Avoid Raising a Serial Killer

[mapleoak]

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

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

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

One of the many, albeit valuable, tools in the pro-life arsenal.

 

[Tracyms1974]

Hey, Y’all

  I wanted to join this discussion a while back, but I lost it and couldn't find it again.

  My position is this:  Having recently (today in fact) participated in an abortion protest, I can tell you that the best protests are done prayerfully with simple, non-threatening, non-graphic signs.  Just tell the people what they need to know and let that be the end of it.  The signs today were, "Face it, Abortion Kills," and "End all Abortion."  From a purely marketing standpoint this is effective because it gets the point across quickly and in a non-threatening way.  Lets consider another advertising situation:  Say a greenhouse owner wants to advertise for their shop.  Are they going to put a picture of the manure that they put on the flowers in the newspaper?  No way!  They are going to display the finished product - beautiful flowers and plants.  In the same way, at protests we need to focus on the "finished product" of an abortion-free America.  The job ain't finished if babies are still getting killed.  This approach also makes us more approachable by the general public at these various protests.  So, in summary, dead babies on signs at protests - not a good idea.  If you must get your point across using these pictures, then use the Internet.  This way, somebody who wants to see them can, and those who don't don't have to.

My opinion about kids and violence - that article is not the best advice I've ever read.  I try very hard not to let my child see violence on tv, and if she is bothered by something, I explain things to her until she is satisfied with my answer.  We also don't have cable; this helps with the no-violence thing a lot.  All that stuff about having to have a hero and stuff is garbage.  The only hero that a child needs is Jesus and maybe the saints.  There's nothing wrong with pretending, but to me that's different than thinking someone is your "hero."  Heroism implies that somehow that person is better than you, and to attach that importance to a fictional character is ridiculous.  When you pretend, you "become" that person temporarily, and that can be fun and imaginative.

Tracy

 

[estesbob]

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.

Vern and mines tack record in the pro-life ministry is well known. If you had been paying attention to the posts rather than making irelevant documents dumps several times a day you would know. The truth remains you have no experience in this ministry. do not support all it goals and have no expertise in this area. But that does not keep you from lecturing those who do on how to do their jobs.

 

[Elric]

If you had been paying attention to the posts rather than making irelevant documents dumps several times a day you would know.

There isnt a need for such comments. They will just reduce the level of the debate and insult/offend people.

 

[estesbob]

There isnt a need for such comments. They will just reduce the level of the debate and insult/offend people.

Unless you have just dropped into this thread at my post you woud know this is quite a charitable post compared to the many of ones made by those who put offeding children ahead of killing children.Since i know you have been arond all along I can only assume your reply was an attempt to change the subject and/or an attempt to dodge the point I made.

 

[Elric]

Unless you have just dropped into this thread at my post you woud know this is quite a charitable post compared to the many of ones made by those who put offeding children ahead of killing children.

If thats what you believe, then take the higher ground. Dont stoop to the same level of those that you percieve to be uncharitable.

Making comments like “those who put offeding children ahead of killing children” are not only uncharitable, but are also untrue.

Since i know you have been arond all along I can only assume your reply was an attempt to change the subject and/or an attempt to dodge the point I made.

Why exactly would I want to do that?

Besides, you were discussing things that are not related to the subject of this thread.

 

[estesbob]

If thats what you believe, then take the higher ground. Dont stoop to the same level of those that you percieve to be uncharitable.

Making comments like** “those who put offeding children ahead of killing children**” are not only uncharitable, but are also untrue.

.

That is absolutely what this discussion is all about. We have posted numerous tesimonials from wopmen who say these pictures convinced them NOT to have an abotion. The only reply we receive is 'how dare you expose my poor little darling to these pictures"

 

[vern_humphrey]

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?

Those who oppose using the images always ask that question, but they never offer that “more effecient” way

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 may feel revolted and you may hate the people who display those images. Which raises the question, why is revulison and hatred directed against those who merely show pictures of murdered babies, and not against the murderers themselves?

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.

Then those who use the images should be reporting a high rate of failure, shouldn’t they?

But they don’t.

The disconnect is when you get the strong emotional response you intended, and then get upset that the targets aren’t responding rationally. [/quiote]
Again, if that is so, why don’t those using the images report a high rate of failure?
jmcrae;2815219:

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

And I’ve heard the “there has to be a better way” theme before – but no one has actually shown that “better way” and demonstrated it works.

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

Which is why parents need to rationally discuss the issue with their childern in their formative years, instead of having hissy fits.

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.”

Do you have studies or data showing that works best?

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

Again, do you have studies or data showing this works best?

 

[jmcrae]

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.

You don’t tell them that it’s a pro-life thing. You explain that it’s a presentation about raising their self-esteem and fully acknowledging the total love of God towards them.

(Subtle as serpents, and harmless as doves, remember?)

 

[vern_humphrey]

You don’t tell them that it’s a pro-life thing. You explain that it’s a presentation about raising their self-esteem and fully acknowledging the total love of God towards them.

(Subtle as serpents, and harmless as doves, remember?)

I particularly like the National Geographic’s CD In the Womb for this – it’s available for less than $20 on the internet, and it takes a baby girl from conception to birth via 4-D Sonogram, and adds things like surgery on an unborn child in the womb along with showing twins playing in the womb.

We show it at our booth at the County Fair and other venues. But you must get parental permission to show it in Sunday School.

 

[jmcrae]

I particularly like the National Geographic’s CD In the Womb for this – it’s available for less than $20 on the internet, and it takes a baby girl from conception to birth via 4-D Sonogram, and adds things like surgery on an unborn child in the womb along with showing twins playing in the womb.

We show it at our booth at the County Fair and other venues. But you must get parental permission to show it in Sunday School.

Yes - it’s excellent. There is also an issue of Life Magazine that I’ve used in the past - I can’t remember which issue number it is - I think it was summer of 1998? It was also very effective - only one girl in that group got pregnant during high school, and it didn’t even occur to her to think of abortion - she already knew what stage her baby was at as soon as she realized she was pregnant and figured out when it happened.

I consider that a success.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes - it’s excellent. There is also an issue of Life Magazine that I’ve used in the past - I can’t remember which issue number it is - I think it was summer of 1998? It was also very effective - only one girl in that group got pregnant during high school, and it didn’t even occur to her to think of abortion - she already knew what stage her baby was at as soon as she realized she was pregnant and figured out when it happened.

I consider that a success.

Indeed, it is – but abortion is a very complex issue. And in the end, it falls into the affective realm. People don’t have abortions for logical reasons, but for emotional reasons. They do not value the unborn child – and often the only way to reach them is to show them what the result will look like.

 

[mapleoak]

That is absolutely what this discussion is all about. We have posted numerous tesimonials from wopmen who say these pictures convinced them NOT to have an abotion. The only reply we receive is 'how dare you expose my poor little darling to these pictures"

Exactly!! :yup:

Even if it were true that some discomfort was elicited from the photos, the fact that lives are saved is worth sacrificing the ‘carefree, worry free, don’t upset my mental tranquility’ mindset. The road to heaven requires some discomfort now and then.

 

[Elric]

That is absolutely what this discussion is all about.

This discussion is about who can make uncharitable remarks?

We have posted numerous tesimonials from wopmen who say these pictures convinced them NOT to have an abotion. The only reply we receive is 'how dare you expose my poor little darling to these pictures"

Then I would suggest that you have another read of this thread.

 

[vern_humphrey]

This discussion is about who can make uncharitable remarks?

Then I would suggest that you have another read of this thread.

Are you saying your imagination tops his hands-on experience?

 

[estesbob]

Are you saying your imagination tops his hands-on experience?

That seems to be the common theme in this thread. But note the deft attempt to change the subject from the propriety of the signs to how mean those who disagree with him are.

 

[Elric]

Exactly!! :yup:

Even if it were true that some discomfort was elicited from the photos,

You are jokeing right?

the fact that lives are saved is worth sacrificing the ‘carefree, worry free, don’t upset my mental tranquility’ mindset.

So what you are basically saying is that the ends justify the means. That is hardly ever the case.

The road to heaven requires some discomfort now and then.

Doesnt it require things like compassion, respect of others (particularly children) and being honest?

 

[vern_humphrey]

You are jokeing right?

No, he’s not. Those adults who are uncomfortable seeing the images are not thereby absolved of their duty to the children. They have to bite the bullet and explain to the children – even if they feel upset about the images.

So what you are basically saying is that the ends justify the means. That is hardly ever the case.

Since you have yet to show the “means” are wrong, that ploy hardly obtains here.

Doesnt it require things like compassion, respect of others (particularly children) and being honest?

How about compassion for the aborted children, respect for those working to end abortion, and being honest about the real reasons for objecting to the images?

 

[Elric]

That seems to be the common theme in this thread.

I wasnt the one who replied to someones post with an unrelated remark.

But note the deft attempt to change the subject from the propriety of the signs to how mean those who disagree with him are.

Again, why would I want to change the subject?

Im still for not exposing children to graphic images, particularly without the parents permission. Im still saying that the article in question isnt related to exposing children to graphic imagery. Nobody seems to want to refute that.

I called you out about one remark, saying that it doesnt help the debate and that you shouldnt lower yourself to the percieved level of others. That hardly suggests how mean you are.

 

[estesbob]

So what you are basically saying is that the ends justify the means. That is hardly ever the case.
?

Since there is nothong whatsoever wrong with the means and the ends is saving the life of a child it is a win win situation.