Fr. Pavone on the use of graphic images of abortion

[Ani_Ibi]

seekerz:

I never applied any principle other than my God-given commonsense, so please don’t assume otherwise.

I was not assuming that you were not attempting to apply your own methods to the question, so please do not claim that I was. Thank you.

seekerz:

All I’m saying is that if something is wrong, big or small, we should avoid doing it if possible - it’s that simple.

Obviously you don’t understand Double Effect. Some actions have more than one effect. There could be a good expected from the action. There could be a adverse effect expected from the action. Or there could be both effects: a double effect.

seekerz:

I’ve seen Karen argue that you can’t use wrong methods to achieve good ends which is what I believe the Church also teaches.

To say that the Church teaches this is to oversimply what the Church teaches. Just War Theory for instance does not jibe in any way shape or form with what Karen or you are saying. Yet the Churc teaches this.

seekerz:

That’s all I was commenting on.

Understood the first time.

seekerz:

I replied to that particular post because the tone (unlike yours) seemed unduly harsh and critical. People have a right to disagree without having mud thrown at them.

I agree. Vern, e-bob, and I have been trying to articulate our points of view through several weeks of caked-on mud.

seekerz:

Some of us tend to disagree that the fight against abortion requires graphic images to be shown to small children.

Understood the first six hundred times. The issue is what evidence you bring to that opinion.

seekerz:

I don’t need studies to know that children can be taught to abhor abortion without the blood and gore of pictures.

Based on what?

seekerz:

I have all the proof around me in the form of people who never were shown those pictures yet are pro-life.

I have proof all around me of people who were never shown those pictures yet are pro-abortion.

seekerz:

For all I know, most pro-lifers arguing that children must be shown these picture are also living proof that this is not necessary in order to grow up pro-life.

This of course is an ad hominem attack. Normally when people descend to this level it means that they have exhausted their store of substantive evidentiary contributions to the discussion and have therefore conceded the discussion. So you and Karen have both conceded the discussion. Karen conceded several pages ago.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Teflon93:

Showing the dead bodies has little effect if the viewer does not believe them to be human.

Thing is our hands our tied. Pictures of living babies are not our property to display. In most jurisdictions women contemplating abortion are not routinely offered ultrasounds of their babies. So the only images available to show what were once living human beings are the poster images.

The poster images btw are of humans. You don’t stop being human because you are dead. You are just a dead human.

Teflon93:

This is why dehumanization precedes genocide. In Rwanda, this was accomplished by deeming the victims “cockroaches” and repeating the slur endlessly.

Correct. But these were of living cockroaches. Hitler’s propaganda against the Jews was film clips of living rats.

Moreover paraphilia requires the victims to be living. Dehumanization does not involve dead victims. It requires living victims being subjugated to torture.

The poster images may be of dead babies, but there is no question that they are dead human babies.

Teflon93:

Yes, may. I don’t think graphic images are appropriate for young children, whether of abortion victims or genocide victims.

Based on?

Teflon93:

The Culture of Death is precisely what we get when we’ve dehumanized the very old and very young sufficiently and start showing marked indifference toward the suffering and death of everyone in-between.

Yes, while they are living. The Culture of Death is a kind of Gnosticism which shows contempt for the living body and an idolatry of the spirit.

Teflon93:

Millions of abortions are only possible because we have erected a Culture of Death over the past generation.

Yes, I agree. But as I have said before the Culture of Death is not God’s view of death. The Censorship of the poster images does not act against the Culture of Death. It helps it.

It acts against God’s view of death which is that He sees and understands that our deaths are grievous. If God sees and understands then who are we to hide and confuse our deaths?

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Teflon93:

Unfortunately, this also makes graphic images of real suffering and real death less effective through desensitization.

Desensitization has much to do with what we are taught about how to respond to the images. In other words you are talking about gratuitous violence. As you know much of English literature, much of Art – particularly Christian Art – is violent – but not necessarily gratuitously violent. Some of us learn to explicate Art formally and historically – including the contextualized violence therein.

Last night for example I was watching for the umpteenth time I forget the name of the film. It was Sean Penn and his army unit kidnapping a Vietnamese girl. Because of the context of the film, I was as upset as I was the first time I saw it. I was not desensitized. Alien still has me watching with my hands in front of my eyes and checking under the bed before I go to sleep.

Teflon93:

I don’t know what you mean here. By licitness I mean it is immoral to show certain images to young children. It is cruel to do so; they lack coping mechanisms for such things. We instinctively try to protect them from such things as a result.

I understand what you mean. I explained the use of the Principle of Double Effect in my previous post.

So yeah, you are talking about a harm to young children. But we are talking about a benefit to unborn children. Both that harm and that benefit derive from the same act: displaying room-sized posters of aborted babies.

Therefore there is a double effect for the same act. Therefore the licitness of each option – removing the posters versus retaining the posters – has to be weighed. That is what the Principle of Double Effect does.

Teflon93:

A 4 year old is ill-equipped to watch disturbing footage of the Holocaust.

Very likely to tune it out then.

“Shoah” is an excellent, searing film all adults should see at least once, in my opinion.

I haven’t seen it.

Teflon93:

Likewise, I wouldn’t show a 4-year-old “The Passion of the Christ”. It is too intense for them.

But we are not talking about ‘showing’ a film here. We are talking about ‘public display’ and freedom of speech. You have quite a bit more discretion about showing a film to your child than a pro-life activist has about standing on a corner with a room-sized poster.

Moreover freedom of speech has its limits. For instance it is against the law to cry ‘fire’ when there is no fire. It is also against the law to promote crime, most specifically violent crime against a group of people on prohibited grounds. But where does the law limit the display of room-sized images of aborted babies?

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Principle of Double Effect:

For the act in question to be licit, all Five Tests for Double Effect must be met.

1. The object of the act must not be intrinsically contradictory to one’s fundamental commitment to God and neighbor (including oneself), that is, it must be a good action judged by its moral object (in other words, the action must not be intrinsically evil);
2. The direct intention of the agent must be to achieve the beneficial effects and to avoid the foreseen harmful effects as far as possible, that is, one must only indirectly intend the harm;
3. The foreseen beneficial effects must not be achieved by means of the foreseen harmful effects, when no other means of achieving those effects are available;
4. The foreseen beneficial effects must be equal to or greater than the foreseen harmful effects (the proportionate judgment);
5. The beneficial effects must follow from the action at least as immediately as do the harmful effects.

Object of the Act

There are two categories of intention: proximate intention and indirect (remote or circumstantial) intention. It is the proximate intention which counts.

 

[seekerz]

I was not assuming that you were not attempting to apply your own methods to the question, so please do not claim that I was. Thank you.

Obviously you don’t understand Double Effect. Some actions have more than one effect. There could be a good expected from the action. There could be a adverse effect expected from the action. Or there could be both effects: a double effect.

To say that the Church teaches this is to oversimply what the Church teaches. Just War Theory for instance does not jibe in any way shape or form with what Karen or you are saying. Yet the Churc teaches this.

Understood the first time.

I agree. Vern, e-bob, and I have been trying to articulate our points of view through several weeks of caked-on mud.

Understood the first six hundred times. The issue is what evidence you bring to that opinion.

Based on what?

I have proof all around me of people who were never shown those pictures yet are pro-abortion.

This of course is an ad hominem attack. Normally when people descend to this level it means that they have exhausted their store of substantive evidentiary contributions to the discussion and have therefore conceded the discussion. So you and Karen have both conceded the discussion. Karen conceded several pages ago.

Once again, I was not talking about the PDE. I’m not interested in that argument, so why keep saying that I don’t understand Double Effect?

As long as there remain other ways to educate children on the issue, I will never concede that it’s right to show graphic images to them. I put my faith in the power of God to change hearts.

If winning is what matters to you, fine. Declare yourself the winner. That still does not make offensive actions right. It never will.

On the topic of mud-slinging, is it not uncharitable to accuse people of supporting abortion just because they dare to have an opinion?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

seekerz:

Once again, I was not talking about the PDE. I’m not interested in that argument, so why keep saying that I don’t understand Double Effect?

1. PDE applies to the question.
2. Your posts do not demonstrate an understanding of PDE.

seekerz:

As long as there remain other ways to educate children on the issue, I will never concede that it’s right to show graphic images to them. I put my faith in the power of God to change hearts.

1. It isn’t an either/or question. It is a question of both/and: that is, double effect.
2. God asks us to go out and spread the Gospel.

seekerz:

If winning is what matters to you, fine. Declare yourself the winner.

It is completely insulting, rude, and uncharitable to attribute any kind of motivation to my posts let alone such a lame one. Is this your example of God changing hearts?

seekerz:

That still does not make offensive actions right. It never will.

Nobody is trying to make offensive actions right. Oh except for those justifying censorship to place their feelings over the lives of the unborn without applying the Principle of Double Effect.

seekerz:

On the topic of mud-slinging, is it not uncharitable to accuse people of supporting abortion just because they dare to have an opinion?

It is uncharitable to attribute motive to people; it is uncharitable to namecall; it is uncharitable to make ad hominem accusations.

It is within the boundaries of charity to ask for clarity on something a poster has said and it is within the boundaries of charity to challenge what a poster has said on the basis of reason and reference.

 

[seekerz]

1. PDE applies to the question.
2. Your posts do not demonstrate an understanding of PDE.

I happen to believe that PDE does not apply because it has not been demonstrated by the use of peer-reviewed studies that graphic photos are necessary to educate children on abortion.

1. It isn’t an either/or question. It is a question of both/and: that is, double effect.
2. God asks us to go out and spread the Gospel.

Yes, and we’re to practice the teachings of the Gospel (big and small) with all: the born and the unborn.

It is completely insulting, rude, and uncharitable to attribute any kind of motivation to my posts let alone such a lame one. Is this your example of God changing hearts?

Am I insulting you by restating something contained in your own post? And I quote, “So you and Karen have both conceded the discussion. Karen conceded several pages ago”. What were we supposed to have conceded if not defeat? Obviously if you were declaring me defeated, then you were declaring yourself/your side winners, no? Why so sensitive to your own implications?

Nobody is trying to make offensive actions right.

The poster to whom I was responding declared that aborting babies was worse than hurting feelings of babies, so he’s admitting that both are wrong though to different degrees. I substituted the word *offensive *for wrong. My apologies, I thought the they were synonyms.

Oh except for those justifying censorship to place their feelings over the lives of the unborn without applying the Principle of Double Effect.

If good parenting of the child God made me responsible for is censorship, then I will continue to censor most strenuously. The lives of the unborn are precious, the feelings of innocent children are important; it is not impossible to safeguard one without harming the other therefore the PDE does not apply.

It is uncharitable to attribute motive to people; it is uncharitable to namecall; it is uncharitable to make ad hominem accusations.

Give one example of name-calling in my post. Your words: “Vern, e-bob, and I have been trying to articulate our points of view through several weeks of caked-on mud”. My response is that I have seen people on the other side of the argument accused of being pro-abortion. How is that uncharitable? Anyone with the patience to wade through the whole thread will find multiple instances. At one point there was an accusation that dissenters on the topic were under the influence of the devil himself or did you miss that? I wonder if that’s how people debate in theology school: if you don’t agree with me, get behind me Satan?

It is within the boundaries of charity to ask for clarity on something a poster has said and it is within the boundaries of charity to challenge what a poster has said on the basis of reason and reference.

 

[sprout]

alot of screen space seems to be wasted here with all the arguments of graphic images of the holocaust and an “R” rated movie, when all of those graphic images are preceded by warnings: parental warnings, R ratings, and/or viewed in magazines, theatres, museums, etc.

I would be quite content if the radical extremists were to exhibit the same caution or discretion I listed above, exercise the same discretion shown by Fr. Pavone on his website that warns his visitors prior to viewing these images of their graphic nature even though it can be safely assumed the viewer is on a computer in the privacy of their own home or office.

The issue is not in the images, the issue is in the lack of any kind of discretion in their use. People who knowlingly, with forethought and intent expose young children to these violent images. These actions and lack of discretion are a black eye to the Prolife movement. They make sidewalk counseling much, much more difficult when women approaching the abortuary see these violent graphic posters and rush past not even willing to look let alone talk to us, thinking we’re all extremists.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

On the main page of the forum there is a thread on technical support. Could you please ask them how to use quote tags please? Thank you.

seekerz:

I happen to believe that PDE does not apply because it has not been demonstrated by the use of peer-reviewed studies that graphic photos are necessary to educate children on abortion.

Non sequitur. This has nothing to do with PDE.
Ani Ibi:

It isn’t an either/or question. It is a question of both/and: that is, double effect.God asks us to go out and spread the Gospel.

seekerz:

Yes, and we’re to practice the teachings of the Gospel (big and small) with all: the born and the unborn.

How does this relate to what I posted?
Ani Ibi:

It is completely insulting, rude, and uncharitable to attribute any kind of motivation to my posts let alone such a lame one. Is this your example of God changing hearts?

seekerz:

Am I insulting you by restating something contained in your own post? And I quote, "So you and Karen have both conceded

the discussion. Karen conceded several pages ago". What were we supposed to have conceded if not defeat? Obviously if you were declaring me defeated, then you were declaring yourself/your side winners, no? Why so sensitive to your own implications?

Because they are not my implications. They are your strawman to avoid accountability for attributing motive to my posts. As for Karen, I believe I and several others have already demonstrated why she has conceded the discussion.

People who don’t discuss concede the discussion. Is that not self-evident? Not discussing includes tautology, strawmen, misrepresentation, ad hominem, attributing outrageous motives, and other forums of logical errors, lack of respect, and charity.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

seekerz:

If good parenting of the child God made me responsible for is censorship, then I will continue to censor most strenuously.

We are not talking about only your child. We are talking about public displays and freedom of speech.

seekerz:

The lives of the unborn are precious, the feelings of innocent children are important; it is not impossible to safeguard one without harming the other therefore the PDE does not apply.

Oh my gosh! I don’t even know how to tell you this. You have no idea what PDE is, do you? Absolutely none. Yet you comment freely that it doesn’t apply. Surely you can’t expect us to take this lying down?

The very FACT that ONE ACT has TWO EFFECTS involving

1. the lives of the unborn and
2. the feelings of the born

means that PDE DOES APPLY. If you had bothered to read the linked material you would know that.

seekerz:

Give one example of name-calling in my post.

I was summing the general tendencies in this thread. Your post attributed motive to me. That is uncharitable.

seekerz:

Your words: "Vern, e-bob, and I have been trying to articulate our points of view through several weeks of caked-on mud

". My response is that I have seen people on the other side of the argument accused of being pro-abortion. How is that uncharitable?

Strawman. You attributed motive to me. That is uncharitable.

seekerz:

Anyone with the patience to wade through the whole thread will find multiple instances.

Multiple instances of what?

seekerz:

At one point there was an accusation that dissenters on the topic were under the influence of the devil himself or did you miss that?

Yes, I missed it. This is not about my post anymore, is it?

seekerz:

I wonder if that’s how people debate in theology school: if you don’t agree with me, get behind me Satan?

Discussion is about reason and reference. I don’t know to what you yourself refer.

 

[bmmckinney]

I wonder what all the butchered babies who were aborted since the conception of this thread think about the people who care more about feelings then their lives.

 

[Teflon93]

Thing is our hands our tied. Pictures of living babies are not our property to display. In most jurisdictions women contemplating abortion are not routinely offered ultrasounds of their babies. So the only images available to show what were once living human beings are the poster images.

I’m sure someone would volunteer for the use of their 4D ultrasounds for this purpose. My wife and I would; we’ve got one coming up in about 9 weeks.

The most powerful of course would be of their own baby, but most abortions don’t happen in the 3rd trimester when these are most effective anway (baby looks like a baby).

The poster images may be of dead babies, but there is no question that they are dead human babies.

I haven’t been able to view them—couldn’t find anything at the original link. When people say “graphic images”, that could mean gory or non-gory.

Based on?

My own judgment.

Yes, I agree. But as I have said before the Culture of Death is not God’s view of death. The Censorship of the poster images does not act against the Culture of Death. It helps it.

I think you’re way too abstract here. There is no necessity to show such images to children. I have no objection outside of effectiveness to showing them to adults.

The point is that the Culture of Death ALREADY PRESENT has limited the impact of these images, both for good (teens watch sufficiently gory horror movies and play such gory video games that the likelihood of being traumatized by such images is lower) and ill (as a result they’re less likely to be shocked/frightened by them).

It acts against God’s view of death which is that He sees and understands that our deaths are grievous. If God sees and understands then who are we to hide and confuse our deaths?

I don’t follow. Why not simply choose the most effective method to reach and sway the intended audience? Unfortunately, graphic images of abortion are unlikely to be the “smoking gun” which will turn the tide once and for all, anymore than seeing a black man lynched in the 20s launched the civil rights movement. I wish it were so, but what evidence do we have that now is the time when these images will truly convince the millions who recoil at the coathanger more than the suction pump?

And again, I’m already onside. I support abortion in no circumstances whatsoever, would support criminal sanctions against those who perform or aid & abet abortion procurement, etc. I think it is the greatest evil of our age, bar none.

Unfortunately, I don’t see much evidence we’re in the majority. I’m unconvinced that graphic images indiscriminately deployed wouldn’t in fact set us back years in trying to get enough people on board to change the laws.

 

[Teflon93]

I wonder what all the butchered babies who were aborted since the conception of this thread think about the people who care more about feelings then their lives.

What will they think if we give into righteous anger and ignore the feelings of those not currently in our camp to the point Roe v. Wade remains in effect for yet another generation?

Malcolm X, Martin Luther King.

One failed, one succeeded.

Which one do you want to be?

 

[seekerz]

We are not talking about only your child. We are talking about public displays and freedom of speech.

Oh my gosh! I don’t even know how to tell you this. You have no idea what PDE is, do you? Absolutely none. Yet you comment freely that it doesn’t apply. Surely you can’t expect us to take this lying down?

The very FACT that ONE ACT has TWO EFFECTS involving

1. the lives of the unborn and
2. the feelings of the born

means that PDE DOES APPLY. If you had bothered to read the linked material you would know that.

I was summing the general tendencies in this thread. Your post attributed motive to me. That is uncharitable.

Strawman. You attributed motive to me. That is uncharitable.

Multiple instances of what?

Yes, I missed it. This is not about my post anymore, is it?

Discussion is about reason and reference. I don’t know to what you yourself refer.

To begin with, I was replying to bmmckinney when you first decided to respond to me. My reference to mud-slinging was made in that context. You took up the issue, fine but now you are insisting that my comments in that regard are about you! Since I hesitate to believe that you are posting under multiple names, I am lost for an explanation.

To address PDE:

I believe it fails the proportionality test. There is no justification for allowing children’s feelings to be hurt because for one thing there are other ways to fight abortion and for another there has been no good evidence presented to show that the act (showing the pics) produces the good effect (saving lives).

 

[estesbob]

I wonder what all the butchered babies who were aborted since the conception of this thread think about the people who care more about feelings then their lives.

That would be aproximately 144,000 chidren killed since this thread started July 21. I wonder how many youg children have been offended during that time? i suspect far fewer than pro-abortion people who are offended that someone revealed the grisly details of what they support.

 

[seekerz]

That would be aproximately 144,000 chidren killed since this thread started July 21. I wonder how many youg children have been offended during that time? i suspect far fewer than pro-abortion people who are offended that someone revealed the grisly details of what they support.

What’s it with the numbers? Abortion is terribly wrong; do greater numbers make it more wrong? If it was found that some condition e.g. malnutrition, that was killing more children worldwide, would we as Catholic Christians be obliged to ignore abortion in favor of fighting hunger? I think not.

It’s never about the numbers it’s about the requirement to love God and each other.

Offending people is wrong - that millions of babies are dying the world over doesn’t release me of my responsibility to treat others lovingly.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Teflon93:

I’m sure someone would volunteer for the use of their 4D ultrasounds for this purpose. My wife and I would; we’ve got one coming up in about 9 weeks.

Congratulations! Yay Teflon’s baby! Happy dance.

I don’t see why ultrasounds and pictures of viable unborn babies cannot be used. I think that would be a great idea! It would allow unborn babies to participate in the pro-life struggle too.

Teflon93:

The most powerful of course would be of their own baby

Yes I think Right to Know legislation needs some promotion across North America. Those ultrasounds need to be part of the obgyn’s examination of a woman and they need to be discussed betwen dr and patient.

Teflon93:

but most abortions don’t happen in the 3rd trimester when these are most effective anway (baby looks like a baby).

Is the 3rd tri when they give ultrasounds? I am sure they can give them earlier.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Teflon93:

I haven’t been able to view them—couldn’t find anything at the original link. When people say “graphic images”, that could mean gory or non-gory.

There is rather a sweet one at David MacDonald’s website. He has two sites. He/she is red and dead. But I think the poor little baby looks fragile and sweet. That’s just my pov though.

Teflon93:

My own judgment.

I don’t have any trouble accepting a parent’s own judgment for their own children. However, the scope of these room-sized posters is much broader than individual parent/child relationships.

Teflon93:

I think you’re way too abstract here.

I disagree. I am being very concrete.

Teflon93:

There is no necessity to show such images to children.

But we are not talking about lining up children and showing them these images. We are talking about folks sitting at the corner and children happening to pass by. That is where the Principle of Double Effect comes in.

Teflon93:

I have no objection outside of effectiveness to showing them to adults.

And what does effectiveness look like?

Teflon93:

The point is that the Culture of Death ALREADY PRESENT has limited the impact of these images

The Culture of Death has limited any sort of pro-life message but that does not let us off the hook for trying. We should be out there putting forward whatever kind of communication we are capable of and comfortable with and let the Holy Spirit convict from there. He cannot convict if we refuse to do anything.

Teflon93:

both for good (teens watch sufficiently gory horror movies and play such gory video games that the likelihood of being traumatized by such images is lower) and ill (as a result they’re less likely to be shocked/frightened by them).

Sorry, Teflon. I disagree. I think what sickens children and what shocks and traumatizes them is not being educated and not being provided with ways to contextualize these images. Peas and carrots at some point in time shocks and sickens children. Toilet training the same. It is the parent’s calm reassurance and patient guidance which makes all the difference in the world.

Teflon93:

I don’t follow. Why not simply choose the most effective method to reach and sway the intended audience?

Because there isn’t one effective method. People are of all flavours. At any one pro-life rally you are going to get David MacDonald and his band singing, priests saying Mass, survivors giving testimony, folks holding up room-sized posters, folks forming a human chain, folks signing petitions, street theatre, folks selling books, handing out flyers, and so on. We live in a pluralist world, Teflon.

Teflon93:

Unfortunately, graphic images of abortion are unlikely to be the “smoking gun” which will turn the tide once and for all, anymore than seeing a black man lynched in the 20s launched the civil rights movement.

I do not think it is fruitful to look at one image and make a generalization from there. I am not sure whether you read that Beuys article in its entirety. And even if you did, it is very esoteric. It is long. And I have known Beuys’s work for a while now. It’s hard reading, I will admit.

You see, everyone and his brother has had something to say about the Shoa. In some respects this plethora of words words words has had a desensitizing effect.

University of Toronto Professor Jeganbegloo was imprisoned in Iran recently for his newspaper article written after a visit to Auschwitz. He wrote about his own experience. Joseph Beuys, for his part, was looking for a way to cut through all the words and ‘plug in’ folks to the experience – to what it actually means to Jews.

For Jews themselves many of them have experiential education on the Shoa early on. I remember being woken up in the middle of the night. Loudspeakers blaring. Searchlights invading. Teachers dressed up as Nazis rough-housing folks into lines.

Jesus wept! Lord have Mercy! Even though I figured out that it was staged, my almost irresistible urge was to grab five Jews and hide them in the boathouse. I suppose that taught me that it was not a subject for tea-time discussion. Was I scared? Even though I knew it wasn’t real, I was scared.

Why? Because something about it was real. The memory was real. I look at Mr Morris’s numbers on his arm and I know that they are real in a much more visceral way than I would reading a book. And in some sense my eyes are real to me for having seen the numbers.

You know why we get flamed so much for posting on Luther’s Jewish policies? Because it’s not real to folks. Words on a forum aren’t real to folks.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Teflon93:

I wish it were so, but what evidence do we have that now is the time when these images will truly convince the millions who recoil at the coathanger more than the suction pump?

A friend of mine once said to me: “Ani, you are looking for one key. There isn’t one key. There are many. You have to find enough keys to move forward.”

Teflon93:

And again, I’m already onside.

I know, Teflon. And folks on this thread are onside too. It just isn’t real to them. And it is up to folks in the trenches to make it real. And it is up to artists to make it real.

Teflon93:

I support abortion in no circumstances whatsoever, would support criminal sanctions against those who perform or aid & abet abortion procurement, etc. I think it is the greatest evil of our age, bar none.

One of the fathers where I worked where they had the Nazi re-enactment was Canada’s major abortion champion. My pro-life friend had an interview with CBC but the CBC decided to print an article on Morgentaler instead. I believe the guy was in jail once. I don’t think jail will get to him. True, it will keep him away from the suction and the knife.

Read about him here.

Abortion access has helped make society safer: Morgentaler

Do you see the hurt child crying out in him? Jail isn’t going to heal that. He is a survivor of the Shoa. He has his own private jail. My friend Leon is a survivor of the Shoa. My friend Boris is a survivor of the Shoa.

Teflon93:

Unfortunately, I don’t see much evidence we’re in the majority.

King David wasn’t either.

Teflon93:

I’m unconvinced that graphic images indiscriminately deployed wouldn’t in fact set us back years in trying to get enough people on board to change the laws.

And I am convinced that art provokes. Folks who expect to never get their hands dirty, to always live in a rose garden: they are half alive. Living is sometimes ugly. It is sometimes about anger, hurt, bad memories, nightmares. If someone sees a room-sized poster and goes home and flies into a fury, I say good. That person is alive. That person’s conscience is burning.

You know the first time I saw Joseph Beuys’s work I hated it. But it jolted me right out of my complacency. It not only promised, it delivered. And now I believe his work to be deeply spiritual.

I am serious when I say mount those room-size posters in the Museum of Modern Art and see the tidal waves of moral outrage sweep across America!

I say let us not join the ranks of the walking dead who have invented themselves and the world in their own image. We are all going to die. Let us not die the slow death of irrelevance.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

seekerz:

What’s it with the numbers?

The numbers are greater than one.

seekerz:

Abortion is terribly wrong; do greater numbers make it more wrong?

No. The loss of one person is the loss of a whole world.

seekerz:

If it was found that some condition e.g. malnutrition, that was killing more children worldwide, would we as Catholic Christians be obliged to ignore abortion in favor of fighting hunger? I think not.

It’s not either/or. It’s both/and.

seekerz:

It’s never about the numbers

It’s always been about the numbers since God said “It is not good for the man to be alone.”

seekerz:

it’s about the requirement to love God and each other.

And how is making the conversation concerning abortion as comfortable as it can possibly be for the born a loving act?

seekerz:

Offending people is wrong

No it isn’t. If it were, then you would have not have the right to free speech in your Constitution. And Jesus would not have said that He comes with a knife. He would not have said “I am the Bread of Life.” He would not have turned over the tables in the Temple.

seekerz:

that millions of babies are dying the world over doesn’t release me of my responsibility to treat others lovingly.

Correct. The question is about what form that loving treatment takes.