V
vern_humphrey
Guest
And those same political policy groups want to be double-sure that no effective anti-abortion tactics are permitted.
- Status
K
KarenNC
Guest
I would be more likely to believe that children are not the “intended” audience if I saw any evidence of actions being taken to limit displaying these photos where large numbers of children are likely to see them. When one holds up signs outside the driveway to a toy store on a Saturday afternoon, it is a bit disingenuous to claim that one is not “intending” for young children to see them. Likewise for driving a tractor trailer truck around a city or flying them behind an airplane over public beaches.
You may only be familiar with their GAP program, which does indeed target campuses.
I don’t think they are the most effective tool, but I do not deny that folks have a right to use them appropriately. The public schools are not the only venue for sex education. For instance the Catholic Church is perfectly free to use them as they wish in their school system, where they provide sex education. They have the ideal captive audience and part of the reason for the existence of these schools is to provide moral education that the Church feels is lacking in public schools. However I can find no evidence that they even mention the word “abortion” before 5th grade (when children are around 11), much less use these photos at all at any age. They certainly don’t begin in preschool.
Bit of a disconnect if use of such photos is desirable or even neutral for children according to the teachings of the Catholic Church?
If that is true, then I am glad. I have seen no evidence of it locally nor had any other indication from any of the folks on any of these threads that such was the case. What I get is “more trucks, more places, get over it and tell your kid that the baby’s mommy loved it but couldn’t take care of it or didn’t have enough money and that’s why it got hurt”.
They have an awful lot of photos on their website with pictures of these trucks going down the highway. The airplane ones are terribly selective either.
abortionno.org/RCC/trucks_highway.html
abortionno.org/RCC/planes/plane_photos.html
Operation Save America has a lot of photos of these trucks parked in places such as apartment complexes, neighborhoods, in front of churches on Sunday mornings, etc.
operationrescue.org/photos/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=2845
operationrescue.org/photos/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=2613
operationrescue.org/photos/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=2536
(outside a person’s house, in a residential neighborhood)
operationrescue.org/photos/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=2408
operationrescue.org/photos/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=2368
(more residential neighborhoods)
operationrescue.org/photos/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=2276
operationrescue.org/photos/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=171
operationrescue.org/photos/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=263 (another neighborhood on a summer Sunday afternoon)
operationrescue.org/photos/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=267
operationrescue.org/photos/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=326
operationrescue.org/photos/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=326&g2_page=2
operationrescue.org/photos/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=576 (outside basketball game)
operationrescue.org/photos/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=1188 (public beach in Fl)
operationrescue.org/photos/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=1188&g2_page=2
operationrescue.org/photos/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=1771
Around here they are also fond of plastering cars in grocery store parking lots with these photos (mine was hit, even with a clearly visible child’s booster seat in the back–I was nowhere near an abortion clinic or a clinic of any kind), leaving cards with these photos on them in public restrooms or on tables at restaurants and other places, etc.
Then you are indeed fortunate.
K
KarenNC
Guest
Actually, no I don’t. I exercised my parental responsibilities to determine what my child watched at that age.
And two wrongs make a right? That others try to expose children to violence makes it okay for Christians to do so as well? Which other “but everybody else is doing it” behavior should Christians also support? My mother’s response to that sort of argument was always “if everybody else was jumping off a bridge would that make it a good idea for you to do so?”
I really thought that Christians held themselves to a bit higher standard than “what everybody else is doing.”
K
KarenNC
Guest
The actions and pictures on the websites of these groups proves you wrong, I’m afraid.
Wow, if no one in the US has been able to view these images via any means, then how do you explain that we are having this conversation, that I have given you links to numerous examples of these images, that Vern and the rest of you are claiming that this is the most effective (some try to claim only effective) means of preventing abortion? Pretty impressive for something I can’t see.
No, thank all that’s holy, I haven’t had to try to shelter my child from that. We haven’t had commercial or cable or satellite TV for years.
Let them discuss it til the cows come home. They should be discussing it. I am not talking about teens. I am talking about preschoolers.
E
Elric
Guest
So it seems that it has gotten the point where even you cant justify your own logic behind displaying graphing images to children. You cant even identify your own logic.
This isnt my logic. Im for waiting until children are ready to view graphic images and not be distressed by them and also respecting the childs parents by getting their permission before exposing the childs to such images. I said that a parent would have a far better idea of what their child is ready for than a complete stranger would.
G
gam197
Guest
They are not the intended audience. The few I have seen were done early morning as working people traveled to work - not near schools. We did have a bunch of abortion trucks during the Democratic Convention in the city but that was once in 34 years.
Near a mall that did have a toy store I saw in the movie but also in the movie there was a number of signs early on that said graphic abortion pictures ahead giving anyone time to just take another street, Your area must have a group that does this because this is not happening in NE. Maybe you should contact the group and find out when they do it?
These are just web sites. They may show a picture on a main street but it may near a clinic and it may be there for only one hour. Pictures can be deceptive. I would not look at web sites.
Throwing these pictures on cars I have never seen. Is this done on a regular basis? Again it must be your area.
Would your child be up at 11 or 12PM? Don’t worry, it will never happen but it is a nice thought that it could even be discussed in an adult climate with a picture. Why is it that abortion can not even be mentioned on a regular TV? When is the last time you have heard a talk show like Opray’s discuss it? They can discuss everything but you will never hear abortion pros or cons. Not going to happen. Hasn’t happened for 34 years.
K
KarenNC
Guest
I have described what is going on here in great detail and what Operation Save America is doing here. The warning signs are not there. They continue to sue not to have to seek permits. They are actively seeking ways to spring these images on as many people of whatever age that they possibly can. I have no reason to believe, based on my experience, their claims, the news releases on their websites from newspaper coverage of their efforts, that this is not happening elsewhere as well.
They flat do not care who sees them. That attitude should be abundantly clear to anyone who has been reading these threads.
truthtruck.com/where_we_go.php
*Where We Go
We’ve been everywhere and done everything (Well, almost!). We’ve been to hundreds of cities, large and small, all across America
We go to the busy downtown areas … to the big shopping malls … to the crowded beaches … to sporting events … we get in city parades - wherever there are lots of people - we’re there!
We’ve been to the Super Bowl … the Olympics in Salt Lake City … the Democratic Convention … the St. Patrick’s Day Parade … Mardi Gras in New Orleans … the Daytona 500 in Florida … to the biggest abortion clinics in the country … even to the big Planned Parenthood fundraisers!
You name it, we’ve done it, or will do it.*
Does it make it better that they are not doing it in your area…yet?
Perhaps your intended audience is not children. Theirs most assuredly includes them. I am not entirely sure why you seem anxious to dismiss all the evidence that points to that.
So now they not only show these pictures to small children, but they lie and deceive about what they are doing as well? And that encourages you to support them or somehow makes it better?
No, I give them the benefit of believing that they are telling the actual unfortunate truth of exactly what they are doing.
Did you actually look at the pictures I linked? The ones outside the SuperBowl? The ones in the classic car parade? The airplane shots? The trucks on the beach? On the highway? The Golden Gate Bridge? Outside the church with people coming in and out? In front of apartment complexes and in residential neighborhoods? Outside the basketball game? The video footage of the trucks on the public highways? The pictures are time and date stamped–it’s pretty easy to look at a calendar and tell when they were done and at what time of day.
For the sake of children in other areas, I hope so. Here is a sample of some of the types of business cards and things that they leave on cars, in restaurants, in public restrooms, with no possible care as to who will pick them up (they are very graphic)
antiabortionsigns.com/cardform.html
abortionno.org/Store/business_cards.html (this is the Center for BioEthical Reform)
But, again, does that make it better or right simply because it isn’t happening in your area yet? Does it negate the obligation of people who actually care about children after as well as before they are born to speak out about it? To hold up a mirror to those using this tactic and ask them if they can really justify what they see? For those who are doing this in the name of Christianity, to ask them if it is the face showing the compassion and caring for all people of the Jesus they claim to follow and whose representatives on Earth they claim to be that they see looking back or their own pride and arrogance?
As I said, it has been years since I watched commercial or cable television, so I can’t help you with what is or is not happening on television. Seems like the topic is pretty wide open on the Internet and that is more likely than Oprah to reach the 20 something year olds who are the ones most likely to seek abortions at this point based on statistics.
P
Pug
Guest
Yes, that is why I used the word “corpse” and “dismembered”. Those words communicate what is in the pictures. I see you are not suggesting it, but various voices seem to be suggesting that the problem with the pictures and children is not the pictures, but that nearby adults react to them. I want to know, are we so sure that it is a good idea not to react to them?
Are not the pictures horrific? Isn’t that the very idea of the pictures? Why do we imagine it would be helpful for parents to respond to something horrific with complete indifference? That seems almost insane to me. What, are we teaching the children that the pictures are not horrific?
Part of man’s typical problem is that his emotions do not march with his reason. I think it is okay for our emotions to respond to a horrific picture.
I first saw the pictures as a child, and no one discussed them with me. Of course, they are still burned into my head. They are quite memorable. I saw them because I was on a college campus frequently as a young child. It was not the reaction of an adult that formed how I responded to the pictures. It was just me, all by myself. I didn’t know at the time that they were pictures of an aborted baby (I didn’t know what abortion was). It wasn’t until I was in my teens and I saw the pictures again that I realized what they had been. I think the pictures can lead a child to feel less safe. As an adult, it does not have that effect so directly, at least for me.
E
Elric
Guest
This raises different questions.
Is it wrong for an adult to react to a graphic image?
Is it wrong for a parent to be upset by graphic pictures of bloodied infant corpses and want to protect their children from such graphic depictions?
Is it wrong for a parent to be upset with the person/s who are exposing their children to such graphic images?
Do adults/parents have to desensitise themselves to everything?
Is there a correct emotion/reaction when being confronted with such imagery?
Personally such images dont really bother me, but there are adults who cant handle such images. Why on earth would you expect children to, better yet why would you force children to?
You already know that some parents will react negativly to such images, parents reactions can effect children, so why put a child in that situation needlessly?
You know its bad for the child, yet you still do it anyway!!!
What about the children who get scarred by such images?
Suffer nightmares and all that sort of thing.
Nobody is attacking your cause, you have every right to fight against abortion, what is happening is that people are questioning your methods by suggesting that they are a “tad” extreme and cause “innocent casualties”.
M
mapleoak
Guest
Incorrect, sex and LIFE are intimately connected.
‘Some weight’ is a bit of an understatement.
What then a better way to protect the innocence of children than to instill in them proper morals and values from as early an age as possible.
Just one testimony from a mother who spared her child’s life after seeing a pro-life march with said images is plenty enough for a basis to make such a statement (one such mother btw happened to have another of her children with her at the time she encountered them who was in the pre-school age bracket). The preschooler could have been ‘protected’ from the image by the ‘demonstrators’ having chosen not to display them. Let’s consider the benefits: The preschooler would not be ‘marred’ for life; the mother would not have been moved to mercy; and the preschooler would likely have had a dead sister.
Your turn, show how you can support the statement that they don’t save lives.
M
mapleoak
Guest
The general public is the “intended” audience, not 2 to 4 year old children. The general public is made up of unborn babies, infants, toddlers, kids, teenagers, adults, and the elderly. Show how that displaying to the general public specifically targets ‘preschoolers’. Sadly in the general public the proportion of preschoolers to adults is very low. More signs are needed.
Nope, even these ‘groups’ are not trying to expose children them, rather accepting the fact that it will happen.
M
mapleoak
Guest
Sure they do, the more of the general public the better. This is the opposite of ‘do not care’. You’re entire argument is based on your opinion that children are harmed and doomed to misery if they should happen upon an image. Children are going to see the images when they are displayed to the general public. It would be wise of you to instruct your children on them. Your notion of when is the appropriate age to teach them is quite subjective and your opinion as well and within your parental discretion. This is especially worth consideration for you in your area, since as you mention, you have a flurry of pro-life activity always happening there (wish that were true here, but working on it
). It would be wise to instruct and teach your children before being caught be surprise from a wayward image.Now, have YOUR preschoolers ever seen one of these images? How are they coping? Surely they must have seen one. If not, then you are doing a pretty good job of determining what your child sees or doesn’t see with all that activity going on. Were you ever forced to explain an image to your preschooler? How did that go? Are they marred for life?
The general public includes the unborn, infants, toddlers,…, and the elderly. Preschoolers are not specifically singled out and intended, only tolerated, as if it was bad for them.
M
mapleoak
Guest
Karen, you seem to lack understanding of the definition of the word ‘intention’. Most of us who are displaying these signs are not out there trying to see how many four year olds we can persuade (lack of intention, by definition). We are looking to influence the broader extent of the general public (intent).
M
MichaelTDoyle
Guest
Pictures of the ultrasounds of healthy babies with just the age of the baby would be more helpful as a public picture I think. I do oppose public violent imagery.
I occassionally pray in a Rosary group outside a clinic on some
Saturdays. Some of the people have signs that say abortion kills and some have signs f a baby (just a regular baby) that say abortion kills. I think that’s okay. Not graphic violence.
I would object to violent imagery. As Christians I think we should be peacemakers and oppose with charity. The inherit evil in abortion needs to be exposed in a responsible fashion, not as something that damages the innocence we strive to defend.
Truly, we are striving against something evil, so we should pray to not be influenced by the extreme, extreme evil of abortion.
I occassionally pray in a Rosary group outside a clinic on some
Saturdays. Some of the people have signs that say abortion kills and some have signs f a baby (just a regular baby) that say abortion kills. I think that’s okay. Not graphic violence.
I would object to violent imagery. As Christians I think we should be peacemakers and oppose with charity. The inherit evil in abortion needs to be exposed in a responsible fashion, not as something that damages the innocence we strive to defend.
Truly, we are striving against something evil, so we should pray to not be influenced by the extreme, extreme evil of abortion.
P
Pug
Guest
Your post suggests to me that perhaps you misinterpret my stance. I am Catholic (pro-life), but I do not share Vern’s views. I am more in the other camp. Myself, I would *not *use pictures of that type on a sign outside a toy store entrance or in front of a grade school. I would be only slightly more inclined to use them when talking with an adult one-on-one, with no children in sight. I would not give the images to a small child. I wouldn’t show a small child pictures of martyred Christians with their heads on pikes, or piles of naked people in a trench either.
I don’t think there is one “correct” emotion upon viewing the pictures. Some will respond one way, some another. It is likely like a death in the family. Sometimes the bereaved seem cold, sometimes very sad. There will be a range of response across a single family. I’m not saying that it is fundamentally not okay to respond as you, Elric, do. It is okay to be as you are. That is not what I had in mind.
I am thinking about children and safety. I think while young it is very beneficial for the child to feel secure. I expressly mentioned safely for that reason in my post. If I were a parent and out with my small child, I don’t think I’d want to respond with fear, or perhaps even with anger towards the protesters, especially since I think parental responses of that sort impact how a child feels safe or not. I was wondering, though, if concealing a natural response of sorrow at the pictures, for example, would be a bad idea. I don’t think modeling natural sorrow is a safety issue, so perhaps the best thing would be to not conceal it from the child? There are two levels of response here (at least). The response to the image in itself, and the response to the actions of the protesters.
Hope my thinking is marginally better expressed now. I’m never very clear.
E
Elric
Guest
That is strange.
I thought the only way to have an abortion was to be pregnant in the first place, which would mean that sex most probably was part of the process. I say “most probably” because there is artifical incemination, but I dont think that people who go through that process would opt for an abortion. But you never know.
So sex and abortion would be intimately connected, although that does not suggest that it is a positive connection.
At times it doesnt seem that way.
Yes, but there are ways to do that without resorting to exposing them to graphic images of bloodied/dismembered corpses. Resorting to such measures can show a distinct lack of imagination and a lack of respect for other people.
Is that something that you want to teach your kids?
E
Elric
Guest
Sorry mate.Your post suggests to me that perhaps you misinterpret my stance. I am Catholic (pro-life), but I do not share Vern’s views. I am more in the other camp. Myself, I would *not *use pictures of that type on a sign outside a toy store entrance or in front of a grade school. I would be only slightly more inclined to use them when talking with an adult one-on-one, with no children in sight. I would not give the images to a small child. I wouldn’t show a small child pictures of martyred Christians with their heads on pikes, or piles of naked people in a trench either.
I don’t think there is one “correct” emotion upon viewing the pictures. Some will respond one way, some another. It is likely like a death in the family. Sometimes the bereaved seem cold, sometimes very sad. There will be a range of response across a single family. I’m not saying that it is fundamentally not okay to respond as you, Elric, do. It is okay to be as you are. That is not what I had in mind.
I am thinking about children and safety. I think while young it is very beneficial for the child to feel secure. I expressly mentioned safely for that reason in my post. If I were a parent and out with my small child, I don’t think I’d want to respond with fear, or perhaps even with anger towards the protesters, especially since I think parental responses of that sort impact how a child feels safe or not. I was wondering, though, if concealing a natural response of sorrow at the pictures, for example, would be a bad idea. I don’t think modeling natural sorrow is a safety issue, so perhaps the best thing would be to not conceal it from the child? There are two levels of response here (at least). The response to the image in itself, and the response to the actions of the protesters.
Hope my thinking is marginally better expressed now. I’m never very clear.
I didnt mean to give that impression.
I thought that you raised some valid points about adult reaction, I guess that I was trying to expand on them.
M
mapleoak
Guest
Correct, one must be pregnant to have an abortion. However sex doesn’t result in abortion and there is no intimate connection. Sex results in life. Abortion results in death and is an entirely separate process. To say that abortion is intimately related to sex is the same as infanticide being intimately related, and homicide being intimately related.
Sex is not a part of the process of abortion. Abortion is the ending of LIFE which is through the process of procreation.
No connection at all.
Resorting to such measures does not show a lack of imagination and nor a lack of respect for other people.
K
KarenNC
Guest
Without sex, no baby, with no baby, no abortion. Pretty initmately connected to me.
The understatement was intentional.
No problem with that. I and every other parent work on that daily. What I am arguing about is the choice of methods you are defending as a means to accomplish that goal. There are those who would advocate daily beatings as a way to “instill proper morals and values” but they are wrong in their choice of methods as well.
A well publicized march is not the same as outside the driveway to a toy store on a Saturday afternoon with no way to turn off ahead of time and no warning. Using them in a well-publicized march is an example of the protesters having made reasonable efforts to alert folks that there is the possibility of such images and given them a reasonable chance to avoid such. I may not like it, but I cannot argue that it is an appropriate and reasonable use of such images and that it is an example of intending to only show them to the appropriate audience. Will there be inevitably a few accidental exposures—sure. No one is asking for perfection or miracles, just reasonable and common sense precautions that show good faith efforts.
Yes, in that case, I believe you can reasonably make the argument that the young child was not the intended audience just as the theater showing the R rated movie can say that they did not intend their audience to be preschoolers even if a parent chooses to bring their young child.
K
KarenNC
Guest
The general public is the “intended” audience,
**The general public is made up of unborn babies, infants, toddlers, kids, teenagers, adults, and the elderly. **
So kids are part of the intended audience—thanks.
Really curious as to how you expect these signs to be effective in communicating to unborn babies that they shouldn’t seek an abortion.
And that is a sorrowful thing.
- Status