L
Linnyo
Guest
These images made me cry. I could never show these to my children, never.
- Status
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
And that’s the bottom line. It’s your reaction, not a child’s reaction, that bothers you.
L
Linnyo
Guest
I didn’t cry in front of my kids. I felt sick to the stomache yes and disgusted at the perpetrators of such a heneous crime but I didn’t show that to my kids. I just tried to protect her liittle world which, till that point, had been filled with the inocence and nice things that young children’s lives should be filled with. Doesn’t matter my reaction because at the end of the day, had the pictures not been shown to me while I was with my little girl then there would have been not reaction to take effect. So the pictures were the trigger for the upset and trauma regardless of whether my daughter was affected by me or by the pictures. You are arguing about whether the trauma was firs hand or second hand. That is irrelevant - the trauma was still there!
K
KarenNC
Guest
It does help to clarify the argument when one actually looks at the images that are under discussion and attempts to look at them through the eyes of a kindergartner, doesn’t it. Makes it a bit difficult for me to say “they wouldn’t even know what they are looking at.” The entire purpose of those photos, as far as I can tell, is to be as sure as possible that no one who looks at them can mistake them for anything but what they are----dead babies.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
L
Linnyo
Guest
Yes but it was your cop-out!
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
When you posted this:
You gave us a demonstration of how you let your emotions get away with you.
L
Linnyo
Guest
Hmmm- my children were in bed when I posted that. In any case, it was only a question. You took it as an accusation. I do have emotions and I would consider people showing violent images to be extremists especially when they come over as being aggresive in their typing. It as all relative however, and obviously there are more extreme extremists than yourself. Bear in mind I amn’t the only one that has found you to be rude and forceful in your opinions.
K
KarenNC
Guest
Out of curiosity, is the use of these sorts of graphic signs any and everywhere primarily a US phenomenon or is it worldwide?
L
Linnyo
Guest
I’ve actually only seen it once in Scotland at a Christian worship event at a football stadium. I think that I was caught off-guard because it isn’t common. Had I known that they would be there, I wouldn’t have gone to the worship event and I believe God would have fully understood. The event was actually a family event so the ‘extremists’ were clearly targetting those who had children already as opposed to those who had none. I wouldn’t imagine it being very effective as they were targetting those with the same values anyway. Pure badness in my opinion. A bit like preaching to the converted, eh?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
No, it was a nasty insinuation, and you meant it as an insult.
You** meant** it as an accusation – and as proof, I offer your reactions to the suggestion that you might be pro-abortioin.
What you consider is irrelevanrt. Please note the images are not “violent.” They merely show the results of violence.
That’s ironic coming from the person who typed this:
When you typed the insinuation I quoted above, you forfieted the right to call anyone else an “extremist.”
S
seekerz
Guest
I have to say you guys all get gold medals for perseverance!
Still this doesn’t change the fact that one cannot dictate to others what they should or should not find offensive.
The decision to offend sensibilities of some in order to achieve a good end, is an issue open to debate, but to tell people what they should or should not find offensive is ridiculous and pointless.
Still this doesn’t change the fact that one cannot dictate to others what they should or should not find offensive.
The decision to offend sensibilities of some in order to achieve a good end, is an issue open to debate, but to tell people what they should or should not find offensive is ridiculous and pointless.
B
bmmckinney
Guest
You should know that no matter what truth and how you present it will always cause anger and lack of support from people no matter if you use graphic photos or not.
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.
There is not a single abortion supporter alive who can defend abortion in front of graphic photos, not one anywhere. Yet people here complain about little children and their own feelings because they think we should show these photos only to a few. Well as I said before this might not be the issue for you, you do unborn babies a disservice by having their humanity and what was done to it hidden away out of site and out of mind.
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.
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.
There is not a single abortion supporter alive who can defend abortion in front of graphic photos, not one anywhere. Yet people here complain about little children and their own feelings because they think we should show these photos only to a few. Well as I said before this might not be the issue for you, you do unborn babies a disservice by having their humanity and what was done to it hidden away out of site and out of mind.
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.
S
seekerz
Guest
Correction: We have abortion in this country because too many people are living for themselves and not for God.
Personally I think it’s naive to believe that graphic images used indiscriminately are the solution.
There are thousands of people, all over the country, exposed to the reality of the horror of abortion day after day, who remain unmoved by it until God moves their consciences. Want to know who they are? Those who perform, assist, clean up after or otherwise participate in the grisly process. They see the gore, not in pictures but real-time! Why doesn’t the first experience become their last? Why doesn’t the repeated exposure repulse them?
It is a great disservice to other posters to suggest that because they object to indiscriminate use of graphic photos they are supporting the pro-choice movement because you have no objective proof that such exposure is any more effective than other methods in stopping abortion.
The fact is that people, even good Catholic ones, are allowed to disagree on such issues - deal with it.
K
KarenNC
Guest
censusscope.org/us/chart_age.html
In 2000, per the US census, the US had a population of 281,521,906. Of that, 19,175,798 were children ages 0-4. Another 20,549,505 were ages 5-9. That gives a total of children ages 9 and under in this country of 39,725,303. That is 14% of the US population.
I realize that I have been talking about 7 and under, but I have not found the statistics broken out in precisely that way, so the actual percentage I have been discussing would be even lower than 14%.
Exactly how is saying that one should show these photos in ways that are reasonably expected not to be seen (not absolutely guaranteed, mind you, simply reasonably expected) by less than 14% of the entire population of the United States unless it is with their parents’ permission, leaving an unfettered audience of 86% of the population, equivalent to saying “we should show these photos only to a few”? Especially when the number of people in that 14% who are seeking abortions on their own account is basically nil? Yes, I know Philothea trotted out a story of a 9 year old victim of incest whose guardians took her for an abortion—note that I am talking about women who will and can walk into a clinic on their own recognizance and request an abortion–the ones who are the decision makers.
On the contrary, we are asking that you reasonably attempt to avoid showing them to “only a few.”
S
sprout
Guest
No one here is trying to “cover up” anything. Suggestions have been made repeatedly to use these images but in a “discriminate” way i.e. the way they are used on the “Priests for Life” website with a warning attached prior to viewing and in environments where young children will not be unnecessarily exposed i.e on College Campuses, at Concerts, etc.
I, personally, think that those out there driving around these trucks, holding up life sized posters and banners indiscriminately forcing upon unsupecting motorists and beachgoers in family oriented environments these violent, bloody images of dismembered, dead children are the ones who are doing a disservice to the humanity of the unborn and I agree with Calgary’s outspokenly pro-life Catholic bishop, Fred Henry when he states:
I also think those who do not exercise proper diligence and discretion are inadvertently supporting the efforts of the prochoice movement to mischaracterize the prolife movement as bunch of radical extremists who don’t *really care *about women or children.
D
Delphinus85
Guest
While graphic images are VITAL to the cause, they need to be used with my discretion. I am as pro life as it gets, but frankly…I can’t stand seeing the images. ESPECIALLY if I were driving. I would get in an accident. I was faced with an image and I actually started crying and gagged. Then I couldn’t eat for the rest of the day. Yes, I know it;s horrible, but the images need to be sure they are shown to the right people at the right times. In public where children can see, or where people like me can see while driving (and possibly cause accidents because I am so sensitive to the atrocities committed) it can actually cause some problems. Just like images from the holocaust are preceeded by “people of weak constitutions or under the age of 18 should be advised”
I
iamrefreshed
Guest
You know this is pointless. I’ve never attacked anyone. I am however guilty of answering a poll on CA forum. Since you seem to be so good at it why don’t you just judge and sentence me.
Be well.
I
iamrefreshed
Guest
I did that for awhile and I afraid that is the only solution left for me.
I don’t understand him so I refuse to read his insults anymore. I’m sure he believes he is not insulting anyone, but for the life of me I can’t understand why he refuses to accept that he is when the insulted party tells him they were insulted:shrug:
Reminds me of how we tell non catholics we don’t pray to Mary and they insist we do
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I challenge you to post an insult that I hae posted. If you can’t, I expect an apology.I did that for awhile and I afraid that is the only solution left for me.
I don’t understand him so I refuse to read his insults anymore. I’m sure he believes he is not insulting anyone, but for the life of me I can’t understand why he refuses to accept that he is when the insulted party tells him they were insulted:shrug:
Reminds me of how we tell non catholics we don’t pray to Mary and they insist we do
- Status