Avoid Raising a Serial Killer

[mapleoak]

“A man I reject”----would that be Jesus or the Pope? I am presuming the Pope, because most Christians I know refer to Jesus as God, not as “a man.”

If you are going to try and tell Catholics what their faith says, I would suggest having a proper understanding of the Church’s teachings. In the example above, it is totally incorrect to say the Jesus is God and not man, or that Jesus is man and not God. Catholics believe that Jesus is both God and man (a human nature and a Divine nature) and I would suggest looking into the Church’s teachings a bit more before using these kinds of arguments. You are not Catholic and are trying to tell Catholics whether they are following the Catholic Church correctly. Comical.

 

[mapleoak]

Why? Why should they have less of a right to freedom of expression than you are claiming for yourself and your movement? On what basis would you censor them?

This is really a whole other topic, but I quickly commented since you want so bad to make a correlation between the two topics. Basis for censor - indecency leading to degredation and the further loss of morality in society. Pornography fits that description, graphic abortion photos do not.

 

[mapleoak]

In addition to your comments about not seeing the real death, I would like to add a thought. Maybe whether in images or in real life, seeing the living become the dead is different somehow from just seeing the dead. When a woman goes to have an abortion, I doubt the process shows her the living and then the dead. Probably this is not highlighted.

Just imagine, an ultrasound showing the baby sucking its thumb and its heart beating. Afterwords, a photo of that same baby mangled after being killed. This should be pushed for to be required to be shown to mothers as part of properly being able to give informed consent.

 

[mapleoak]

As I am not a member of this group, nor will ever be because of their choice of tactics, I have no way of knowing if they send out press releases or not, whether they send them out effectively or not if they do, etc.

Better make sure there are effective press releases and give adequate ‘warning’ or we are not allowed to make the grisly reality of abortion known.

The lack of such notices in the media does not prove a bias on the part of the news agencies or a conspiracy “not to promote the pro-life movement,” it only proves that there is a lack of such notices.

Usually the purpose of putting notices in the paper is to garner support from others to join the cause, not to warn people to stay a way if they feel they may be offended. Pro-abortion people tend to get offended when someone tries to expose the truth. The idea is get people to see the images to be effective, not to chase them away before hand.

 

[mapleoak]

Please, please tell me that you are not planning to advocate that preschoolers should go and witness an actual abortion or watch a video of one in order to “educate” them adequately “before its too late and their values are formed” …

A ways back I had pointed out, but you seemed to gloss over, that the general public is targeted. Preschoolers are not being singled out as a segment from the population and specifically targeted. As if there is a mob of unattended preschoolers running around the streets when there is a pro-life display. That would be irresponsible parenting.

 

[KarenNC]

I am not advocating any such thing. As I have previously stated on the thread, I would not show the types of pictures we are discussing to young children.

Good, that is a relief.

 

[KarenNC]

If you are going to try and tell Catholics what their faith says, I would suggest having a proper understanding of the Church’s teachings. In the example above, it is totally incorrect to say the Jesus is God and not man, or that Jesus is man and not God. Catholics believe that Jesus is both God and man (a human nature and a Divine nature) and I would suggest looking into the Church’s teachings a bit more before using these kinds of arguments. You are not Catholic and are trying to tell Catholics whether they are following the Catholic Church correctly. Comical.

Precisely why it surprised me that he continually referred to Jesus as “a man” and only in that way. Seemed incorrect to me to me as well—glad you agree.

No, I am not Catholic. I am indeed asking some Catholics about the apparent disconnect between what I can read and have been told about Church teachings and their behavior. Instead of a discussion about that disconnect, I get “how dare you pervert Church teachings or the Scripture by providing links to a transcription of the Bible or to documents on the official Vatican website or to what a prominent Catholic clergyman has said publicly”

 

[KarenNC]

This is really a whole other topic, but I quickly commented since you want so bad to make a correlation between the two topics. Basis for censor - indecency leading to degredation and the further loss of morality in society. Pornography fits that description, graphic abortion photos do not.

Why do they have less of an unfettered right to absolute freedom of expression without any concern for its effect on others in society than you are asking for yourself? Would it be okay and appropriate if those who oppose pornography, for instance, started driving tractor trailer trucks with graphic pictures of such around towns as a means of educating everyone of the reality of what is going on?

If it is valuable and instructive for young children to see photographs of butchered bodies of babies that result from something that the Church teaches is immoral, why should it be any less instructive and valuable for young children to see tractor trailer sized photographs in glorious technicolor of the results of everything else that the Church teaches is immoral? If one must “get to them early” lest they fully form their ideas of morality, why would you deny them the opportunity to form “adequate” ideas about all the other things, as well?

 

[mapleoak]

Precisely why it surprised me that he continually referred to Jesus as “a man” and only in that way. Seemed incorrect to me to me as well—glad you agree.

It is correct to refer either way. No, I fail to see where it was said that Jesus is only man and not God. You are confused with JW beliefs.

No, I am not Catholic. I am indeed asking some Catholics about the apparent disconnect between what I can read and have been told about Church teachings and their behavior.

Then it would be better for you to ask a question here about what the Church teaches than to say what the Church teaches when you don’t understand.

 

[KarenNC]

Usually the purpose of putting notices in the paper is to garner support from others to join the cause, not to warn people to stay a way if they feel they may be offended. Pro-abortion people tend to get offended when someone tries to expose the truth. The idea is get people to see the images to be effective, not to chase them away before hand.

Bennie, there is your answer.

These groups have no interest at all as far as I can tell to actually show any consideration for societal norms of behavior or for young children once they are born. This is not a case of “we regrettably have to do things this way and we would avoid having the young children see them if we possibly could” at all. They simply do not care who they trample over as long as they get to use whatever they feel like in order to pursue their goal.

That is a very scary mindset and should be raising tractor-trailer-sized red flags among others in the pro-life movement.

I understand and agree with the goal. I understand and can see justification for using the photographs in a targeted manner. The means in this case (knowingly targeting areas where young children are known to be in large quantities) is simply wrong.

 

[mapleoak]

Why do they have less of an unfettered right to absolute freedom of expression without any concern for its effect on others in society than you are asking for yourself?

Freedom is not absolute. Difficult concept for some I suppose. I already stated why that should be censored. Why ask the same question again? One is intrinsically immoral and derogatory to society and the public good, the other is not intrinsically immoral and seeks to better society.

Would it be okay and appropriate if those who oppose pornography, for instance, started driving tractor trailer trucks with graphic pictures of such around towns as a means of educating everyone of the reality of what is going on?

No.

 

[Bennie_P]

Bennie, there is your answer.

These groups have no interest at all as far as I can tell to actually show any consideration for societal norms of behavior or for young children once they are born. This is not a case of “we regrettably have to do things this way and we would avoid having the young children see them if we possibly could” at all. They simply do not care who they trample over as long as they get to use whatever they feel like in order to pursue their goal.

That is a very scary mindset and should be raising tractor-trailer-sized red flags among others in the pro-life movement.

I understand and agree with the goal. I understand and can see justification for using the photographs in a targeted manner. The means in this case (knowingly targeting areas where young children are known to be in large quantities) is simply wrong.

This is some very harsh and red baiting use of words, associating violence with the pro-life movement. For it seems that you get angrier with each post you make. Is the anger truly over concern for the children? For, IMHO, it would seem you would direct this outrage toward stopping abortion, which in reality, just in the US, has been responsible for nearly 50 MILLION deaths of pre-born children and affected the health, physical, emotional and spirtual health of nearly as many women. The seemingly self-righteous attitude and judgement of those that oppose the signs, yet don’t make a commitment to stand for the innocent life which they represent, seems highly Hypocritical. Now myself, I have mixed feelings for the use of the images on public streets and I know others that are pro-life object to thier use, but that criticism is easier to accept for legitimate debate But for the mere fact it does outrage “pro-choice” advocates and those sitting on the sideline, I, myself is not ready to censor those those that use the images as a tatic in presenting horror of abortion.

In order to get media attention, organizers do indeed notify the media when they set out doing such campaigns and by in large the media traditionally ignores them unless they get some good sound bites from counter protestors.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I was asking you.

Ah, the old, “Well, he answered my question, but I’ll find a way to pretend he didn’t” ploy.

You dont believe that parents have that right then?{/quote
Parents have responsibilities. When those parents who keep going on and on about “My rights” and accept that, we’ll have a better world.

 

[Elric]

Ah, the old, “Well, he answered my question, but I’ll find a way to pretend he didn’t” ploy.

No you didnt answer the question.

So I guess the answer is that it doesnt impede you right to protest.

Parents have responsibilities. When those parents who keep going on and on about “My rights” and accept that, we’ll have a better world.

So you believe that parents dont have that right then.

I guess that your “rights” trump anyone elses, particularly if they dont agree with you.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No you didnt answer the question.

In point of fact, I did – repeatedly

So you believe that parents dont have that right then.

Not to censor other people.

 

[estesbob]

This is some very harsh and red baiting use of words, associating violence with the pro-life movement. For it seems that you get angrier with each post you make. Is the anger truly over concern for the children? For, IMHO, it would seem you would direct this outrage toward stopping abortion, which in reality, just in the US, has been responsible for nearly 50 MILLION deaths of pre-born children and affected the health, physical, emotional and spirtual health of nearly as many women. The seemingly self-righteous attitude and judgement of those that oppose the signs, yet don’t make a commitment to stand for the innocent life which they represent, seems highly Hypocritical. Now myself, I have mixed feelings for the use of the images on public streets and I know others that are pro-life object to thier use, but that criticism is easier to accept for legitimate debate But for the mere fact it does outrage “pro-choice” advocates and those sitting on the sideline, I, myself is not ready to censor those those that use the images as a tatic in presenting horror of abortion.

In order to get media attention, organizers do indeed notify the media when they set out doing such campaigns and by in large the media traditionally ignores them unless they get some good sound bites from counter protestors.

 

[vern_humphrey]

That’s a funny thing. Those who argue against using “graphic images” turn the full force of their anger on the people who display the images – but not on the people who actually killed the children in those images.

And they keep harping on their “rights” – and never mention their responsibilities, either to prepare their children for the real world, or to help stop this gruesome massacre of the innocent.

It is a puzzlement.

 

[KarenNC]

This is some very harsh and red baiting use of words, associating violence with the pro-life movement.

I said “They simply do not care who they trample over as long as they get to use whatever they feel like in order to pursue their goal.” I trust that most people are perfectly capable of understanding the meaning of that phrase. The reasons for that statement should also be glaringly self-explanatory to anyone who has read any of the threads or links in the threads on this topic.

Is the anger truly over concern for the children?

Yes.

For, IMHO, it would seem you would direct this outrage toward stopping abortion

Oh, I’'m fully capable of being outraged over more than one thing at a time, and even acting on that outrage over more than one thing at a time .

which in reality, just in the US, has been responsible for nearly 50 MILLION deaths of pre-born children and affected the health, physical, emotional and spirtual health of nearly as many women.

The seemingly self-righteous attitude and judgement of those that oppose the signs, yet don’t make a commitment to stand for the innocent life which they represent, seems highly Hypocritical.

Then take that issue up with them. Talk about the issue we are discussing with me.

Now myself, I have mixed feelings for the use of the images on public streets and I know others that are pro-life object to thier use, but that criticism is easier to accept for legitimate debate But for the mere fact it does outrage “pro-choice” advocates and those sitting on the sideline, I, myself is not ready to censor those those that use the images as a tatic in presenting horror of abortion.

“that criticism is easier to accept for legitimate debate”
I am not clear on what you are actually saying here. Would you mind clarifying?

Also could you specify the “it” you mean when you say “but for the mere fact it does outrage…”? Do you mean use of the images at all or use of these images in ways that expose young children to them? There is actually a distinction being made in this discussion, at least on one side of the issue, so clarity is important.

If you have mixed feelings on the use of these, then that would say to me that you are not 100% convinced that they indeed do no harm. In that case, why would you, in good conscience, not speak out about pulling them back in those questionable situations?

In order to get media attention, organizers do indeed notify the media when they set out doing such campaigns and by in large the media traditionally ignores them unless they get some good sound bites from counter protestors.

As I said, feel free to contact the groups and ask them if you truly believe that they do so and ask them their reasons for doing so if they indeed do. I would be very surprised to have them say “we want to let parents know ahead of time so that they can make an informed decision for their young children.” I have seen no evidence of any such or that our local media are “ignoring” them or engaged in some sort of conspiracy to cover up their activities.

As I said, lack of this information in the newspaper only shows lack of this information.

 

[Bennie_P]

Then take that issue up with them. Talk about the issue we are discussing with me.
.

Simply put. If you are concerned about the images, then why not help put a stop to the murder of innocent children? And the expoitation of women? Then there would be no justifiable reason for the further use of the images, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[KarenNC]

Freedom is not absolute.

Exactly what I have been saying.

I already stated why that should be censored. Why ask the same question again? One is intrinsically immoral and derogatory to society and the public good, the other is not intrinsically immoral and seeks to better society.No.

I’m not sure what you are saying here----I was speaking of protestors against pornography using these images. I asked "Would it be okay and appropriate if those who oppose pornography, for instance, started driving tractor trailer trucks with graphic pictures of such around towns as a means of educating everyone of the reality of what is going on?"

Are you really saying that protesting pornography is “intriniscally immoral and derogatory to society and the public good”? Or are you saying that abortion is “not intrinsically immoral and seeks to better society”?

In what way would protestors against pornography driving tractor trailer sized photos of the reality of pornography around city streets and parking them in front of churches on a Sunday morning without the church’s permission in order to show folks the reality of pornography be “immoral and derogatory to society and the public good” according to your standards?

Would not ending pornography be “to the public good” or “seeking to better society”?

It is “intrinsically immoral” to try to end pornography or show people what really goes on even though they seek to deny it or use euphemisms to describe it?

Should not everyone who believes pornography is immoral stand up ahd cheer at such and request, no, demand, that these trucks be parked on their beaches, in their neighborhoods, drive in their parades, cruise their highways, be outside their churches every Sunday morning when families are bringing their children to Sunday School, or by the side of the road at the mall and the toy store?

Don’t you want to end pornography?

Haven’t you explained to your 3, 4 and 5 year old children all about pornography?

If you have, there shouldn’t be any problem. Don’t you realize that it is going on out there?

Here’s what a Catholic source has to say about it
tldm.org/News6/purity2.htm

• “Enough Is Enough Campaign reports that 87 percent of convicted molesters of girls and 77 percent of convicted molesters of boys admit to using pornography, most often in the commission of their crimes.”
• “According to the National Center for Missing & Sexually Exploited Children, conservative estimates indicate that one in five girls and one in ten boys will be sexually victimized before reaching adulthood. Unfortunately, many children do not report what has happened to them out of fear, shame or embarrassment. In fact, less than 35 percent of these cases are ever reported to law enforcement officials.”
• “There are more than 400,000 registered sex offenders in this country.”
• More than 65 studies have shown that dangerous offenders (child molesters, killers, rapists, incest fathers) are not only more likely to commit their crimes if they employ pornography, they are likely to precede their violent acts with the extended use of deviant materials. Male sex offenders soon begin to display addictive and compulsive behavior when using porn. Their mechanisms for relieving stress soon all become related to deviant sex. They offend more and more often.
• According to National Public Radio, nearly a third of children age 10 to 17 said that they had seen a pornographic web site.
• Dr. Victor Cline, a clinical psychologist, who has treated over 300 sex addicts documents the slippery slope to addiction. He says the four steps are: addiction, escalation, desensitization, and acting out.

Why aren’t you outraged by the devastating effects of pornography on families and innocent children?

Don’t you want your children to understand before it’s too late that pornography is wrong? Is it that you don’t want to have to explain to them why you really support pornography regardless of what you say here?

Why would you want to censor those who are working to end pornography or put limits on what they can do in pursuit of such a goal?

Why would you want to deny the protestors against pornography the very tools and methods that you as a prolife activist feel are indispensable and without which change cannot occur?

Why would you dare criticize those who would seek to exercise their freedom of speech in exactly the same way you are advocating?