Calgary Bishop Cites Graphic Images for Withdrawal of Support for Prominent Pro-life Group

[vern_humphrey]

I can’t stand the sight of bypass surgery, that wouldn’t stop me from having one if I need it. Don’t be silly, I think we can all understand right from wrong without being subjected to gore.

Some can, some can’t. What’s your aim in trying to limit the tools available to those fighting against this grisly crime?

Personally, I think graphic images are the low road argument.

Are you old enough to remember the newsreel footage of the Nazi concentration camps, showing the partially-burned corpses in the crematoria, the emaciated bodies being buried in mass graves?

Was that the “low road argument” against Nazism? Or was it the visual proof needed to finally show Nazism for what it really was?

Organizations like Birthright have the right idea. Show young women that they do have a choice, they can choose life for their baby.

And does showing the reality of abortion somehow preclude us from doing that as well?

 

[KathleenElsie]

Graphic pictures can be good or bad depending on their use. When birth control is presented in schools these should be added to the curriculum so the youth, boy and girl, get the full truth of abortion. The pregnant girl/woman is not the only one affected and it is not a blob or blood clot. But, I also think that parents should have the option to OPT-OUT their child from any sex related course.

I believe that every girl/woman that goes for an abortion should be required to see the have a ultrasound and to see the pictures of the aborted baby pictures. This would qualify as true informed consent as far as I am concerned.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Graphic pictures can be good or bad depending on their use. When birth control is presented in schools these should be added to the curriculum so the youth, boy and girl, get the full truth of abortion. The pregnant girl/woman is not the only one affected and it is not a blob or blood clot. But, I also think that parents should have the option to OPT-OUT their child from any sex related course.

Not so long ago, I was teaching a Virtus (Protecting God’s Children) course for the kids in catechism. We had a DVD to watch, all about “touching.” After the DVD I asked the kids, “Do you know what that video was all about?”

I got nothing but blank stares. I said, “It’s about sex, and how some adults can pray on children.” Then I saw the light bulbs go on, and the kids nodded and understood.

You really can’t fight against evil if you conceal it from the kids.

I believe that every girl/woman that goes for an abortion should be required to see the have a ultrasound and to see the pictures of the aborted baby pictures. This would qualify as true informed consent as far as I am concerned.

Absolutely – and a woman who is not shown a 4D sonogram of her baby should have standing to sue later, for lack of informed consent.

 

[Nohome]

Are you old enough to remember the newsreel footage of the Nazi concentration camps, showing the partially-burned corpses in the crematoria, the emaciated bodies being buried in mass graves?

Was that the “low road argument” against Nazism? Or was it the visual proof needed to finally show Nazism for what it really was?

No, I’m too young, but I’m a good student of history. I know that the footage of Nazi war crimes didn’t make it to the USA until AFTER the camps had been liberated. The American government was more than successful in convincing its citizens that war with Germany was justified without any pictures of the violence inflicted on the Jews. That said, I find the continued use of these images objectionable. You will note that all the holocaust memorials display this material in a manner that one does not have to look.

And does showing the reality of abortion somehow preclude us from doing that as well?

Every picture taken by the prolife movement is a child I would rather they spend their time trying to save.

Nohome

 

[vern_humphrey]

No, I’m too young, but I’m a good student of history. I know that the footage of Nazi war crimes didn’t make it to the USA until AFTER the camps had been liberated.

The Nazis would hardly have invited us in to film the camps before the were liberated.

The American government was more than successful in convincing its citizens that war with Germany was justified without any pictures of the violence inflicted on the Jews. That said, I find the continued use of these images objectionable. You will note that all the holocaust memorials display this material in a manner that one does not have to look.

You don’t remember the war – nor how the images changed many people’s attitudes toward the Nazis. There were those who felt (as Patton said) that joining the Nazi Party was like joining the Republcan or Democrat Party in the States.

Every picture taken by the prolife movement is a child I would rather they spend their time trying to save.

Nohome

So you want us to do the job, but without tools?

I might point out that every picture taken by the prolife movement is a child who might have been saved – had enough people come to understand what a horrible, grisly crime is abortion.

 

[seekerz]

The graphic approach and the debate surrounding it is very interesting, but the concept could also be counterproductive.

Not every baby is aborted at a stage where gory pictures would be possible. If done very early, there would be very little other than blood to be seen. What if the message that gets to the women seeing the images is: do it before it looks like a baby rather than don’t do it because it’s wrong?

Just something to think about.

 

[jmcrae]

Are you old enough to remember the newsreel footage of the Nazi concentration camps, showing the partially-burned corpses in the crematoria, the emaciated bodies being buried in mass graves?

Was that the “low road argument” against Nazism? Or was it the visual proof needed to finally show Nazism for what it really was?

As I recall, none of that footage was released until after the war was over. Soldiers were perfectly capable of fighting the Nazis without ever having seen that footage.

I’m on the side of my Bishop - those pictures do not need to be displayed in public places where children and sensitive persons who are just trying to get to the bus stop, or socialize in the park, are forced to encounter them.

There is a proper time and place for these things. An educational seminar on the effects of abortion would be a good place to have them, for example.

 

[jmcrae]

So you want us to do the job, but without tools?

Michael O’Malley seems to manage, and all he does is publish hero stories about families who choose to keep their children under difficult circumstances, and showing happy pictures of Moms with their babies.

He doesn’t get any Church or government funding; everything he gets is private donations, and although I’m sure he’d never turn anything down, or say that he was getting more than he can spend, he’s doing okay - he’s not in any debt - and he’s saving babies every day, with his method.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

No, I’m too young, but I’m a good student of history. I know that the footage of Nazi war crimes didn’t make it to the USA until AFTER the camps had been liberated. The American government was more than successful in convincing its citizens that war with Germany was justified without any pictures of the violence inflicted on the Jews. That said, I find the continued use of these images objectionable. You will note that all the holocaust memorials display this material in a manner that one does not have to look.

Every picture taken by the prolife movement is a child I would rather they spend their time trying to save.

Nohome

So why were the images ever released? What good purpose did they serve?

 

[jmcrae]

So why were the images ever released? What good purpose did they serve?

As I recall, they were released in order to gain popular support for the death penalty at the Nuremberg trials. (They succeeded. I don’t think anyone today questions that the Nazis should have been put to death.)

 

[vern_humphrey]

The graphic approach and the debate surrounding it is very interesting, but the concept could also be counterproductive.

Not every baby is aborted at a stage where gory pictures would be possible. If done very early, there would be very little other than blood to be seen. What if the message that gets to the women seeing the images is: do it before it looks like a baby rather than don’t do it because it’s wrong?

Just something to think about.

Seat belts won’t prevent every traffic fatality – but that’s no excuse not to use them.

Many people have pointed out abortion is a complex problem. Complex problems require multiple approaches, one for each aspect. It doesn’t make sense to deny the workman his tools.

 

[vern_humphrey]

As I recall, none of that footage was released until after the war was over. Soldiers were perfectly capable of fighting the Nazis without ever having seen that footage.

As I pointed out, the Nazis didn’t invite us into the concentration camps to take the footage.

The war against Germany didn’t end until 1954 – when the peace treaty was signed. Before that, there was a long, painful rehabilituation process – and it was that rehabilitation process that de-Nazified Germany and won the peace.

The will to carry out that process was generated in large measure by showing people in America what Nazism was all about.

I’m on the side of my Bishop - those pictures do not need to be displayed in public places where children and sensitive persons who are just trying to get to the bus stop, or socialize in the park, are forced to encounter them.

There is a proper time and place for these things. An educational seminar on the effects of abortion would be a good place to have them, for example.

In other words, save your best preaching for the choir, eh?

 

[vern_humphrey]

The graphic approach and the debate surrounding it is very interesting, but the concept could also be counterproductive.

Not every baby is aborted at a stage where gory pictures would be possible. If done very early, there would be very little other than blood to be seen. What if the message that gets to the women seeing the images is: do it before it looks like a baby rather than don’t do it because it’s wrong?

Just something to think about.

The way to stop abortions is not to run into the clinic and seize the abortionist’s wrist.

The way to stop them is to educate people before the issue arrises in their lives. People who **know **what abortion is are less likely to consider abortion as an acceptable alternative.

 

[jmcrae]

As I pointed out, the Nazis didn’t invite us into the concentration camps to take the footage.

And yet, from 1939 onwards, soldiers of the British Empire were more than willing to fight them, and Americans became willing when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. We didn’t need graphic images to motivate us.

In other words, save your best preaching for the choir, eh?

It’s perfectly possible to invite the public to an educational event about abortion.

 

[jmcrae]

The way to stop abortions is not to run into the clinic and seize the abortionist’s wrist.

The way to stop them is to educate people before the issue arrises in their lives. People who **know **what abortion is are less likely to consider abortion as an acceptable alternative.

The Bishop is not banning education about abortion. He is merely not funding the placement of graphic bloody images of dead human bodies on city billboards and trucks.

The most effective anti-abortion education is to teach children from a very young age where they come from, and that God created them inside their mothers - that they have been alive from the moment of conception. When they get older, they transfer that knowledge to understand that their baby is already a real person, too.

Seat belts won’t prevent every traffic fatality – but that’s no excuse not to use them.

Children are usually taught to use seatbelts without showing them gory traffic accident pictures.

 

[Jeffrey]

And that Bishop is wrong.

Rape is already understood to be horrible and evil and this understanding is reflected in our laws. Abortion is not illegal and many people do not understand the horror of it. This is why I tatally support the use of the large, graphic displays.

The “Children might see it” reason for not displaying the truth of abortion is a weak one. I have never seen children freak out at an abortion image they see on the street - the adults are the ones who normally freak. Most kids are either uninterested or simply want to know what happened to the baby. They are sympathetic and curious.

 

[Jeffrey]

Guess you never saw Red Asphalt in school?

The Bishop is not banning education about abortion. He is merely not funding the placement of graphic bloody images of dead human bodies on city billboards and trucks.

The most effective anti-abortion education is to teach children from a very young age where they come from, and that God created them inside their mothers - that they have been alive from the moment of conception. When they get older, they transfer that knowledge to understand that their baby is already a real person, too.

Children are usually taught to use seatbelts without showing them gory traffic accident pictures.

 

[Nohome]

The war against Germany didn’t end until 1954 – when the peace treaty was signed.

Right, I guess the 1st and 2nd acts of surrender back in '45 were just filing for intent of peace.

The treaty of 1954 was not an end of the war, it was the begining of a new Germany. But you lived it, so I guess you are right.

Nohome

 

[jmcrae]

Guess you never saw Red Asphalt in school?

I don’t even know what that is.

 

[jmcrae]

And that Bishop is wrong.

You don’t have to live here. (Neither do your kids, obviously.)