Avoid Raising a Serial Killer

[jmcrae]

When you are standing in front of the Orbortuary how do you apprach the women?

We ask them whether they would be interested in an alternative, and if they say “Yes,” we give them an information kit about two different organizations that provide housing, financial support, and job training/continued schooling (high school) for unwed mothers.

One is the Elizabeth House, which is intended mainly for high school age girls, and the other is the O’Malley House, which is more intended for adult women. Of course both houses will take any pregnant woman in need.

We also distribute the “Where You Came From” tract that shows the development of the fetus, to everyone who passes by us.

 

[estesbob]

We ask them whether they would be interested in an alternative, and if they say “Yes,” we give them an information kit about two different organizations that provide housing, financial support, and job training/continued schooling (high school) for unwed mothers.

One is the Elizabeth House, which is intended mainly for high school age girls, and the other is the O’Malley House, which is more intended for adult women. Of course both houses will take any pregnant woman in need.

We also distribute the “Where You Came From” tract that shows the development of the fetus, to everyone who passes by us.

Good-im glad it works for you.

 

[jmcrae]

Good-im glad it works for you.

I think the kids are, too.

 

[Elric]

So people don’t do things your way the babies must die?

But according to you, they are not babies.

They are merely pictures of the result of women excercising their sacred right of “choice”

 

[mapleoak]

So images possibly not so needed overall I suppose as long as Catholic parents instruct their children on the seemingly boundless evil in the world that Satan has fooled people into believing is ok.
God Bless!

Problem is that many women seeking abortion are not the product of good Catholic households and were not properly instructed in these boundless evils.

We ask them whether they would be interested in an alternative, and if they say “Yes,” we give them an information kit about two different organizations that provide housing, financial support, and job training/continued schooling (high school) for unwed mothers.

And if they say no?

One is the Elizabeth House, which is intended mainly for high school age girls, and the other is the O’Malley House, which is more intended for adult women. Of course both houses will take any pregnant woman in need.

These places and the individuals involved with them are very neccessary in the administering of corporal works of mercy.

We also distribute the “Where You Came From” tract that shows the development of the fetus, to everyone who passes by us.

And others present information which brings to light the very real and tragic consequences of what happens to that developing baby when it is ripped apart in the womb.

 

[estesbob]

But according to you, they are not babies.

Say What?

 

[KarenNC]

Problem is that many women seeking abortion are not the product of good Catholic households and were not properly instructed in these boundless evils.

Well, according to the responses on this list, Catholics don’t actually seem to be terribly interested in “properly instructing” their young children on this issue, at least not according to the standards put forth by you, Vern, estesbob, gam197 for what constitutes “proper” and “effective”.

And others present information which brings to light the very real and tragic consequences of what happens to that developing baby when it is ripped apart in the womb.

“Ripped apart” sounds awfully violent. You and I and everyone else must not be talking about and posting links to examples of the same pictures that Vern is talking about—the ones that he says aren’t violent.

 

[Elric]

Say What?

Just a cynical observation on how far you will go to try and justify yourself.

I mean you are all for proclaiming abortion as murder, how its a horrible act, immoral and how you stand for the truth (I probably missed out a few things there). Yet when asked if your images of bloodied/mutilated infant corpses are violent images, you seem reluctant to say that they are and come up with another description for the image.

One that you wont admit to having a baby in it.

 

[mapleoak]

Well, according to the responses on this list, Catholics don’t actually seem to be terribly interested in “properly instructing” their young children on this issue, at least not according to the standards put forth by you, Vern, estesbob, gam197 for what constitutes “proper” and “effective”.

Okay, let’s see here. If I am a Catholic and I am terribly interested in “properly instructing” my children, then, Catholics ARE "terribly interested in ‘properly instructing’ their young children on this issue.

“Ripped apart” sounds awfully violent. You and I and everyone else must not be talking about and posting links to examples of the same pictures that Vern is talking about—the ones that he says aren’t violent.

Murder is violence. Photos of the aftermath are not. Two entirely distinct entities.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Of course they are. That’s the whole point of them.

Do you have a dictionary?

Go look up the word “violence.”

Anyway, have it your way. I will just not be attending or financially supporting any of your events, that’s all.

We did not expect any aid from you.

I will support events that show respect for the dignity of the whole person, however - they can count on my financial support, as well as my attendance.

Suuuuuuure they can.

 

[estesbob]

Just a cynical observation on how far you will go to try and justify yourself.

I mean you are all for proclaiming abortion as murder, how its a horrible act, immoral and how you stand for the truth (I probably missed out a few things there). Yet when asked if your images of bloodied/mutilated infant corpses are violent images, you seem reluctant to say that they are and come up with another description for the image.

One that you wont admit to having a baby in it.

I think you are confusing me with someone else. i also think you have a problem recognizing sarcasm.

But then I suspect this is the usual pro-abortion ploy of desperately trying to change the subject so we’ll just leave it at that

 

[KarenNC]

Do you have a dictionary?

Go look up the word “violence.”

Let’s try “violent”, the adjective that you are claiming does not describe these pictures.

Main Entry: vi·o·lent
Pronunciation: -l&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin violentus; akin to Latin vis strength – more at VIM
1 : marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity
2 a : notably furious or vehement b : EXTREME, INTENSE
3 : **caused by force : not natural **
4 a : emotionally agitated to the point of loss of self-control b : prone to commit acts of violence

vi·o·lent v ələnt ]
adjective

Definition:

1. using physical force: using physical force to injure somebody or damage something, violent crime
2. emotionally intense: showing emotional intensity or strong feeling, his violent objections to the plan
3. showing destructive force: showing extreme, destructive, or uncontrollable forcea violent thunderstorm
4. intense: very intense or severe
   a violent headache, violent passion
5. caused by force: caused by force rather than natural causes
   met a violent death

If these are photos of babies who died by natural causes rather than by force, then, yes, you have a case for saying that they are not violent. If instead they are of babies who died by force rather than natural causes, then you have no case.

To try to justify knowingly placing them in front of young children by claiming they are something that they are not is a bit disingenuous, don’t you think?

 

[estesbob]

Let’s try “violent”, the adjective that you are claiming does not describe these pictures.

?

It is interesting how often abortion discussions turn into arguments about semantics. IMO its becuase most dont want to really adress the abject evil abortion is so they would rather argue about defninitions.

 

[KarenNC]

Okay, let’s see here. If I am a Catholic and I am terribly interested in “properly instructing” my children, then, Catholics ARE "terribly interested in ‘properly instructing’ their young children on this issue.

I was unaware that individual Catholics were encouraged to decide for themselves, apart from the institution of the Church, what constituted moral and ethical behavior.

1. The Catholic Church (which was made up of Catholics the last time I looked) refuses to sanction the use of photos of children who died by the use of force in abortion as part of their education classes for children in their own schools and churches. Catholic clergy overall do not advocate the use of these images in front of young children.

2)You and your friends are claiming that there is no form of effective or adequate education about abortion without the use of such photos with children as young as possible “before it’s too late and their values are formed,” that to even suggest that attempting to shield a child from such is tantamount to throwing them to the winds and being a bad parent.

then:
3) Catholics overall are pretty demonstrably not terribly interested in “properly” instructing their children on abortion by your standards.

One of the two is in error on the proper way to instruct young children about abortion. More likely to be the Catholic Church as a whole, or a comparatively few individual Catholics who advocate a method diametrically opposed to traditional Catholic practice?

Murder is violence. Photos of the aftermath are not. Two entirely distinct entities.

Sorry, but no, that dog won’t hunt. By that logic, a photo of a man pulling a trigger is an image of violence, a photo of the same scene seconds later as the blood and brains spurt from the shattered head of the murder victim is not.

The photo of a man wielding a sword as it passes through the neck of a bound victim is an image of violence. Seconds later, the photo as the head is falling from the neck or rolling away, with blood spurting in all directions, is not an image of violence.

This is simply another example of the disconnect those who advocate the use of this particular strategy in this particular way (knowingly showing these photos to young children) have to maintain from our societal norms of behavior and, evidently, language usage as well, in order to justify this particular behavior to themselves.

 

[KarenNC]

It is interesting how often abortion discussions turn into arguments about semantics. IMO its becuase most dont want to really adress the abject evil abortion is so they would rather argue about defninitions.

If a single person here had said that abortion is a good, wonderful, desirable, happy thing, then I might agree with you. If anyone had been maintaining that abortion doesn’t kill babies or end a human life, I might agree with you. If anyone had been maintaining that abortion is without consequences to everyone involved, I might agree with you. That has not been the case.

It is more interesting to me how often this and other discussions of the ethics of showing pictures of dismembered babies to 4 year-olds in the name of compassionate “education” has been turned into accusations that those who question the practice must have any other agenda at all rather than the one stated----that of expecting adults in our society to behave in accordance to societal norms and the norms of their stated religion to all children, even after they are born. How often those who practice this particular practice have tried to reframe the argument into an imaginary conspiracy to ban all use of these images anywhere or to suppress the reality of abortion from anyone other than those under the age of 7.

If you and Vern and mapleoak plan to persist in using your own non-standard definitions of common English words, then, yes, there is going to be a fair bit of discussion trying to clarify what you mean. Perhaps you could provide a glossary? I would suggest you include words like “intended” and “violent” as starters, since those seem to be a persistant issue. You might also let us know how, in this instance, “the Ministry” as capitalized differs from “a ministry.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

If you and Vern and mapleoak plan to persist in using your own non-standard definitions of common English words, then, yes, there is going to be a fair bit of discussion trying to clarify what you mean. Perhaps you could provide a glossary? I would suggest you include words like “intended” and “violent” as starters, since those seem to be a persistant issue. You might also let us know how, in this instance, “the Ministry” as capitalized differs from “a ministry.”

If you and Elric plan to persist in using your own non-standard definitions of common English words – for example, pretending that pictures of the result of violence are depictions of the violence itself – and if you all persist in inventing “laws”, then we aren’t going to get anywhere, are we?

 

[mapleoak]

I was unaware that individual Catholics were encouraged to decide for themselves, apart from the institution of the Church, what constituted moral and ethical behavior.

Entirely the wrong conclusion to derive from what I wrote. Did you catch the fact that I responded to a generalization you made about ‘Catholics’, and an entirely false one at that.

1. The Catholic Church (which was made up of Catholics the last time I looked) refuses to sanction the use of photos of children who died by the use of force in abortion as part of their education classes for children in their own schools and churches. Catholic clergy overall do not advocate the use of these images in front of young children.

No it doesn’t. You are fond of posting enormous amounts of useless data. Post some to support your wild claim here. Also, to say that the Catholic Church outright condemns this practice is entirely FALSE. Maybe study up some more on the teachings of the Catholic Church.

2)You and your friends are claiming that there is no form of effective or adequate education about abortion without the use of such photos with children as young as possible

Twisting of what has been said. Please point out where anyone here claimed that this is ‘one and only, end all be all’ method of education. In fact, you are likely to find such things said as thus; “just one of the many tools in the pro-life arsenal, and an effective one at that”.

“before it’s too late and their values are formed,” that to even suggest that attempting to shield a child from such is tantamount to throwing them to the winds and being a bad parent.

It is maintained that children definitely need to have their values formed as early as possible. It is ones’ parental duty.

then:
3) Catholics overall are pretty demonstrably not terribly interested in “properly” instructing their children on abortion by your standards.

Again, post your data.

One of the two is in error on the proper way to instruct young children about abortion.

What are the TWO you are referring to? Use of photos vs. use of _____? Or are you referring to act of people showing photos versus people opposed to showing? Open minded vs. closed minded? Many different acceptable ways vs. you have no right to do what you do?

More likely to be the Catholic Church as a whole, or a comparatively few individual Catholics who advocate a method diametrically opposed to traditional Catholic practice?

You might want to show how it is diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching.

Sorry, but no, that dog won’t hunt. By that logic, a photo of a man pulling a trigger is an image of violence, a photo of the same scene seconds later as the blood and brains spurt from the shattered head of the murder victim is not.

The photo of a man wielding a sword as it passes through the neck of a bound victim is an image of violence. Seconds later, the photo as the head is falling from the neck or rolling away, with blood spurting in all directions, is not an image of violence.

Got to hand it to you, in this as well as is many preceeding posts, you certainly do have a wild and colorful imagination!

This is simply another example of the disconnect those who advocate the use of this particular strategy in this particular way (knowingly showing these photos to young children) have to maintain from our societal norms of behavior and, evidently, language usage as well, in order to justify this particular behavior to themselves.

Well the opposite is true. You happen to be making fun use of particular words and trying to add the application of misused literal devices to justify your argument.

 

[Elric]

I think you are confusing me with someone else. i also think you have a problem recognizing sarcasm.

But then I suspect this is the usual pro-abortion ploy of desperately trying to change the subject so we’ll just leave it at that

“The usual pro-abortion ploy”?

Oh yeah thats right, Im against exposing graphic images to children (especally without the parents conscent), So of course that means that I must be “pro-abortion”.

I call you up on your reluctance to admit that these images are violent images, so of course that must mean that I am changing the subject.

Wow you really will go to any lengths to try and justify yourself.

Its just a pity that you dont seem to be able to stand by your own beliefs.

 

[Elric]

If you and Elric plan to persist in using your own non-standard definitions of common English words – for example, pretending that pictures of the result of violence are depictions of the violence itself – and if you all persist in inventing “laws”, then we aren’t going to get anywhere, are we?

Goodness me, you sound like a parrot.

Its not a very good way to argue, it just makes people roll their eyes and think things like “Is this person for real?” or “what a childish person”.

Also the continued false accusations dont help either, I know that I didnt invent any “laws”.

But I supose your response will be either to call me a “pro-abotionist”, parrot back what I just wrote, call me a poor parent, accuse me of lieing (again) or tell me that I am in denial abotu the murder that is going on.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Goodness me, you sound like a parrot.

Let it be recorded to my credit that you stepped right into this, but I out of Christian charity, forbore to make the obvious response.

Its not a very good way to argue, it just makes people roll their eyes and think things like “Is this person for real?” or “what a childish person”.

As childish as inventing laws?

Also the continued false accusations dont help either, I know that I didnt invent any “laws”.

Did you, or did you not claim that displaying graphic pictures of aborted babies was a violation of some law or other which you could not cite?

But I supose your response will be either to call me a “pro-abotionist”, parrot back what I just wrote, call me a poor parent, accuse me of lieing (again) or tell me that I am in denial abotu the murder that is going on.

No – I’ll just let you make your comments and not respond with the obvious (and hilariously funny) reply that comes to mind.