Avoid Raising a Serial Killer

[Elric]

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.

He was suggesting that there is no discomfort, now you are suggesting that there is.

So now parents are forced to try and explain something to their children, even if they dont believe that the child isnt ready for such things. And so that you dont have to feel guilty, you lay the blame on someone else (the parents). Even though you are the one waving the graphic images around.

It wasnt the shooters fault, it was the person who was shots fault for being there.

That makes perfect sense.

[QUOTESince you have yet to show the “means” are wrong, that ploy hardly obtains here.
[/QUOTE]

Actually I have shown why the means are wrong, unless you are suggesting that considering children (or other people for that matter) is wrong.

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?

This bit is off topic and is a bit of a cheap shot. But.

Having compassion for aborted children doesnt mean that you have to wave pictures of aborted children around for anyone to see, it doesnt mean that you have to agree with such a practice. You can have compassion for aborted children without doing that.

I believe that it has been stated several times that there is respect for those working to end abortions, there is certainly respect for your right to object to abortions and protest against them. But that does not mean that you must agree with every tactic used to have respect for those opposing abortion.

I have asked many times where is the respect for parents who dont want their children exposed to graphic images, the only answer that I can get (in a round about way) is: there isnt any. Why should parents respect you (not your cause) when you show a clear lack of respect for them?

The last bit about honesty, I have already answered this a couple of times and I really dont appreciate the continued accusations/insinuations that I am a liar. They are getting quite old and are counter productive.

If you are going to continue with them, perhaps its time this topic was ended because it doesnt seem to be going anywhere.

 

[jmcrae]

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?

Why does it have to be “either-or”? Either kill the kid, or give him waking-up-screaming nightmares? That hardly seems like a fair choice, to me.

I just got back from a street demonstration against abortion that was using no images of any kind whatsoever. Nothing but slogans. We just quietly lined both sides of the busiest road in the city with slogans like, “Worker Shortage: Stop Aborton,” - this one was strategeically placed just after an area with a lot of “Help Wanted” signs - “Abortion Kills Children,” “Abortion Hurts Women,” “Jesus Forgives and Heals,” and so on.

We were able to have lots of young teenagers and kids present at the demonstration, meaning that we could line the entire length of both sides of the road for several miles - that’s a lot of eyeballs.

 

[Pug]

We were able to have lots of young teenagers and kids present at the demonstration, meaning that we could line the entire length of both sides of the road for several miles - that’s a lot of eyeballs.

Praying for the seeds you planted to bloom.

 

[KarenNC]

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???

I am not quite sure of your argument. It would appear that you are saying that methods that were seen as very effective (which is exactly what is being claimed here for this particular variant of the method of using pictures of bloody dead dismembered babies) turned out not to be effective at all? This is to support that this particular variant of this method should be continued without criticism because it is also “seen as very effective”?

If all the pictures and methods (the ones of non-dismembered babies) used prior to 2000 were ineffective at reducing the number of abortions, or even drastically less effective than the use of “aborted baby images”, then one would expect the data to show some correlation to that. Even admitting that any change is a result of complex factors and can’t be isolated totally, surely such a massive effort, if it is indeed effective, should track along with the known data. I would expect to see either steady or increasing abortion rates until 2000 or shortly thereafter, followed by a decline. Note that I am not even restricting this to the actual topic which is not any and all use of these images but only and specifically the use of these images where it can be reasonably expected that large numbers of children under the age of roughly 7 would be present.

cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm
CDC’s abortion surveillance report for 2003, the last year available as far as I know, shows:

"Overall, the annual number of legal induced abortions in the United States increased gradually from 1973 to 1990 (peak point) and then generally declined thereafter (Figure 1)…

The national legal induced abortion ratio increased from 196 per 1,000 live births in 1973 (the first year that 52 areas reported) to 358 per 1,000 in 1979 and remained nearly stable through 1981 (Figure 1, Table 2). The ratio peaked at 364 per 1,000 in 1984 and since then has demonstrated a generally steady decline…

The national legal induced abortion rate increased from 14 per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years in 1973 to 25 per 1,000 in 1980. The rate remained stable at 23–24 per 1,000 during the 1980s and early 1990s and at 20–21 per 1,000 during 1994–1997. The abortion rate remained unchanged at 17 per 1,000 during 1998–1999 and at 16 per 1,000 during 2000–2002, both overall and in the same 47 reporting areas. In 2003, the abortion rate remained unchanged overall at 16 per 1,000 and decreased to 15 per 1,000 in the 47 reporting areas. "

The Guttmacher Institute shows a similar pattern
guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Unless you have other studies to offer, I don’t see that the known data support the theory that nothing but the unrestricted use of huge photos of dismembered babies in areas known to be frequented by children under the age of 7 has any chance of having any effect on abortions in this country.

 

[KarenNC]

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

You and Vern seem to have a fundamental disagreement on the actual purpose of showing these images.

 

[KarenNC]

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.

So the Catholic Church is not, indeed, supportive of your efforts to show these images of dismembered babies to even 8th and 9th graders in your own Sunday school classes which are designed to provide the best possible moral instruction to Catholic children? It sees the objections of parents as sufficient reason not to use them with teenagers?

Do you suppose it is because the Church believes along with Vern that such children are hopelessly beyond their “formative years” and can no longer benefit from such in any way (which does beg the question of why he bothers to show them to adults if you have to get the kids “before their values are formed”)?

Interesting.

 

[KarenNC]

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.

You are correct.

I have no experience in showing huge tractor trailer sized pictures of bloody dismembered babies to preschoolers. I don’t make a habit of engaging in behavior that I consider unethical.

You are correct that I do not support the goal of showing these giant pictures of bloody dismembered babies in any and every possible venue to any and every possible audience.

I suppose that you restrict your comments on the actions of others only to those who have goals with which you fully agree.

Expertise? Got omniscience?

The truth remains that I refuse to play along with your attempts to deflect the discussion from the appropriateness of your actions (which stand or fall on their own merits) to a personal attack on me.

 

[KarenNC]

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"

Post #91
Originally Posted by mapleoak
Proven by actual testimony from women who decided not to abort after seeing these photos.

response from Karen
Do you have any data on the specific context in which these women saw these photos? The argument is not against the use of these photos at all, it is against the use of these photos in indiscriminate ways that are basically guaranteed to expose preschool children to them without their parents’ consent. The vast majority of the anecdotes that have been presented in other threads about this were from women who saw these photos on a website—not a venue where there were substantial numbers of preschoolers seeing them without parental intention.

response from mapleoak: no response at all.

Post #100
Originally Posted by estesbob
Food for thought:
priestsforlife.org/resour…cspraise17.htm

Response by Karen:
Yep. Case in point. Not one of these mentions seeing these photos in a venue where preschoolers are going to be seeing them. The ones that do mention locale mention the website. No one has argued at all against showing them on a website.

response from estesbob:
*Of course it’s relevant to the issue at hand. They makes two points- one is that women have been convinced by these pictures not to have an abortion Two that pro-abortion advocates do everything they can to stop even the most benign of images. *

Post 115 by Karen
What is your basis for claiming that showing these photos in ways that preschoolers have access to them without their parents’ permission reduces the number of abortions?

Response from estesbob:

• I have posted several testimonials of women who said such photos kept them from having an abortion. The photos were being shown in public. Lives were saved. Nough said,*

Aside from the fact that testimonials are only of limited use in the first place, basically “nothing said” to show that these photos were being shown where young children are reasonably expected to be—the actual action that is being discussed. I would have thought that even a small handful of testimonials that actually addressed the topic of discussion might have been found if it was indeed so overwhelmingly effective. Note also the attempt to cast these images of dismembered babies as “benign.”

Post #101
Originally Posted by vern humphrey
Yes – he uses actual statistics to refute some claims.

Response by Karen:
Link right ahead to every statistic you have ever provided on this issue. Then we can discuss them.

responses by Vern ranged from “it’s not about the pictures…it’s not about the children…it’s about people throwing hissy fits” (post 103) to “this is an attack on Catholicism” (post 119)

It must not be about facts, statistics, data or any concrete evidence at all, at least according to Vern. It is about attempting to shift the focus to personal attack.

 

[KarenNC]

How about compassion for the aborted children,

Got it.

respect for those working to end abortion,

I have a great deal of respect for those who are working to end abortion using ethical means.

and being honest about the real reasons for objecting to the images?

I’ve been quite honest about my reasons for objecting to the use of these images in places where young children can reasonably be expected to have access to them.

What would you say is the “real reason” that the Catholic Church objects to the use of these images in their Sunday school classes, even for teens, without parental permission?

 

[Elric]

So the Catholic Church is not, indeed, supportive of your efforts to show these images of dismembered babies to even 8th and 9th graders in your own Sunday school classes which are designed to provide the best possible moral instruction to Catholic children? It sees the objections of parents as sufficient reason not to use them with teenagers?

Do you suppose it is because the Church believes along with Vern that such children are hopelessly beyond their “formative years” and can no longer benefit from such in any way (which does beg the question of why he bothers to show them to adults if you have to get the kids “before their values are formed”)?

Interesting.

From what I understand, you apparently cant even show such images on these forums.

But I could be wrong.

 

[mapleoak]

So now parents are forced to try and explain something to their children, even if they dont believe that the child isnt ready for such things.

You are not forced to explain anything to your children. Only that it would be wise for you to do so and prepare them and instruct them properly.

And so that you dont have to feel guilty, you lay the blame on someone else (the parents). Even though you are the one waving the graphic images around.

There needs to be a wrong doing in order to have the need to feel guilty.

It wasnt the shooters fault, it was the person who was shots fault for being there.

It is certainly not the aborted baby’s fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

That makes perfect sense.

Good.

Actually I have shown why the means are wrong, unless you are suggesting that considering children (or other people for that matter) is wrong.

No you haven’t. Having consideration for other people doesn’t make the means wrong.

Having compassion for aborted children doesnt mean that you have to wave pictures of aborted children around for anyone to see, it doesnt mean that you have to agree with such a practice.

And by all means, you don’t have to and you don’t have to agree with such practice. That is entirely up to you. That is your right and your opinion. It doesn’t make it wrong and it doesn’t mean you have the right to tell others that they can’t fight abortion in their own way as well.

You can have compassion for aborted children without doing that.

Compassion for aborted children does not end abortion, that is not enough. We have to work to end abortion.

 

[mapleoak]

You and Vern seem to have a fundamental disagreement on the actual purpose of showing these images.

There are multiple reasons for showing these images and I am not limited to one specified.

 

[mapleoak]

So the Catholic Church is not, indeed, supportive of your efforts to show these images of dismembered babies to even 8th and 9th graders in your own Sunday school classes which are designed to provide the best possible moral instruction to Catholic children? It sees the objections of parents as sufficient reason not to use them with teenagers?

You are now talking about a ‘targeted’ audience of children, absent of any parental guidance. A far cry from the general public. I would not expect their to be unattended to pre-schoolers walking around in the general public. 8th and 9th graders should have had their values properly formed long ago, and if not, then they need it.

Do you suppose it is because the Church believes along with Vern that such children are hopelessly beyond their “formative years” and can no longer benefit from such in any way?

From what did you manage to derive that deduction?

 

[mapleoak]

Post #91
Originally Posted by mapleoak
Proven by actual testimony from women who decided not to abort after seeing these photos.

response from Karen
Do you have any data on the specific context in which these women saw these photos? The argument is not against the use of these photos at all, it is against the use of these photos in indiscriminate ways that are basically guaranteed to expose preschool children to them without their parents’ consent. The vast majority of the anecdotes that have been presented in other threads about this were from women who saw these photos on a website—not a venue where there were substantial numbers of preschoolers seeing them without parental intention.

response from mapleoak: no response at all.

I was away between posts 91 and 150 and therefore didn’t answer that specific question. So what’s your point?

Post 150 by mapleoak: 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

You never responded to this either. It indicates a life was saved in the ‘specific context’ of a pro-life march. Did the words have too much of a ring of truth to them to be able to respond to it?

 

[Elric]

You are not forced to explain anything to your children. Only that it would be wise for you to do so and prepare them and instruct them properly.

I really cant believe this kind of mentality, comming up with anything to absolve yourself of any blame.

There needs to be a wrong doing in order to have the need to feel guilty.

Lack of consideration for children (or other people for that matter)and diverting blame doesnt count as “wrong doing”?

It is certainly not the aborted baby’s fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Diverting the subject again.

No you haven’t. Having consideration for other people doesn’t make the means wrong.

I think you were trying to say: “Having NO consideration for other people doesn’t make the means wrong”.

But that doesnt look that good,does it?

And by all means, you don’t have to and you don’t have to agree with such practice. That is entirely up to you. That is your right and your opinion. It doesn’t make it wrong and it doesn’t mean you have the right to tell others that they can’t fight abortion in their own way as well.

Changing your tune a bit there.

If it exposes my child to graphic imagery, particularly if it is without my permission, then I think that I do have something of a right.

Where do you draw the line on “fighting abortion”?

This makes little sense in regard to what you are replying to.

 

[KarenNC]

There are multiple reasons for showing these images and I am not limited to one specified.

Maybe, then, it would be helpful to list which of those the specific reasons are the ones that compel protestors to show these giant photographs of butchered babies in places where young children are reasonably expected to be as opposed to a more targeted option such as a website, a flyer with the photos inside handed to an adult, at a well publicized march or rally, a sex education class, outside a clinic (that is not next to or across the street from something like a playground, elementary school or children’s museum).

That way we can confine ourselves to discussing the actual topic at hand.

 

[estesbob]

From what I understand, you apparently cant even show such images on these forums.

But I could be wrong.

So?

 

[KarenNC]

You are now talking about a ‘targeted’ audience of children, absent of any parental guidance.

Children who come to Catholic Sunday schools are “absent of any parental guidance”? Children whose parents have placed them in such a Sunday school specifically for the purpose of their moral development and presumably wish the best possible such moral education?

A far cry from the general public.

Yes, it is a much more appropriate audience. These are teens who are of an age to be sexually active, of an age to seek an abortion, of an age to actually determine their immediate behavior based on such instruction. These are teens who are in the presence of people who are supposedly trained (or at least informed) in advance of the most appropriate strategies to explain these images and their context within the value system of the Catholic Church and have experience in doing such.

The Church evidently doesn’t agree that it is appropriate for its own teachers of morality, who have access to training and advance preparation to explain these images in context, to show these images to teenagers without prior parental permission. If these images are neutral or benign, have no ill effects at all on children of any age, are valuable, are simple depictions of the dignity of life, etc-----why would the Church find it necessary to get parental permission to have these images available in the Sunday school classroom?

If showing these images to children without their parents’ prior consent is a morally neutral or morally desirable action and a moral and ethical means of reaching the goal of reducing abortion, one which causes no harm whatsoever, what’s the issue?

Show up next Sunday unannounced and walk these large posters up and down among all the Sunday school classes in your parish as the parents are bringing their children in to their classes. That way they won’t be “unattended” or “absent parental guidance” and at the mercy of the misinterpretations that the Sunday school teachers may give them.

If the parents or staff object, tell them that you only “intended” for the parents to see them, not the children.

I would not expect their to be unattended to pre-schoolers walking around in the general public.

No. I am also not expecting preschoolers to be walking into abortion clinics saying “I want an abortion.”

However, you are patently expecting families with young children to be viewing these images against their will and without any prior notice.

8th and 9th graders should have had their values properly formed long ago, and if not, then they need it.

Then what possible harm could it do for them to be viewing these images, if all that is required to make them totally acceptable and no big deal is a simple two second explanation that you claim can be more than adequately given off the cuff to a four year old while the parent is fighting traffic?

Why in the world would the Church seem to believe (according to the posters here who has tried to place the images in Sunday schools) that parental opposition to discussing these images in a controlled environment with teenagers who presumably have had their values formed in the Catholic Church since infancy would be sufficient reason not to show them?

In what way are Catholic children in Sunday school fundamentally different than those same Catholic children whose parents are taking them to the toy store or driving down the street or going to the grocery store? Why protect them in one instance, but not any other?

 

[KarenNC]

I was away between posts 91 and 150 and therefore didn’t answer that specific question. So what’s your point?

My point is the pattern of non-response and attempts at misdirection whenever you, Vern or estesbob are asked for concrete evidence to support your position that it is not possible for these images to be effective in deterring abortion unless they are shown in venues where young children can reasonably be expected to be present without their parents intending such exposure.

You never responded to this either. It indicates a life was saved in the ‘specific context’ of a pro-life march. Did the words have too much of a ring of truth to them to be able to respond to it?

You didn’t read post #159, did you? Funny, it is one in which I agreed with you that this sounds on the surface like an appropriate use of these images in public.

From mapleoak
*Just one testimony from a mother who spared her child’s life after seeing a pro-life march with said images *

Karen:
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.

 

[gam197]

originally posted by KarenNC
I am not quite sure of your argument. It would appear that you are saying that methods that were seen as very effective (which is exactly what is being claimed here for this particular variant of the method of using pictures of bloody dead dismembered babies) turned out not to be effective at all? This is to support that this particular variant of this method should be continued without criticism because it is also “seen as very effective”?

I am saying that for 27 years abortion was shown by having happy healthy pictures. Did abortion decline or was there an attitude adjustment that it might be wrong. No, not really. Only after many years did pro-life people change their tactics.

originally posted by KarenNC
So the Catholic Church is not, indeed, supportive of your efforts to show these images of dismembered babies to even 8th and 9th graders in your own Sunday school classes which are designed to provide the best possible moral instruction to Catholic children

I was talking about the healthy developmental pictures of babies in the uterus or even a discuss about when life begins without pictures. The catholic church did not want any discussion about life at all and I haven’t seen any change of that in the Sunday School program.They leave it up the parents so to suggest that the Sunday school is where it should happen is bogus. It is not going to happen.

originally posted by jmcrae
We were able to have lots of young teenagers and kids present at the demonstration, meaning that we could line the entire length of both sides of the road for several miles - that’s a lot of eyeballs.

Maybe there is hope. We have had the word signs only out for the last few years but still there are usually only one or two people who protest at that clinic. That’s it.