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

[KarenNC]

Let’s try this one more time – who is “we?”

Society in general.

Have “we” voted on this? Have “we” passed a resolution in this matter? Have “we” deputized you to speak for “us?”

The following speak in various ways to the societal (and Catholic) consensus that there are things appropriate to adults that are not appropriate to children in terms of media and transmission of information (affective or cognitive ) and that the family is the best determiner of that line for their own children.

usccb.org/movies/weekly.shtml

usccb.org/bishops/pastoralplan.shtml#i

nccbuscc.org/prolife/programs/rlp//01and.shtml

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

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html

mi.gov/gov/0,1607,7-168–126002–,00.html

aap.org/family/ratingsgame.htm

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/pccs/documents/rc_pc_pccs_doc_07051989_pornography_en.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/pccs/documents/rc_pc_pccs_doc_20000530_ethics-communications_en.html
“The presumption should always be in favor of freedom of expression, for “when people follow their natural inclination to exchange ideas and declare their opinions, they are not merely making use of a right. They are also performing a social duty” (Communio et Progressio, 45). Still, considered from an ethical perspective, this presumption is not an absolute, indefeasible norm. There are obvious instances—for example, libel and slander, messages that seek to foster hatred and conflict among individuals and groups, obscenity and pornography, the morbid depiction of violence—where no right to communicate exists. Plainly, too, free expression should always observe principles like truth, fairness, and respect for privacy.”

1. While these reflections are addressed to all persons of good will, not just Catholics, it is appropriate, in bringing them to a close, to speak of Jesus as a model for communicators… In his communications he showed respect for his listeners, sympathy for their situation and needs, compassion for their suffering (e.g., Lk 7:13), and resolute determination to tell them what they needed to hear, in a way that would command their attention and help them receive the message, without coercion or compromise, deception or manipulation…Jesus taught that communication is a moral act:…He cautioned sternly against scandalizing the “little ones”, and warned that for one who did, “it would be better… if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea” (Mk 9:42; cf. Mt 18:6, Lk 17:2)."

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/pccs/documents/rc_pc_pccs_doc_22021997_ethics-in-ad_en.html

Communicators also can find themselves tempted to ignore the educational and social needs of certain segments of the audience — the very young, the very old, the poor — who do not match the demographic patterns (age, education, income, habits of buying and consuming, etc.) of the kinds of audiences advertisers want to reach. In this way the tone and indeed the level of moral responsibility of the communications media in general are lowered.

"Advertising can violate the dignity of the human person both through its content — what is advertised, the manner in which it is advertised — and through the impact it seeks to make upon its audience. We have spoken already of such things as appeals to lust, vanity, envy and greed, and of techniques that manipulate and exploit human weakness. In such circumstances, advertisements readily become "vehicles of a deformed outlook on life, on the family, on religion and on morality — an outlook that does not respect the true dignity and destiny of the human person."28

This problem is especially acute where particularly vulnerable groups or classes of persons are concerned: children and young people, the elderly, the poor, the culturally disadvantaged.

Much advertising directed at children apparently tries to exploit their credulity and suggestibility, in the hope that they will put pressure on their parents to buy products of no real benefit to them. Advertising like this offends against the dignity and rights of both children and parents; it intrudes upon the parent-child relationship and seeks to manipulate it to its own base ends."

 

[vern_humphrey]

Society in general.

Wow! I didn’t realize you’d been elected President of Society in General!

 

[KarenNC]

Wow! I didn’t realize you’d been elected President of Society in General!

Ha! There’s not enough money in the world!

You are quite fond of the dictionary—perhaps you can use yours to examine the uses of the word “we” in the English language if you remain truly confused. I’ll bet you can find “inappropriate” there as well. Once that gets cleared up, perhaps we can return to discussing the actual topic.

 

[Auntie_A]

After reading and rereading this thread. I think the title seems to push me to polarize on this topic: “how far is too far?” as if that were the last straw. Instead I would like to state this another way:

As a pro-life person responsible for the helpless in society, do you ever see the protest sign photos of aborted fetuses as being inappropriate?

Yes, it is inappropriate when some of the weak and helpless, who may not understand the context of these photos, are exposed to them. They may frighten small children and the elderly, or do harm to the mentally unstable. One would prefer that the vulnerable be protected from confusion or harm in the midst of a great protest.

Do we still maintain some semblance of civil behavior in a civil protest? Or do we give up the civility since lives are at stake?

These two questions do not lead me to question the cause, but do make me define the rules for fighting the cause.

 

[bmmckinney]

Auntie A,

I agree with you in your logic but the real question should be whether we love the unborn enough to save them when that “Save” might upset some born people. If that answer is yes then there isn’t a place or time that these photos would be inappropriate.

I recently came into possession information about recent baby save’s through AbortionNO.com because I am doing a project for them. August isn’t over yet and here is what has happened ALREADY!:

I have had 2 abortions. If I would have known the baby was already a baby not a ball of blood like I was told I would have never done it! – 20 year old female from Brooklyn, New York

Before I had seen pictures of abortion I always thought I would never do it but if someone was to do it then that was there business. After seeing pictures & how its done I’m not for it and I would never allow anyone to do that nor would I ever be okay with someone getting it…its wrong! – 20 year old female from Banning, California

I’m 4 weeks pregnant and was scheduled for an abortion in 5 days, but i have felt conflicted about it, and now after seeing the website i will not kill this child. – 28 year old female from Boise, Idaho

Has this website influenced your thinking concerning abortion? “yes” – If so, how? Yes, it made me keep my child. – 15 year old female from St. Louis, Missouri

I have had 3 abortions in the past 20 years. Had I seen these kind of pictures in Jan 1980 and November 1990 and August 1991 I would have NEVER gone through with this. MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON ME. I am so ashamed. Nobody at either one of these clinics told me ANYTHING about the fetus and the growth and development. Nor did they show me other options. – 54 year old female from Marietta, GA

I wish I had seen the reality of my “choice” when I was 17 and foolishly allowed this to be done to my child. I am 29 and I wish I could undo what I’ve done. – 29 year old female from Minneapolis, MN

Obviously some or most of these quotes are from people who visited the website, but websites don’t save babies, the truth about abortion does. These same women wouldn’t have chosen abortion if they had seen these photos on trucks as they did a computer screen!

 

[KarenNC]

These same women wouldn’t have chosen abortion if they had seen these photos on trucks as they did a computer screen!

The only thing that these additional anecdotes demonstrate is that, contrary to previous assertions, there actually is a way other than the trucks and planes to disseminate this information that reaches the intended audience and does what you want it to do without exposing young children to the same images.

Is the website more effective (ie prevents more intended abortions) than the trucks and planes? Would accurate information on what living babies look like at various stages of development so that the women understood that it was a baby and not a “clump of cells” rather than showing them dismembered corpses have been equally effective? Would including this information directly in a sex education class for preteens/teens have been equally as effective or more effective than flying hundreds of square yards of color photos of bloody dismembered baby parts across the skies over a cïty?

Without the willingness to do some actual research and gather some objective hard data, you will never know.

 

[bmmckinney]

Karen,

Actually we do know something, that everytime you post you make it more clear on who you really are. I will have to remember the textbook abortion supporting tactic is to try to defeat us with our own words to in a sense hold us to a different standard.

You can’t accept the fact that one organization stands alone on our side in saving babies, you dismiss it outright anyway you can.

There aren’t anecdotes they are true stories and not different then saying the sky is located above us, so instead of accepting them you try your hardest to change the subject.

You don’t care about the babies being born and you even try to lie about the numbers who die each day in THIS country and across the world. That’s classic abortion teaching, next you’ll tell us that the Law of Biogenesis is incorrect, that pigs can fly, and that there was a medical term of trimester BEFORE Roe vs. Wade.

I love reading what you have to post because you give more and more evidence that you aren’t prolife and its not only classic but refreshing. You’ve even tried to argue circular relative logic on me, that’s a hoot!

 

[boppaid]

Karen,
There aren’t anecdotes they are true stories and not different then saying the sky is located above us, so instead of accepting them you try your hardest to change the subject.

Just an FYI-Anecdotes can indeed be true, yet still are anecdotes.

 

[mapleoak]

Actually we do know something, that everytime you post you make it more clear on who you really are. I will have to remember the textbook abortion supporting tactic is to try to defeat us with our own words to in a sense hold us to a different standard.

Isn’t it also funny how every thing that we say is twisted around and made to sound like we are saying something different. The tactic is to discredit.

Karen also has a habit of saying there needs to be (undefined number) of abortions prevented with verifiable source data to support the use of graphic signs. You have provided what she calls “anecdotes” which are very real first hand accounts indicating that the signs have worked and spared someones life. I think even ONE life is sufficient. As for the signs possibly encouraging more abortions, that is totally silly. Nobody is going to look at the signs and 'Yeah, that’s what I want to do!"

 

[KarenNC]

Actually we do know something, that everytime you post you make it more clear on who you really are. I will have to remember the textbook abortion supporting tactic is to try to defeat us with our own words to in a sense hold us to a different standard.

The standard of accuracy? Of being willing and able to show the source of your information?

You can’t accept the fact that one organization stands alone on our side in saving babies, you dismiss it outright anyway you can.

Which organization would that be, specifically?

There aren’t anecdotes they are true stories and not different then saying the sky is located above us, so instead of accepting them you try your hardest to change the subject.

An anecdote is a story. It may be true or not, but it is not a substitute for objective data. I am actually rowing upstream trying to keep the discussion on the subject.

You don’t care about the babies being born and you even try to lie about the numbers who die each day in THIS country and across the world.

My sources for my data are plainly cited for anyone who wants to check their credibility and reliability to see for themselves. Yours?

That’s classic abortion teaching, next you’ll tell us that the Law of Biogenesis is incorrect, that pigs can fly, and that there was a medical term of trimester BEFORE Roe vs. Wade.

What in the world does the law of biogenesis, whether pigs can fly and the word trimester have to do with whether it is appropriate to show tractor trailer sized photos of mutilated babies to preschoolers?

BTW, however, the medical use of the term “trimester” is attested to from 1916. Last time I looked that was 50+ years prior to Roe v. Wade.

etymonline.com/index.php?search=trimester&searchmode=none

trimester
1821, “period of three months,” from Fr. trimestre (1611), from L. trimestris “of three months,” from tri- “three” + mensis “month” (see moon (n.)). Specific obstetrics sense is attested from 1916.

 

[seekerz]

I voted “it depends” because I truly think that it depends on where and to whom these graphics are directed.

If displayed where they will be seen by women/girls in or near reproductive age and if some means is provided to warn parents of the very young, then it can be okay.

One of my concerns though is that once the shock effect wears off, people might become desensitized to even the most gory images.

There have to be better and longer lasting ways to wake people up to the evil of abortion in my opinion, and one is to bring to them the light of Christ.

Many people I know who oppose abortion for non-religious reasons use the horror of abortion as a way to convince others to use birth control, which we are taught is no less evil. That’s one of the many reasons I believe the only lasting solution is evangelisation.

I’m not sure the world really needs more secular pro-lifers. The only lasting answer is knowing God and accepting that the power over life and death belongs to Him alone.

 

[boppaid]

What in the world does the law of biogenesis, whether pigs can fly and the word trimester have to do with whether it is appropriate to show tractor trailer sized photos of mutilated babies to preschoolers?

BMMckinney, I don’t mean this to sound insulting, so please try not to take it that way. But it appears that you are getting so upset by this discussion and you are no longer making much sense. (Or maybe you are making sense, only my head cold has clouded my ability to understand you. ) But I see you accusing Karen (quite uncharitably) of lying about statistics, when she is one of the only ones actually posting stats with sources. And as far as the law of biogenesis and the other stuff in the above quote…you just seem as if you’re either grasping at straws here or trying to be uncharitable. Maybe, for your own sake too, you should step away, take a breath, and recollect.

 

[ElectricMayhem]

I liken graphic abortion pictures in public to a parent who has a party at his/her house where teens are allowed to drink. The parent justifies it by saying, “I am taking their keys, no one is driving, and everyone is staying overnight.”

Well, what gives you the right to make that decision for every other teen, or my teen?

By placing graphic pictures in public places you are forcing me to explain that to my four year old. I am prepared to do so…but she is not prepared to hear it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I liken graphic abortion pictures in public to a parent who has a party at his/her house where teens are allowed to drink. The parent justifies it by saying, “I am taking their keys, no one is driving, and everyone is staying overnight.”

Wow! Talk about out in left field!

No one is giving anyone alcohol. No one is encouraging the use of alcohol.

Well, what gives you the right to make that decision for every other teen, or my teen?

What gives you the right to make that decision for every other teen, or my teen, or the rest of us?

By placing graphic pictures in public places you are forcing me to explain that to my four year old. I am prepared to do so…but she is not prepared to hear it.

And you are trying to force others to abandon an effective anti-abortion tactic.

 

[ElectricMayhem]

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.

 

[vern_humphrey]

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.

You might find it easier to tell your child the truth – only a tiny fraction of abortions are the result of rape. By far the majority are for mere convenience.

 

[ElectricMayhem]

Truth? To a four-year old?
Her truth is that she understands mommy and daddy love her and she is a gift from God. Why should I explain the OPPOSITE of that right now?

Actually, she would be more traumatized to try and understand why a mommy would not want her baby because her EXPERIENCE has taught her otherwise.

How ironic…and we complain that children are exposed to too much too soon.

And my daughter is a running commentary…what if she tells her friends at pre-school what an abortion is?

I will say it again, you are showing the product of an immoral act and forcing me to field the questions of the means that led up to that immoral act.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Truth? To a four-year old?
Her truth is that she understands mommy and daddy love her and she is a gift from God. Why should I explain the OPPOSITE of that right now?

Ahh, don’t tell me, I know! I know!

Because it’s better than lying to her and telling her abortion is due to “gang rape?” Did it get it right?

Actually, she would be more traumatized to try and understand why a mommy would not want her baby because her EXPERIENCE has taught her otherwise.

How ironic…and we complain that children are exposed to too much too soon.

Who’s “we?” Children should be exposed to what life is going to throw at them before they become susceptible.

And my daughter is a running commentary…what if she tells her friends at pre-school what an abortion is?

I will say it again, you are showing the product of an immoral act and forcing me to field the questions of the means that led up to that immoral act.
Nobody’s forcing you to do anything. We’re just not rearranging the universe for your convenience.

 

[proudnifi]

It makes me sick to even consider exposing young children to everything life will throw at them. It’s so awful that many children are forced into situations that should not happen to anyone much less to an innocent child who can’t defend himself (including atrocities as abortion).

Pope John Paul II would not have us give all of the truth about sexuality to young children - the same children who we expect and hope will be exposed to sexuality in the future in the proper context and at the proper time. And sex is a great good!! I’m sure he would not have us give all the ugly truths of the world to the young children - there is time enough for that later in the proper context and at the proper time.

One does not have to be a supporter of John Paul II to agree with him on the concept of guarding childhood innocence as best we are able. And when ElectricMayhem confines discussions with her young one to the love of parents for their children, this is what she is doing (guarding childhood innocence) - there will be time later for her child to find out that some parents hate their own children.

ETA: formatting

 

[ElectricMayhem]

Your quote:
“Who’s “we?” Children should be exposed to what life is going to throw at them before they become susceptible.”

This statement is so wrong on so many levels.

Polarization is killing the church.

Done and done.