Fr. Pavone on the use of graphic images of abortion

[mapleoak]

Nope. Sure don’t. That would be because, so far, I have been unable to find any objective data whatsoever on the effectiveness or otherwise of the use of any given prolife strategy, much less the use of these graphic images of mutilated corpses of babies in venues where young children are knowngly exposed to them.

So you admit you really have no basis whatsoever to support your attack on the use of a very effective strategy (billboards are effective as has been demonstrated by advertising firms for some very prominent institutions).

This is despite repeated internet searches on my part and active repeated requests on multiple threads for such information from self-described “national prolife leaders” and long time prolife activists who might reasonably be expected to know if such existed.

Save yourself some trouble. I seriously doubt anyone has done a proper scientific study as to the effectiveness or the ineffectiveness for that matter of graphic posters, signs, trucks, bumper stickers, etc.

Until such data exists, one can argue just as well for either possibility until the cows come home. My guess that it drives some people away is just as valid as your guess that it it is better at preventing abortions than other methods.

And so until you came substantiate that claim, that is all it is, your claim. You would like us to stop because of your opinion.

 

[KarenNC]

So you admit you really have no basis whatsoever to support your attack on the use of a very effective strategy (billboards are effective as has been demonstrated by advertising firms for some very prominent institutions).

I’m afraid that you have the sequence of the discussion mixed up.

That response was in this particular issue

The “this” that is being referenced is whether people choose to withdraw their funding or support from prolife groups based on their objection to the tactics used, whether this effect spreads to the parts of the movement that do not use such tactics or proceed to label the entire movement as extremist and “out there” based on their interactions with these few folks.

Billboards, signs, etc may indeed be effective at conveying a message, but the content may indeed backfire just as effectively. You need to make sure that the billboard is sending the message you actually want to send. An example from a guide to political campaign advertising:
centerforpolitics.org/programs/yli-mediatypes.htm

• Mudslinging - often referred to as “attack ads,” the TV, radio and print advertisements make assertions about the opponent in a variety of unflattering ways. Name-calling and/or groundless assertions about one candidate by his/her opponent. This advertising strategy is used by a candidate primarily to create a negative impression of one’s opponent. This strategy may backfire and create a negative impression of the candidate who is responsible for the creation of the negative ad if used excessively, or in a manner that is perceived as false, deceptive, “tasteless” or “going too far.”
  Example: The Bush “Rats” Ad; 1996 Democratic Presidential and Congressional commercials that “morphed” the candidate into images of Pat Robertson or Newt Gingrich. *

or the failure of scare tactics to actually positively impact drug use
mpp.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=glKZLeMQIsG&b=1847069&ct=2924773

unintended consequences in a violence prevention program
springtideresources.com/resources/show.cfm?id=71

Does this apply to the practice of widespread (and increasingly so) campaigns that expose young children to graphic images of dead mutilated corpses of babies? I believe so, but until you have actual data, it cannot be “proved” either way.

Save yourself some trouble. I seriously doubt anyone has done a proper scientific study as to the effectiveness or the ineffectiveness for that matter of graphic posters, signs, trucks, bumper stickers, etc.

Why not? Enough money and effort has been poured into them for years that one would think it would be worth a bit to try to find out if you are actually getting a positive or negative return on the investment.

 

[Nino]

To start off this photo: markharringtonlive.com/gallery/album33/aaq
show’s a parent perfectly willing and able to show these photos to her child, perhaps we should look to her as a role model as well.

On Fr. Pavone… he’s a great Catholic and real hero for unborn babies. I recently put the talk of the group he works with into a full length movie and am finishing uploading it to youtube today. If you are interested in seeing what he supports check out:
youtube.com/profile?user=cbrinfo

Note: as soon as you see Part 1 available for watching it is completely uploaded.

Thanks… btw DVD’s available of this talk, pm me for info.

Bryan

 

[Nino]

As a former teacher of advertising I can assure any one who wants to know the power of such a field…to get kids to dress in any outlandish way it desires…or eat certain foods…and think along many avenues regardless of parents wishes…subliminal seduction is quite powerful…observe the cover of Time mag the week of Aug 20…it depicts a pensive Billy Graham that is positioned in such a way the top of the letter M appears to grow out of his head like horns…devil horns…gee I guess this character…our sub-conscience snickers…was a phony after-all…and the painting of a dead duck that passes for his hair…a great word like Square was changed from meaning…fair and honest to being outdated and naiive!..Dope,Grass,Joint were eliminated and replaced by ‘Pot’.a cute word for it symbolizes in a young kids mind…home and security…moms pot heating up on the stove…etc etc…the so called anti-drug program has to battle constant images of actors etc always popping pills in many scenes etc…and remember a secular world buys buys buys the junk tossed at it by the wealthy upper class…for religion is the opiate of the people as college student Karl Marx said…Nino

 

[Nino]

And parents have the right, in every state in this nation, to remove their children from public school if they so choose and either seek or provide an alternate form of education. They also have the right to use democratic process to fight for what they believe the schools should be doing.

Not being creative at all. I was referring to the CBN article by correspondent David Brody—that’s Christian Broadcasting Network, not an organization known for wearing “rose-colored glasses” when it comes to any hint of a controversial issue concerning Christian views on morality.
cbn.com/CBNnews/198169.aspx

It’s the one you chose.

Because when an 8th grader is exposed to unwanted and non-age appropriate sex education without the consent of her guardians via a film shown in a classroom, the family sues for emotional damages.

When a preschooler is exposed to unwanted and non-age-appropriate sex education without the consent of her guardians by people standing on street corners, the family is accused of being naive, oversheltering, refusing to teach their child right from wrong, selfish, ignorant, part of the problem, supporting abortion for the sake of convenience, etc.

I was referring to the Girl Scouts, the program you used as an example when you said “Girl Scouts’ sex-education program teaches girls about safe-sex and condoms, planned parenting, and homosexuality.”

The last time I looked no one was forcing anyone to participate in Girl Scouts.

What does a Planned Parenthood site aimed at teens have to do with whether it is desirable or even remotely appropriate for you to show graphic photographs of mutilated dead babies to children in the 2-7 age range? My issue in this is with you and others like you. I take up my issues with Planned Parenthood with Planned Parenthood directly, just as I am taking up my issues with the actions you are advocating with you.

Unless Planned Parenthood is the one funding, advocating, organizing or endorsing showing graphic photographs of mutilated dead babies to young children who have the misfortune to be passing by street corners or going to the dentist or a public restroom, what Planned Parenthood does or does not do is not at issue here.

I have made my position abundantly clear frequently. I certainly believe fully that all life is sacred and that abortion is not a convenient way out of an awkward situation but without exception a tragic situation.

You continue to make that abundantly clear. That doesn’t mean I plan to make it easy for you. I am more than willing to argue against and fight the abuse and terrorization of young children under the guise of “helping” them as long as is necessary.

 

[Nino]

Images are quite strong and last a lifetime…with over 50million developing babies having their innocent lives cut short by their temporary host is disgusting…no wonder we see and hear of so much child abuse …Choice has become the mantra for convenience and being pc…who knows ,in that tragic number a doctor or scientest might have been born and discovered the cure for cancer or aids etc etc…the ending in our dec.or independence states…'all have the right to life…liberty etc…mmm the right to life…how about that…Nino…ps…it was not until the horrible graphic images of what the left wing national socialists (nazi) did to those 6 million Jews did the world cry…Never Again…amen and amen…

 

[KarenNC]

I hate to break it to you, but you can’t get a Master’s Degree in Education on these forums – and that’s what you’re asking for.

No, a simple concrete example related to this discussion with an explanation as to why that example applies would be sufficient as a starting point.

Surely, since you have so much experience with it, and are so well versed in applying this theory to abortion protest, you should be able to provide something other than mockery and repeated statements that it is relevant. Surely you can show how and why it explains so obviously in your view the overwhelming need to show these tractor trailer sized photographs of bloody mangled baby corpses where young children can easily see them in a way that someone without a masters in education can manage to grasp. I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of people both on this forum and in the prolife movement would fall into that category. My degree is in physics, so I am afraid I may have to ask you to spell it out fairly simply so that I can understand.

So far,

I asked
In what precise way does saying that it is possible to convey a message to adults without showing graphic photographs of bloody butchered babies to three year olds as they ride to the mall an effort to “trump everyone else’s rights”?

You responded
That’s meaningless. We aren’t trying to “convey a message” – that’s a cognitive stragegy. And adults aren’t our only target audience. It is a legitimate goal to reach people before their values are formed – which means at a young age. And to do that, we need an affective strategy.

I responded
I have to admit that this answer is a bit confounding…If you aren’t trying to convey a message, then what precisely, may I ask, do you think you are doing? Landscaping?

You responded
Human learning theory has three domains;
Cognitive – logic, math, speech and so on
Psychomotor – riding a bicycle, throwing a ball and so on
Affective – values, beliefs and attitudes.
You cannot teach someone calculus by having him shoot hoops. You cannot teach someone to ride a bike by having him memorize the multiplication table.
And you cannot work in the affective realm with cognitive or psychomotor strategies.

I asked
And how does this explain “We aren’t trying to “convey a message” – that’s a cognitive stragegy” exactly?

You responded
*A cognitive strategy is one designed to work in the cognitive realm – such as “conveying a message.”

Since we are working in the affective realm, we must use an affective strategy. As I said, you can’t teach a psychomotor task by “sending a message.” And you can’t operate in the affective realm by “sending a message.”*

I responded
*You are still conveying a message—communicating something to the other person–otherwise what would the point be? I am using the word “convey” as defined by Merriam Webster:
“to impart or communicate by statement, suggestion, gesture, or appearance .”

Why is it not possible to use an affective strategy that does not knowingly include young children in the audience?*

You responded
You are simply wrong. You keep confounding the affective and the cognitive.

In response to later posts
“*I think you’re really not qualified to do that – after all, you didn’t know the difference between the cognitive and affective realms until I told you.”

"Now a person who didn’t know the difference between cognitive learning and affective learning tells us that this study is applicable to the issue under discussion.* "

 

[vern_humphrey]

No, a simple concrete example related to this discussion with an explanation as to why that example applies would be sufficient as a starting point.

Already done that – didn’t seem to get through.

But since you asked, your first assignment is to read Steven King’s The Fire Starter. Then write for us a 750 word report on the techniques the father used to teach his daughter to control her “talent.” Analize those parts which appealed to logic and those which appealed to emotion and values.

 

[estesbob]

0ver 130,000 children have been killed since this thread started. I wonder how that compares to the number of children" truamatized" by graphic pictures Is there an acceptable ratio-like do we have to limit pictures so that there are only 1 “truamatized” child for every 1,000 children killed ? Should the ratio of dead children to 'traumatized" children be higher or lower than that?

 

[KarenNC]

Already done that – didn’t seem to get through.

Then point me back to the post in which you did so, and I will look at it again.

 

[mapleoak]

0ver 130,000 children have been killed since this thread started. I wonder how that compares to the number of children" truamatized" by graphic pictures Is there an acceptable ratio-like do we have to limit pictures so that there are only 1 “truamatized” child for every 1,000 children killed ? Should the ratio of dead children to 'traumatized" children be higher or lower than that?

I think even one so-called “traumatized” child for every 1 child killed would be an acceptable ratio. However the actual ratio is probably an infintissimally small number of children “traumatized” per every 1 child killed.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Then point me back to the post in which you did so, and I will look at it again.

Do the assignment I gave you in Post 426. Get back to us with your report.

 

[KarenNC]

Do the assignment I gave you in Post 426. Get back to us with your report.

Thanks. That’s what I thought, too.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Thanks. That’s what I thought, too.

So prove to us you’re actually willing to learn. Do your assignment and when you finish, I’ll give you another.

 

[boppaid]

Surely, since you have so much experience with it, and are so well versed in applying this theory to abortion protest, you should be able to provide something other than mockery and repeated statements that it is relevant.

Sometimes when people throw out stuff like this, Karen, then rather than explain themselves they present mockery instead. This usually means they don’t even really understand what they’ve put forth.

 

[sprout]

I think even one so-called “traumatized” child for every 1 child killed would be an acceptable ratio. However the actual ratio is probably an infintissimally small number of children “traumatized” per every 1 child killed.

You are actually saying here that you are willing to do harm so that good may come.

The ends do not justify the means.

1759 “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

1760 A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together.

1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

 

[mapleoak]

You are actually saying here that you are willing to do harm so that good may come.

The ends do not justify the means.

No, the harm is an unintended side effect. The harm must not be intended only tolerated. Maybe you can show me how what I said indicates that I am 'willing to do harm so that good may come." Actually I indicated what an acceptable ratio would be, however it is a moot point, since the actual ratio is infintissimal if it exists at all.

 

[sprout]

No, the harm is an unintended side effect. The harm must not be intended only tolerated. **Maybe you can show me how what I said indicates that I am 'willing to do harm so that good may come." ** Actually I indicated what an acceptable ratio would be, however it is a moot point, since the actual ratio is infintissimal if it exists at all.

sure,

you are well aware that you are doing harm to young children by the “indiscriminate” use of the violent, graphic posters since you’ve been told in this forum by parents of young children, by studies that have been cited, and by many child advocates.

In addition to that you further make the claim:

one so-called “traumatized” child for every 1 child killed would be an acceptable ratio

you are stating that you are willing to harm “traumatize” one child for every child saved. Or at the very least that you could care less if you harm or “traumatize” one child for every child saved.

You neither know for certain the extent to which a child would be harmed, nor the extent to which an unborn child would be saved by the “indiscriminate” use of graphic images.

Matthew 18

• if thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee having one eye to enter into life, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. 10 See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. *

 

[Ani_Ibi]

No, the harm is an unintended side effect…

Has anyone applied the Principle of Double Effect yet?

 

[vern_humphrey]

you are well aware that you are doing harm to young children by the “indiscriminate” use of the violent, graphic posters since you’ve been told in this forum by parents of young children,

Actually not – if harm occurs it is due to the parents’ reaction, not to the child’s reaction.

by studies that have been cited, and by many child advocates.

The cited studies are not on point – a study of TV news broadcasts can’t be stretched to cover this case. And frankly, you can find “studies” that say anything – what do **peer-reviewed **studies on this point say?

If there is harm, and if it is caused by showing the pictures (and not the parents’ reaction to them), the harm is clearly small, an unintended consequence of an act that is not inherently wrong (to say that it is, you’d have to claim all signs are wrong and harmful) and the good done is great.

But you haven’t shown there is harm.