Is that all? Oh, I wonder what all the fuss is about (sarcasm for those who have trouble seeing it).
Sure they are, they are directed such that large numbers of people, namely people old enough to understand what they see, will be able to view them. If what YOU mean by directed is forcing someone to view them, no not at all. This includes pre-schoolers.
No I am saying that if hollywood deems it appropriate to view because they say so with a G rating, it is no different then anyone else applying a G rating to whatever they want a certain body of people to see.
As a society we have also turned a blind eye to 50 million (oops, 48 or was it 46 million) dead babies. Society in general tends toward perversion.
One baby saved is worth it.
Hooray, we save a baby! Note however this is only ONE account. There are many more. No scientific research needed.
Who? 1,500,000 million three year old pre-schoolers?
So, “obstructing pro-life activities” are an example of “engaging in remote material collaboration with abortion”? What about immoral pro-life activities? Because I think (as does Karen) that it is immoral (without question) to present these graphic images where very young children are suseptible to seeing them. I also think it’s immoral to kill doctors who perform abortions, or bomb clinics which perform them. (As I’m sure you agree.) So, I STRONGLY disagree w/ your statement that “obstructing pro-life activities” are an example of “engaging in remote material collaboration with abortion”, because you write that without any qualifications about what kinds of activities the pro-life groups are taking part in.
Better a child die than have your child have bad dreams, correct?
Is that what I said?
To what are you referring?
Yeah, and that’s the problem. It is without question. If you believe it is immoral then apply the Principle of Double Effect and show us. I provided a link earlier on in the thread.
Who is arguing with that?
I do agree.
It can be strongly argued that blowing up abortuaries and murdering abortionists actually contributes to abortion in that it marginalizes all pro-life activists as fringe elements whose points of view are to be dismissed.
Do we care more about so called false privacy? Since when is driving down the highway anything but private?
No one is looking for sympathy, only to save lives.
“Media programs on famine, homelessness, war, disasters, sickness, and so on” are fantasy? There are no documentaries? There are not tv ratings, listings, intentional placing of such when they include graphic images of dead, dismembered bloody human bodies that can serve as a means for parents to choose whether they are appropriate for young children to view?
Sometimes they may be. They are not things that I withold (with the exception of not petting wildlife–we have a rabies problem here and any wildlife that you can pet outside of a petting zoo would be a likely problem). However, if a family member were to be brutally gang raped and murdered, I would not consider it necessary to take my child to the morgue during the autopsy rather than the funeral home.
Yeah, lets make sure are numbers are to the decimal point.
The signs are working!
As said before, do a scientific study if you would like. I will trust what marketing agencies know very well in that signs are very effective means of persuasion. Key is, they need to be seen over and over.
And there are other strategies available to the prolife movement than these trucks and planes. There has been nothing presented to show that this particular strategy is as effective as or more effective than other methods and therefore absolutely required in order to achieve the goal.
I have not “flinched from explaining that death is part of life.” My child knows where her meat comes from. She knows that animals and humans die. She has attended funerals and visitations, including ones where the body is present. She knows that in order to live animals eat other animals and that is the way life works. She knows that in order for any being other than a plant to survive, some other animal must die and that we should honor that fact and be mindful and grateful consumers. She knows that when we die, our bodies return to the earth to continue the cycle of life.
Please cite where and when I have said " nobody should see them whether they are willing, strong, or anything else." I have taken great pains to say exactly the opposite.
Relevance to whether it is appropriate to show tractor trailer sized photographs of mutilated corpses of babies where you know preschoolers will see them?
KarenNC said:
I want you to be honest and accurate.
Yes.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/
Such can also be applied to those who engage in these particular strategies of disseminating graphic photos of dismembered babies or who knowingly misrepresent the issue to make it seem even worse than it is.
Young teens, and we’re talking 13+, will engage in oral sex and likely premarital sex. I do not see them knowingly and willingly seeking out pictures of abortions before deciding whether or not to go ahead with the sexual relations. Heck, they aren’t even trying to find out about STDs, let alone facing the thought of pregnancy.
No need to question it. It works. Personally speaking, I was one who used to believe the lie that it was ‘a blob of tissue’ and defended pro-choice based upon that ‘fact’ for many years. It wasn’t until I was able to see that ‘blob’ up close that I realized there were fingers and toes in there and that changed everything for me. I had ‘heard’ the verbal arguments all along. It was the photo which made the difference.
Are there any means which a prolife activist may not use in pursuit of his or her goal as long as it saves one baby?
Yes-physical violence against individuals or others property.
At the level of millions, a decimal point makes a heck of a lot of difference.
How do you know? On what can you base this claim? How can you know it is not in spite of your signs and that the numbers might not be even lower if that energy had been focused in another area or using another strategy?
In what way did I misrepresent what you said?
At least there are some limits. I was beginning to wonder.