Avoid Raising a Serial Killer

[mapleoak]

The “truth” that comes out is rather that you are not willing to see groups who are protesting other acts you consider intrinisically disordered and just as detrimental to society use exactly the same methods for exactly the same reasons that you are advocating for your cause.

The one is not dependent on the other. Support your reasons for why you say we don’t have the right to display our photos to the general public on something other than “well if you don’t have the right to this then you also don’t have the right to that”.

If you are going to believably argue that the First Amendment gives you the right to protest in a given way, then you must also allow that it gives everyone else the right to protest for their cause in the same way, whether you like it or not.

You can protest abortion in whatever way you feel comfortable with. As can we.

 

[jmcrae]

The one is not dependent on the other. Support your reasons for why you say we don’t have the right to display our photos to the general public on something other than “well if you don’t have the right to this then you also don’t have the right to that”.

For me, the most important reason is that violent images have one of two effects (after the throwing-up and fainting effect): either they make people angry, or they cause them to become desensitized, because you can’t spend your whole life throwing up, having nightmares, and fainting - you have to develop a hardened shell in order to deal with the images.

Young children don’t react to the images because they can’t read them very well - it’s just a lot of yellow and red blobbiness, to their eyes - they aren’t seeing dead people, because they have no reference for what a dead person might look like. But once they get a bit older and start to pick out what the image is about, and figure out how to read it, then they have the nightmares, the fainting, and the throwing up - and guess who has to deal with that? (The parents.)

It’s not necessary, and it could be counter-productive, to show children images of dead babies, because the end effect is that either they will get used to the images and become desensitized (so what, another dead baby), or else they will become angry at the people who are showing the images to them and causing them to become ill.

Violent images and pornography are similar in that viewing them has a physical effect on the body.

 

[Elric]

That is not what I got out of it.

That is pretty obvious. But she still has made it clear.

Why is that. It has been noted ad nauseam that it is the parents reactions to such photos that harm their children, not the photos themselves.

And it has been noted that is complete garbage.

The article that started this thread isnt even about exposing children to graphic images, it doesnt mention them. It is about fictional images that the child drew themselves.

Truth be told, it isnt even relevent to this thread.

So we need her agreement and approval to excercise our constitutional right to display these photos?

That is just a silly thing to say.

Okay then, it is judged to be socially appropriate.

Yeah right.

Hmm, wonder how the off-topic of pornography came into the mix?

Because we are discussing graphic images, so the question has to be raised about other graphic images. Its not actually off topic.

 

[Pug]

Young children don’t react to the images because they can’t read them very well - it’s just a lot of yellow and red blobbiness, to their eyes - they aren’t seeing dead people, because they have no reference for what a dead person might look like. But once they get a bit older and start to pick out what the image is about, and figure out how to read it, then they have the nightmares

When I was a child, I sensed this great divide between children and adults. For this reason, I think if a child sees the picture and is old enough to grasp that it is a dead person, they may also notice that it is a child like them and not like the adults. This was scary to me when I first saw the pictures, as far as I remember (I was a child). Clearly something bad had happened to the child and thus could also happen to me. Because I did not know what had happened to the child, I expect this increased the fear. It was some unexpected, unknown, child-specific quantity, and hence to be feared. For example, I was very much afraid of being snatched.

I imagine this could cause some kids to have nightmares. I think that a good parental explanation right when the child is exposed could mitigate any such effect. I didn’t tell my parents that I had seen it, though.

 

[KarenNC]

I’m not omniscience, nor do I claim to be. But you sure do a good side step to avoid the issue of importance. You may be appalled by the images and outraged about them, but there is an outrage that cries out to heaven that needs to be addressed. I know in other threads you you have taken “I’m against abortion but we need to keep it legal in order for it to be safe” stance. So what am I to believe? With a stance like that it appears you are against abortion and you are concerned about the welfare of women, but if you slip off that fence, you may wind up getting impaled. If not you then the millions of babies and the million of women that have and will because of people riding the fence.

Bennie, refusing to get into a “mine’s bigger than yours” contest over social activism is not “a side step to avoid the issue of importance.” It is a refusal to be drawn into irrelevant games. Vern’s tried that with me before.

You are assuming a pretty big “if” there. How about believing that I mean what I say and that I have good reasons for saying it as a starter?

I have said in other threads the following about abortion:

Abortion is in any and every case the ending of a human life and is without exception a tragic thing.

Maternal deaths from abortion are fewer when abortion is legal than when it is illegal. This is a statistically proven fact and irrelevant to whether I support abortion for choice or not. I see no reason to pretend otherwise. I would rather work to reduce the demand (and demand is at its lowest in the US since the mid 1970s–has been dropping for decades) than force it underground. Yes, I have indeed said that if a woman is going to have an abortion, I do believe that it is preferable that she have the safest one possible. I see no moral high ground in desiring otherwise.

I do not believe in abortion for the sake of convenience, sex selection, etc.

I believe that no one should engage in sexual activity unless and until they are 1) adults in a committed relationship and 2) both are prepared, emotionally and financially, to accept all possible outcomes of such activity. I do indeed support the use of birth control (including natural family planning) but also stress that almost no method of birth control is foolproof even if one uses it optimally (sterilization is pretty much a guarantee if you get the appropriate follow up tests). The most common theme among women choosing abortion is that this is an unwanted pregnancy. Reducing the incidence of unwanted pregnancy before it happens seems to me an eminently practical step toward reducing the number of abortions.

Some of the other reasons often given worldwide are poverty and domestic problems, including abuse. Working to alleviate these problems also seems an eminently practical way to work toward reducing the number of abortions.

I do not believe that there should be a blanket ban on abortion. I see no reason to ban procedures that the Catholic Church terms “direct” abortion in the case of ectopic pregnancy. I see no reason to tie physicians’ hands in terms of procedures and force them to use methods that are more invasive and potentially more dangerous and damaging to the mother than need be when the mother’s life is threatened and the baby is non-viable just to dance euphemistically around the fact that there is no way out of the situation but to end the life of the baby. I am not qualified to determine any and all circumstances under which a mother’s life might be threatened by a pregnancy. Physicians should be free to use the procedue that does the least harm possible in a tragic situation. To me to do otherwise is simply empty lip service to the ideal of sanctity of life. This does not mean that I do not believe that all reasonable measures should be taken to help the baby survive even if it is very premature. I spent many years working with babies who were at risk for or had developmental disabilities of various kinds and with adults with severe and profound mental and physical disabilities. I understand both the value and the challenges of the lives of such children.

Does that clear things up for you? No, my position is not 100% in line with that of the Catholic Church, but as I am not Catholic and have never pretended to be, that surely should not come as a shocker to anyone.

Can we get back to the discussion at hand now?

 

[KarenNC]

When I was a child, I sensed this great divide between children and adults. For this reason, I think if a child sees the picture and is old enough to grasp that it is a dead person, they may also notice that it is a child like them and not like the adults. This was scary to me when I first saw the pictures, as far as I remember (I was a child). Clearly something bad had happened to the child and thus could also happen to me. Because I did not know what had happened to the child, I expect this increased the fear. It was some unexpected, unknown, child-specific quantity, and hence to be feared. For example, I was very much afraid of being snatched.

I imagine this could cause some kids to have nightmares. I think that a good parental explanation right when the child is exposed could mitigate any such effect. I didn’t tell my parents that I had seen it, though.

You are right on target. This is something that a lot of folks advocating for the indiscriminate use of these pictures don’t seem to understand. I was actually advised on another thread on this topic that a desirable way to answer a child’s question of “who hurt that baby?” was to tell the child that the child’s mommy loved it, but couldn’t take care of it because she didn’t have enough money, but “don’t worry, nothing will happen to you because I love you.” Exactly what do you think that child is going to remember the next time he hears his parents talking about not being able to afford something? Yes, his mother loves him, but that baby’s mother loved that baby too and it ended up covered in blood with it’s head and legs and arms chopped off because she didn’t have enough money.

 

[KarenNC]

Young children don’t react to the images because they can’t read them very well - it’s just a lot of yellow and red blobbiness, to their eyes - they aren’t seeing dead people, because they have no reference for what a dead person might look like. But once they get a bit older and start to pick out what the image is about, and figure out how to read it, then they have the nightmares, the fainting, and the throwing up - and guess who has to deal with that? (The parents.)

It depends on the age of the child and the nature of the picture.

Take a look at the following (warning, very graphic):
smallvictoriesusa.com/images/News/2004/PromiseKeepersStl04/Baby%20Malachi%20confronts%20Promise%20Keepers.jpg

I don’t know any 2-6 year olds of my acquaintance who would have any trouble identifying that that is a baby and that that is hurt pretty badly, particularly if they had several minutes of staring at it at eye level while strapped into a car seat in slow traffic.

 

[Pug]

I was actually advised on another thread on this topic that a desirable way to answer a child’s question of “who hurt that baby?” was to tell the child that the child’s mommy loved it, but couldn’t take care of it because she didn’t have enough money, but “don’t worry, nothing will happen to you because I love you.” Exactly what do you think that child is going to remember the next time he hears his parents talking about not being able to afford something? Yes, his mother loves him, but that baby’s mother loved that baby too and it ended up covered in blood with it’s head and legs and arms chopped off because she didn’t have enough money.

Children often don’t take away the lesson intended by the adult. Perhaps, though, this problem is less likely if the child had a very consistent, secure infancy? I don’t know what would make it more or less likely for kids to think in the manner you describe. Maybe with some kids, it would be unlikely that the average parent would come up with the perfect words. I guess I’m wondering, do all kids think as you described? I know I did, and those words would not have been reassuring to me, but that is not what determines it, obviously.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Thump uch:

And the truth finally comes out. You do want it censored and illegal.

What did I tell you?

 

[vern_humphrey]

It depends on the age of the child and the nature of the picture.

No, it depends on the reaction and parenting skill of the adult.

 

[estesbob]

Bennie, refusing to get into a “mine’s bigger than yours” contest over social activism is not “a side step to avoid the issue of importance.” It is a refusal to be drawn into irrelevant games. Vern’s tried that with me before.

?

Translation :" I dont do anything to try and limit abortion but that is not going to stop me from lecturing those who do how it should be done."

 

[mapleoak]

What did I tell you?

No, I realized that long before from the discussions a few weeks ago. But, self admission is hard to top.

 

[jmcrae]

No, I realized that long before from the discussions a few weeks ago. But, self admission is hard to top.

Why are you guys so intent on flaunting and parading dead bodies and pictures of dead bodies?

Isn’t there a law in the Catholic faith that we are supposed to respect the bodies of the dead? It’s a work of mercy to bury the dead - presumably so that their bodies are kept out of view, and their privacy is respected.

I have often demonstrated for pro-life and am planning to do so again this Sunday, but our group has never felt the need of these kinds of tactics.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Why are you guys so intent on flaunting and parading dead bodies and pictures of dead bodies?

When you use value-loaded words like “flaunting” and “parading” you aren’t looking for an answer, you know.

Some (but not all of us) are involved in a ministry which involves the use of these images – they are after all, merely the image of the horrors performed in abortion clinics. Others, who pursue their ministry differently, defend the rights of those persons to use those images to affectively educate the public on the horrors of abortion.

Isn’t there a law in the Catholic faith that we are supposed to respect the bodies of the dead? It’s a work of mercy to bury the dead - presumably so that their bodies are kept out of view, and their privacy is respected.

Ah, first of all, we are supposed to respect and protect the living. Yet around 48 million children have been killed by abortion. That’s why it’s so important to bring home this ghastly crime for what it really is.

Secondly, they are only pictures – it isn’t the actual dead body that’s on display.

I have often demonstrated for pro-life and am planning to do so again this Sunday, but our group has never felt the need of these kinds of tactics.

If it isn’t needed, then why are we still having abortions in this country? Clearly, we have to do more than simply demonstrate.

 

[KarenNC]

Translation :" I dont do anything to try and limit abortion but that is not going to stop me from lecturing those who do how it should be done."

Your track record for accuracy at translating posts on this thread speaks for itself.

If you are proposing some particular “point system” for participation it would help all of us if you will kindly share your criteria with us. Interestingly, I note that no-one who agrees with you is asked to provide a resume before being deemed worthy to express their views.

 

[jmcrae]

Some (but not all of us) are involved in a ministry which involves the use of these images – they are after all, merely the image of the horrors performed in abortion clinics.

Others, who pursue their ministry differently, defend the rights of those persons to use those images to affectively educate the public on the horrors of abortion.

If it’s intended to be affective (emotionally based), don’t you think there’s a better way to accomplish that particular goal more efficiently? The emotional response that is being elicited is revulsion and hatred (which I assume is what is intended) which is then being directed to the nearest target - the pro-lifer who is holding up the image.

You then have to move to a “step two” where you try to redirect the anger to a more distant target - and with affective advertising, as soon as you move out of the emotional realm and try to get the target to become rational (after having just made him angry) the chances of failure are pretty high.

The disconnect is when you get the strong emotional response you intended, and then get upset that the targets aren’t responding rationally.

Secondly, they are only pictures – it isn’t the actual dead body that’s on display.

I’ve heard that phrase “it’s only pictures; not the actual thing” before, somewhere …

If it isn’t needed, then why are we still having abortions in this country? Clearly, we have to do more than simply demonstrate.

Education is needed. Affective education is important, but it’s got to be handled wisely.

The kind of affective education that works really well is when we show clean, healthy images of the developing fetus, and then personalize it by saying “This is what you looked like when you were in the womb.”

Girls exposed to this kind of early training very seldom ever choose to abort their babies, if they get pregnant out of wedlock.

 

[gam197]

originally posted by** jmcrae**
The kind of affective education that works really well is when we show clean, healthy images of the developing fetus, and then personalize it by saying “This is what you looked like when you were in the womb.”

Joe Scheilder started using the aborted baby images in 2000. About 20 years before that the images of babies in the womb were used. They were very good images of a 6 week old, a 12 week old a 16 week old,etc. in utero plus the healthy, happy beautiful baby pictures. These were held at or near clinics for many years and were seen as very effective.

Now after 34 years of abortion, you want to revert back to the pictures that were originally used in the beginning. You now believe these images will cause a major change of heart???

 

[jmcrae]

Joe Scheilder started using the aborted baby images in 2000. About 20 years before that the images of babies in the womb were used. They were very good images of a 6 week old, a 12 week old a 16 week old in utero plus the healthy, happy beautiful baby pictures. These were held at or near clinics for many years and really were not effective.

Now after 34 years of abortion, you want to revert back to the pictures that were originally used in the beginning. You now believe these images will cause a major change of heart???

I don’t think any pictures at all should be used in street protests. Short slogans are best for that.

I hope you are not relying entirely on street protesting for your community education, are you?

You also have to get into the schools and into the Sunday School classrooms - that’s where you’ll make the most difference.

This is where you do your Psalm 139 life chat, using images of healthy fetuses to show the children what God is talking about in that Psalm. You can do it as a handout that goes with a short reading and talk, or as a PowerPoint presentation - either way is very effective.

(I normally do the handout - most of the places I go to aren’t set up for PowerPoint. I’ve done the PowerPoint once, in a church basement, and we had a really good response to that, as well.)

 

[gam197]

originally posted by** jmcrae**
You also have to get into the schools and into the Sunday School classrooms - that’s where you’ll make the most difference

Just how does one get into these Sunday schools. I asked probably 15 years ago if we could do something even for the older 8th and 9th graders in my Sunday school classes and was told NO. Parents would object. Sunday schools are not open to this. It has been 34 years and it hasn’t happened yet.

Many of the clinics still have nice displays of healthy pre-born babies.

 

[mapleoak]

If it’s intended to be affective (emotionally based), don’t you think there’s a better way to accomplish that particular goal more efficiently?

No it is not intended to induce an emotional response, but to inform the ignorant of the reality of what abortion is.

The emotional response that is being elicited is revulsion and hatred (which I assume is what is intended)

Your assumptions are wrong then. Further how about supporting that revulsion and hatred is an emotional response that is elicited from anyone other than an already staunch pro-abort who knows full well what abortion is.

which is then being directed to the nearest target - the pro-lifer who is holding up the image.

That is typical behavior of staunch pro-abort folk.

You then have to move to a “step two” where you try to redirect the anger to a more distant target - and with affective advertising, as soon as you move out of the emotional realm and try to get the target to become rational (after having just made him angry) the chances of failure are pretty high.

Illogical to say the least.

The disconnect is when you get the strong emotional response you intended, and then get upset that the targets aren’t responding rationally.

Based again on your initial faulty assumption. Staunch pro-aborts, agreed, will likely not be moved in any way by signs or any other pro-life activity for that matter. There are rare exceptions though.

Education is needed. Affective education is important, but it’s got to be handled wisely.

Don’t want to offend any staunch pro-aborts, lets make sure.

The kind of affective education that works really well is when we show clean, healthy images of the developing fetus, and then personalize it by saying “This is what you looked like when you were in the womb.”

Based on what do you say one method works and the other dosen’t?

Girls exposed to this kind of early training very seldom ever choose to abort their babies, if they get pregnant out of wedlock.

As with those who have been exposed to photos of aborted children.