC]

That very day many young children saw my truck. They were bused over to the older school and as soon as I saw them get off their busses I hightailed it out of there, I felt terrible! …Now it makes no sense to show young children these photos who are 4 years old. BUT it is ok to do so if we are targeting their parents, …I wouldn’t show these photos to a classroom of 4 year olds

What seems to be missing from all this is the realization that those children who were getting off the bus that you tried to avoid and the ones in the classroom are exactly the same children as the ones that you say it is okay if they see it when they are riding around.

The children who attend the Catholic schools, where abortion isn’t mentioned until at least 5th grade, and the children you and others keep saying you won’t target by going near elementary schools, etc are not magically either there or in their homes. They are exactly the same children who are riding in cars and vans and buses down the streets past your signs. They are exactly the same children who are seeing your trucks. They are exactly the same children who are eating in the restaurant where you are leaving these cards with graphic photos on the table, going to the dentist where you left them in the waiting room, going to the bathroom in the store where you left them on the counter.

What is the difference between these children being provided unwanted and non-age appropriate sex education without their parents’ consent from the side of the road and in a classroom? I certainly don’t see one.

 

[KarenNC]

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.

Make or break whose salvation? The adult, the older child, the 4 year old? In what way, exactly?

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.

Perhaps the arguments you have encountered about the practice of displaying these images in ways that young children are likely to see them are all similar in that they are based on reason, an expectation that someone who values and cares for babies before they are born should also show some modicum of concern for them after they are born, a societal norm that it is the responsiblity of caring adults to protect young children from exposure to graphic violence and an expectation for internal consistency in your position?

You have continued to show a glaring lack of anything other than a bit of anecdotal evidence justifying the need for this particular tactic, despite repeated requests for such. As to “smarter than I give you credit for,” I have been operating under the assumption that you are just as capable of seeing the rationality and irrationality of various arguments as I am. If I felt you were incapable of such, we would not be having this conversation, as there would be no point.

I have stated my position quite plainly more than once and my conscience is just fine, thanks for asking.

 

[mapleoak]

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

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 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.

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?

 

[mapleoak]

What evidence? So far I have been presented with some anecdotal stories and your opinion. I have not seen any evidence that supports your contentions that a) these images do a significantly better job of preventing abortions than any other method

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.

I maintain that the ends do not always justify the means.

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.

Then hand every woman who attends the March for Life one of your pamphlets or graphic business cards.

Wrong audience.

Hand one to every adult woman that you meet if you like.

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

I am not sure, however, exactly how effective you think it is to show these images to the general public if your images can’t adequately educate those who already agree with you enough to be participating in a March for Life.

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.

Why is it okay to show it to them individually or in groups who may be driving by your signs, but not in a group in a classroom? What is the difference in hauling in one of the posters to one of the classrooms where 20-30 children will see it in order to “expose” the teacher to it and driving a truck around the city or holding up signs by the roadside so that hundreds of children see it in order to “expose” their parents to it?

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