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

[mapleoak]

Why does that matter? Because there’s nothing the pro-choice crowd would love better than to dismiss the lot of us as a bunch of fanatics as in: "Why is that baby all cut up Mommy?..“Because some weird people want to scare you honey, but it’s okay, I’m here, just never listen to anything they tell you.”

You see, the militant pro-choice crowd likely knows full well what happens during an abortion. The signs are intended for those who are pro-choice through ignorance.

 

[seekerz]

You see, the militant pro-choice crowd likely knows full well what happens during an abortion. The signs are intended for those who are pro-choice through ignorance.

Do you seriously believe that a mother who is “pro-choice through ignorance” would react any differently to her 5yr old being exposed to graphic photos? The fact is, most mothers (pro-life or pro-choice) would not like that for their young children? So my question still remains: why not leave the children out of it?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Do you seriously believe that a mother who is “pro-choice through ignorance” would react any differently to her 5yr old being exposed to graphic photos? The fact is, most mothers (pro-life or pro-choice) would not like that for their young children? So my question still remains: why not leave the children out of it?

Who brought the children into it? Those people who shriek that it’s all about me, my rights, and so on.

Children can handle things like this – it’s the parents and their reaction that does the damage, it any damage is done.

 

[KarenNC]

Who brought the children into it?

That would be the original poster:
My biggest reservation about this is that families with young children will also see these extremely graphic pictures. Overall, I’m not sure whether or not this is an appropriate means of protest. What does everybody else think?

 

[vern_humphrey]

That would be the original poster:
My biggest reservation about this is that families with young children will also see these extremely graphic pictures. Overall, I’m not sure whether or not this is an appropriate means of protest. What does everybody else think?

In other words, those critical of the pictures. That post carries the built-in, but never proven, assumption that the pictures somehow “harm” children.

 

[seekerz]

In other words, those critical of the pictures. That post carries the built-in, but never proven, assumption that the pictures somehow “harm” children.

The OP seemed to be asking whether others thought they were harmful to children or not. Even if he/she was making an assumption, what’s the harm in expressing an opinion?

It is your “never proven, assumption that the pictures somehow” do not “harm” children. Some would tend to disagree. That 's why forums exist, to discuss our views of the issues. Presentation of irrefutable evidence to back up an opinion may be helpful, but is not absolutely necessary - it is, after all, just an opinion.

Incidentally, what proof is there to back up any of the common courtesies we extend to people around us everyday? Why is proof needed to extend a simple courtesy to the most vulnerable (young kids, the mentally ill etc) among us?

 

[sprout]

according to some of the posters on this forum the following group “cares more about feelings than butchering babies”

Join Us At The Foot of The Cross

Procession from Our Lady of the Rosary church to Planned Parenthood Abortion Mill on First Avenue- Saturday September 8th

On the Feast of the Nativity of Our Blessed Mother and the 100th aniversary of Saint Pius X encyclical Pascendi , which condemned Modernisim " the synthesis of all heresies", we will have a procession to Planned Parenthood. Father Joseph from Our Lady of The Rosary will join us as we process with a full size image of Our Lady of Guadalupe to the abortion mill. We will begin with a Mass at Our Lady of the Rosary at 7:30 am. If you can join us please see the details and format below. If you can not join us in person please pray that we are able to convert the hearts of the mothers , fathers and staff at this mill.

We begin at 7:30am for Mass at Our Lady of the Rosary, State and Date Streets downtown. We will fast from talking during our procession as we line up in front of the church immediately after Mass. Luis will lead with the Missionary Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe and we will use walkie talkies so everyone can follow in prayers as we begin the Joyful Mysteries. We will walk six blocks (ten minutes) to the abortion center. There we will continue with the Sorrowful and Glorious Rosary Mysteries interspersed with appropriate hymns. Next we will pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet followed by two minutes of silent prayer for Mercy, on our knees if possible. This is extremely moving and powerful!! After that we process back to the church praying the Luminous Mysteries which we will finish upon arriving there. We should return to the church by 9:30am, still maintaining silence until we finish the prayers of the Holy Rosary.

We will carry no signs and there will be no graphic abortion pictures. A sidewalk counselor will be present to speak to the women going in. Please maintain a peaceful and prayerful attitude during the vigil as we bring Jesus to these mothers and fathers.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It is your “never proven, assumption that the pictures somehow” do not “harm” children. Some would tend to disagree. That 's why forums exist, to discuss our views of the issues. Presentation of irrefutable evidence to back up an opinion may be helpful, but is not absolutely necessary - it is, after all, just an opinion.

“Some would disagree” matches “never proven” to a Tee.

Incidentally, what proof is there to back up any of the common courtesies we extend to people around us everyday? Why is proof needed to extend a simple courtesy to the most vulnerable (young kids, the mentally ill etc) among us?

That’s a smokescreen. You don’t mean “simple courtesy.” You mean “do what I want” no matter how it detracts from saving children.

 

[sprout]

QUOTE=PLAL
It was not a difficult question. Most of the hits on this thread have been complaining about Pro-Lifers taking action.

No, they’re complaining about people indiscriminately & haphazardly showing pictures, posters, and large graphic images of the mutilated corpses of aborted babies to young children.

QUOTE=PLAL
Yet I have not seen hardly anything from those complaining about the pictures doing any kind of action to stop abortion.

Huh? are you blind? can you read? look 2 posts above in this same thread to #473 for just one example. Then look just 2 posts above this one #485 re: Join Us At The Foot of The Cross.

 

[seekerz]

“Some would disagree” matches “never proven” to a Tee.

That’s a smokescreen. You don’t mean “simple courtesy.” You mean “do what I want” no matter how it detracts from saving children.

Vern, oh Vern. Is that a crystal ball you’re gazing into? How about allowing me the courtesy of expressing the meaning of my own words rather than deliberately misinterpreting my statements?

It is a weak argument that needs to be bolstered by such tactics.

BTW, “do what I want” seems to aptly describe the activism on your side of the argument! “I’m saving babies, so step aside and be quiet while I do what I want.” You know what, nothing justifies the “do what I want” mentality.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, oh Vern. Is that a crystal ball you’re gazing into? How about allowing me the courtesy of expressing the meaning of my own words rather than deliberately misinterpreting my statements?

Okay. Simple courtesy would be to stop attacking those working to end abortion by inventing all sorts of reasons why they’re wrong.

It is a weak argument that needs to be bolstered by such tactics.

My point exactly – all the discussion of “the children” is simply an attempt to bolster a weak argument

BTW, “do what I want” seems to aptly describe the activism on your side of the argument! “I’m saving babies, so step aside and be quiet while I do what I want.” You know what, nothing justifies the “do what I want” mentality.

And no one is trying to make you do what they want. They are simply asking that you stop attacking them for doing what they find most effective.

 

[seekerz]

Okay. Simple courtesy would be to stop attacking those working to end abortion by inventing all sorts of reasons why they’re wrong.

My point exactly – all the discussion of “the children” is simply an attempt to bolster a weak argument

And no one is trying to make you do what they want. They are simply asking that you stop attacking them for doing what they find most effective.

Oooh…it’s an attack, by scary green posters with slimy keyboards who dare to have a different opinion and have the audacity to actually post their opinions where others can read…shiver, shiver, shake, shake, shake…somebody heeellllp…It’s an attaaack…they’re actually using their heads and thinking…I can’t staaand it…

Edit: Ok, I admit that was childish, but so difficult to resist doing…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Oooh…it’s an attack, by scary green posters with slimy keyboards who dare to have a different opinion and have the audacity to actually post their opinions where others can read…shiver, shiver, shake, shake, shake…somebody heeellllp…It’s an attaaack…they’re actually using their heads and thinking…I can’t staaand it…

Edit: Ok, I admit that was childish, but so difficult to resist doing…

And completely in character as well as representative of the rest of the posts attacking those who use the pictures.

Note how an earlier post included a notice of an pro-life demonstration which included “We will carry no signs and there will be no graphic abortion pictures.”

Did you see anyone here attack that notice? No, you did not. We welcome other workers in the vinyard, and let them do as they are moved to do. Let each help as they see fit.

We do not attack our fellow workers.

 

[seekerz]

We do not attack our fellow workers.

Truest word you’ve said on this thread. Nobody is attacking anybody, people are expressing their opinions and you insist on terming that an attack. How many times have you used the word “attack” on this thread? Enough already - this is simply an appropriate (and unstoppable) exercise of free speech.

Some people, me included think the showing of graphic abortion photos to kids in unjustified and offends their innocence. That’s a belief, not an attack by any standard dictionary definition.

Terming the expression of views ‘attacks’ is like yelling “fire” where there is none - irresponsible.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Truest word you’ve said on this thread. Nobody is attacking anybody, people are expressing their opinions and you insist on terming that an attack. How many times have you used the word “attack” on this thread?

About as many times as you’ve attacked someone.

Enough already - this is simply an appropriate (and unstoppable) exercise of free speech.

Yes – the use of graphic images of aborted children is simply an appropriate (and unstoppable) exercise of free speech.

Some people, me included think the showing of graphic abortion photos to kids in unjustified and offends their innocence. That’s a belief, not an attack by any standard dictionary definition.

The use of graphic abortion images is simply an appropriate (and unstoppable) exercise of free speech.

And your unjustified condemnation of the people who use them in the fight for life is an attack.

Terming the expression of views ‘attacks’ is like yelling “fire” where there is none - irresponsible.

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?

Would you say that’s not an attack?

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!

How about this?

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.

Or this, pretending pro-lifers are preying on the victims of gang rape?

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…”

Or this made-up scenario, pretending pro-lifers victimize young children?

Oooh…it’s an attack, by scary green posters with slimy keyboards who dare to have a different opinion and have the audacity to actually post their opinions where others can read…shiver, shiver, shake, shake, shake…somebody heeellllp…It’s an attaaack…they’re actually using their heads and thinking…I can’t staaand it…

Or this childish attack?

 

[KarenNC]

Yes – the use of graphic images of aborted children is simply an appropriate (and unstoppable) exercise of free speech.

Vern, the point is that free speech is not absolute. “Free speech” does not equal the freedom to say anything at any time about any subject in any manner to any audience just because you want to. There are multitudes of examples of this fact in all facets of our society.

NO ONE has said NEVER use these images. Most folks that I have read (including me) have actually taken pains to say that there are certainly very appropriate uses of them.

The question IS NOT “should these images NEVER be used?” The question is “are there instances in which using them indiscriminately regardless of the known audience is not appropriate?” The answer is “yes, the use of them indiscriminately around young children is inappropriate.”

 

[seekerz]

And your unjustified condemnation of the people who use them in the fight for life is an attack.

Nobody condemned anybody. Certain actions were criticized and one may even say, condemned. No person/group of persons were condemned as far as I can tell.

Show me one post, just one, where I condemned a person/group rather than speak against their actions. You can’t because it simply isn’t true.

Playing victim can’t make the rest of us attackers no matter how hard you try.

We are simply speaking against actions that we find distasteful, if you disagree say so. Condemn the thoughts expressed if you like, not the speakers - there is a difference, you know.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, the point is that free speech is not absolute. “Free speech” does not equal the freedom to say anything at any time about any subject in any manner to any audience just because you want to. There are multitudes of examples of this fact in all facets of our society

The point is, you don’t decide for the rest of us what is and what is not free speech.

Those who use those images have a right to use them, all the attacks and made up scenarios notwithstanding.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Nobody condemned anybody. Certain actions were criticized and one may even say, condemned. No person/group of persons were condemned as far as I can tell.

Show me one post, just one, where I condemned a person/group rather than speak against their actions. You can’t because it simply isn’t true.

Here’s the most recent example of an infantile attack:

Oooh…it’s an attack, by scary green posters with slimy keyboards who dare to have a different opinion and have the audacity to actually post their opinions where others can read…shiver, shiver, shake, shake, shake…somebody heeellllp…It’s an attaaack…they’re actually using their heads and thinking…I can’t staaand it…

 

[seekerz]

Here’s the most recent example of an infantile attack:

I asked for an attack on a person you gave an example of the use of humor to poke fun at the mentality that says: anyone who disagrees with my point of view is an attacker.

I have never attacked the people who exhibit graphic images to children, I just voiced my disagreement with their actions.

Move on Vern, this is a discussion - not a war and I’m not the enemy.