A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Ani Ibi:
So I repeat my question of several posts ago: does anyone have a right to not see the posters?
- Status
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
I was just speaking about all this with some neighbours. One said that her niece was ultrasounded from very early right through the pregnancy. The parents kept the photographs like a storybook.
K
KarenNC
Guest
There is a difference between choosing to be somewhere based on reasonable knowledge of that place and going somewhere and being faced with something that no reasonable person would consider likely.
I choose to take my child to the grocery store rather than a strip club, but if someone else chooses to go to the grocery store and do a strip tease in the produce department, how am I to reasonably predict that I would thereby be exposing her to such?
I took reasonable precautions by not taking my young child where such activity was likely to occur. This does not deny the person the right or ability to do a strip tease in an appropriate place or prevent me from objecting to it in the produce department.
To the best of my knowledge these trucks and airplanes do not get permits or publish their routes. How am I to reasonably be able to avoid them?
I have already addressed this in my reply to vern about the meaning of the word “indiscriminate.” I notice I have received no reply about which part of the trucks and the planes does not meet the definition of that word in terms of the audience.
If a person chose to begin showing an NC-17 movie in the middle of the mall, how are they not being indiscriminate in their choice of audience?
That would be why I defined the usual usage of the word in the English language according to Merriam Webster for everyone, so there would be no misunderstanding of my “languaging” (could you give me the definition of that one? it’s not in my dictionary).
So you agree then that these actions are not justifiable under the principle of double effect?
Which is exactly what is being proposed. A proportional balance between the protesters’ right and desire to show these photos to people who are likely to have abortions and society’s norm that parents of young children deserve the opportunity to know about graphic violent content ahead of time in order that they may make an informed choice.
One’s right to engage in an activity does not give one license to do so at all times in all places under all circumstances.
Works for Hollywood. Works for bookstores and video rental places. Works for bars, strip clubs, nightclubs, sports activities, newspapers and magazines (most of the time), nudist camps and beaches, smoking in public venues, having separate male and female and family public restrooms, religious organizations, etc.
K
KarenNC
Guest
You get close to it here:
*What is a human right? A human right is a relationship arising from our nature as human beings that entitles an individual to certain conduct from all others.
It is a contractual right flowing from the social contract that imposes upon all others the necessary and universal duty to act or refrain from acting in a certain way…
Rather, a human right is a relationship between an individual and all others that entitles a person to certain conduct from every other person and from society. *
I am invoking the social contract that our society already has about the appropriate behavior of adults to young children and their parents in regard to depictions of graphic violence. This gives parents of young children the right to expect that other adults will take reasonable precautions (there are no absolute guarantees) not to display such photos in ways that the parent cannot reasonably predict and avoid exposing his children to.
K
KarenNC
Guest
Which feelings would those be? The “feeling” that it is inappropriate to expose young children needlessly to graphic images of violence? That it is wrong to do something to others that will hurt them just to achieve your goal without considering the effect it will have on those others? That the ends do not always justify the means? That we have obligations to protect those younger and weaker than ourselves?
K
KarenNC
Guest
S
seekerz
Guest
S
seekerz
Guest
I might easily apply this fascinating concept to Ani Ibi’s cry above that his freedom of speech be respected. What about the attendant responsibility?
Rights & responsibilities toward my child:*** primarily mine***. Right to free speech/responsibility in exercising that right: everyone’s.
E
estesbob
Guest
You are discussing of course, those children lucky enough to escape the womb. For 50 million children there was no opportunity to excercise any rights. Do you think those children would have preferd to be offended by these pictures rather than be in them?
S
seekerz
Guest
I’m certain they would have but that is hardly the point we’re discussing. Appealing to the emotions can only go so far. Sound decisions have to be based on sound logic.
You make it sound like children will grown up to perform abortions if they are not shown these pictures. Were you exposed to them at age 5 or 6? If the answer is no, how did you become anti-abortion?
What proportion of the hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions worldwide) of staunchly anti-abortion people were exposed to these graphic pictures at an early age? If not, how do you explain their respect for life? Hint: maybe it’s related to their upbringing…
S
sprout
Guest
and trust in God Alone!
strange how God has been left out of this discussion, as if all depends on man’s efforts. I think it’s even been suggested much earlier in this thread that those who pray are doing “nothing”. Not surprising that there’s a lack of faith that anything but the most extreme “random” and indiscriminate tactics will work despite all testimony to the contrary.
I recall several years ago attending a prayer vigil protesting a Planned Parenthood fundraiser. As Providence would have it, the fundraiser just so happened to be held right across the street from an obscure Catholic Seminary. We gathered in the chapel parking lot right across the street from the fundraiser. The only posters or signs were one of Our Lady of Guadalupe and one of the Divine Mercy image. We sat all day from dawn to dusk fasting and perpetually praying the rosary and chaplet of divine mercy. I got terribly sunburnt. After the prayer vigil I felt disheartened that there were only a dozen or so of us praying, but the pro-aborts kept coming and coming, there must’ve been hundreds of them.
I called my sister about it and she told me to read about Gideon’s battle:
The battle is won with three hundred men, with a less eager and sensual disposition, divided into three parts, armed only with trumpets in their hands, and empty pitchers, and lamps within the pitchers. Much the same as the battle of Jericho. The moral of the story being
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
I think it has to do with the idea of “symbolism over substance”.
Folks might be pro-life or they might be “pro-choice”.
However, the symbolism of seemingly being sophisticated and “liberal” might tend to lose its attractiveness when the actuality of what an abortion really is become apparent.
In reality, the substance of abortion is chopping an unborn baby into pieces and killing it in the most violent and bloody manner possible. And flushing its remains down a sink into the sewage system. [Or throwing it into a dumpster.]
That’s the reality.
Not very appealing, is it?
As long as the reality is concealed behind antiseptic and sterile niceties such as the “coolness” of being “pro-choice”, then people will continue to accept abortion.
So we just show abortion for what it is. Butchery.
There is no nice way of putting a pretty face on abortion.
Just show it for what it really is.
You know, there is a tendency on the left to focus on word spinning. They attack “profits” as evil, when “profits” are no more than subtracting expenses from revenues. That’s all it is.
The folks on the left enjoy being “liberal” by saying they are “pro-choice”. Well, they are ONLY pro-choice on abortion. They are not “pro-choice” on education, guns, the first amendment (free speech) or the tenth amendment (Federalism and limited government).
So let us use graphic images of abortion to show people what abortion really is.
And if they find the images of abortion offensive … [and they should find the images offensive] … then let us stop abortion and encourage the alternatives … abstinence and adoption.
Folks might be pro-life or they might be “pro-choice”.
However, the symbolism of seemingly being sophisticated and “liberal” might tend to lose its attractiveness when the actuality of what an abortion really is become apparent.
In reality, the substance of abortion is chopping an unborn baby into pieces and killing it in the most violent and bloody manner possible. And flushing its remains down a sink into the sewage system. [Or throwing it into a dumpster.]
That’s the reality.
Not very appealing, is it?
As long as the reality is concealed behind antiseptic and sterile niceties such as the “coolness” of being “pro-choice”, then people will continue to accept abortion.
So we just show abortion for what it is. Butchery.
There is no nice way of putting a pretty face on abortion.
Just show it for what it really is.
You know, there is a tendency on the left to focus on word spinning. They attack “profits” as evil, when “profits” are no more than subtracting expenses from revenues. That’s all it is.
The folks on the left enjoy being “liberal” by saying they are “pro-choice”. Well, they are ONLY pro-choice on abortion. They are not “pro-choice” on education, guns, the first amendment (free speech) or the tenth amendment (Federalism and limited government).
So let us use graphic images of abortion to show people what abortion really is.
And if they find the images of abortion offensive … [and they should find the images offensive] … then let us stop abortion and encourage the alternatives … abstinence and adoption.
K
KarenNC
Guest
OK, I am pretty much at a loss as to how this applies to what we have been discussing, but I will give it a try.
None of the folks who have been discussing this issue for the past couple weeks have ever said they are in favor of abortion or think it is a good idea, particularly not abortion on demand for any reason whatsoever at any time, which is how folks who use “pro-choice” in quotes usually characterize it.
I have said that I do not agree with the Church’s characterization of certain methods of dealing with an ectopic pregnancy as abortion and do not see a reason to make those illegal (this is only one of the very many reasons I am not Catholic). I do not favor making it across the board illegal with no exceptions because there are indeed some limited cases in which the pregnancy itself endangers the mother’s life before the child is viable. I see no advantage morally in tying the doctor’s hands at that point by falsely limiting the options available just to prove a point. He should have the best options at hand to do the least harm possible in a very traumatic situation.
Everyone has agreed that any and every abortion is a tragic situation that ends a human life and that reducing the number of abortions is a worthy and good goal. What we are arguing is whether the only or appropriate or desirable way to go about that is to drive tractor trailer sized photographs of dismembered corpses of babies around town where young children see them without warning.
You really think that this discussion is about trying to appear “sophisticated”???
Show me one single post in which anyone who is opposing the random and indiscriminate use of these photos has ever claimed that abortion is otherwise?
What in the world are you talking about here? “Antiseptic” “sterile” coolness???
Are you honestly saying that you think we are opposing this particular method of showing tractor trailer sized photographs of bloody decapitated and dismembered babies to 4 year olds because we want people to think we are "cool"???
Good. Show it to the people who are having abortions or are in imminent danger of doing so. That does not include 2-7 year olds.
This is in no way “putting a pretty face on abortion.” It is leaving a topic until children have the developmental maturity to have some perspective and need for the information. We do that every day with all kinds of subjects. Abortion is simply one.
The only profits being attacked as evil here (or even mentioned) were by someone (I think it was Philothea, but not positive)raving about Planned Parenthood and profits—I really didn’t get the impression that the poster was “on the left.”
This is not about conservative vs. liberal. It is not about “pro-life vs. pro-choice.” It is about showing giant bloody photos of corpses of mutilated babies to preschoolers and whether that is appropriate or inappropriate. I contend that it is inappropriate.
Have you totally missed this entire thread? I have not seen that anyone who is opposed to the indiscriminate use of these photographs is not working to encourage the alternatives.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
This is how you justify limiting the free speech of others? By stating that you are not prepared to talk to your child about the posters and that you intend to wait a couple of years before talking to your child about the posters?
So everyone else has to stop showing the posters because you are unprepared and because you refuse to get prepared.
Evidently you do not understand that, if unborn babies have a right to not be killed, then you have a corresponding duty – as a participant in social contract – to oppose efforts to kill them.
Your duty includes not obstructing a proven form of public education: room-size posters of aborted babies.
Ani Ibi:
Do you honestly not remember your statements which I quote below? How can you reconcile your conflicting statements, when truth cannot contradict truth?
Specifically, first you blame the poster carriers for the loss of innocence of your child and then you claim that that loss of innocence was cleansed two thousand years ago (which it was). What is the problem here?
That your child has not been baptised? Or that you want to set out two conflicting arguments to justify your decision to limit the free speech of others because you are not prepared to talk to your child?
I note that you do not respond to my analogy of several posts ago:
Ani Ibi:
Are you OK with being robbed? Or not?
continued…
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Here:
Essentially you are arguing ‘is’ equates to ‘should.’ Because it happens it is OK to happen. As I have already pointed out, if that were true, then why did Christ come? Did He not come to change what is happening to what should be happening?
No thank you. Your use of the word ‘abominable’ does not change the fact that you are saying that abortion has been practised for a long time; that public education cannot reduce the numbers; and that you don’t have to prepare yourself to talk to your child about abortion. In fact it introduces an element of cynicism to your argument:
- Abortion is abominable. (true)
- Public education cannot reduce the numbers. (false)
- Therefore you don’t have to prepare yourself to talk to your child about abortion. (non sequitur)
If abortion is abominable then it follows that you should prepare yourself to talk to your child about it. After all, is it not reasonable to expect you to prepare yourself to talk to your child about not playing with fire, not talking to strangers, not running out into the road?
I see you are reduced to faulty analogies and strawmen again?
Tautology helps your case how exactly?
There is no need to spin your responses. Their illogic speaks loudly.
You seem to have done a good job.
There are no ‘brands’ of logic. Points of view are either logical or they are not logical. What part of ‘truth cannot contradict truth’ do you not understand?though your brand of logic is, shall I say…creative.
There are several websites which teach logic. You might do well to read up. Or is that also something that you are not prepared to do right now? Is that also something that can also wait a couple of years?
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
But you haven’t. (btw Ani is a she.)
That’s what we’ve been asking you. If the unborn have the right to not be killed, then you have a corresponding duty (responsibility, if you will) – as a participant in social contract – to not oppose a form of public education which operates to reduce the number of abortions.
Yes, limited by the social contract in which you are a participant.
Yes. So why do wish to limit the rights of others to free speech? Oh, yes, I remember. Because you are not prepared and do not want to get prepared to talk to your child about abortion. So everyone else has to make sure that abortion is not in the public eye until you do get prepared.
That of course hinges on whether or not you have a right to not see anti-abortion material. Do you think you have a right in this regard? This is the third time I have asked this question.
You would limit the clearly defined rights of others to free speech to defend your claim to a ‘right’ not to prepare your child to live in a society which upholds free speech. If you are a participant in the social contract, then you have no such right. Rather you have a duty.
What has happened is that you are attempting to limit the clearly defined rights of others to free speech to get out of your duty – as a participant in the social contract – to prepare your child to live in a society which upholds free speech.
K
KarenNC
Guest
Nothing in the social contract says that one is free to do so in any and every possible way at any and all times. In fact it says quite the opposite.
Actually, the social contract as you put it forth in regards to aboriton only establishes that the extent of her duty is to promise not to kill these children. I think that she has already established that she meets that criteria.
*Rather, a human right is a relationship between an individual and all others that entitles a person to certain conduct from every other person and from society. You have the power of life, but the right to your life is created when all others promise not to kill you. *
If you really mean “proven effective” the question remains----how has their effectiveness been “proven.” Effectiveness can only be measured against something else–they have been proven “effective” compared to what other means? For which audience?
There are many “proven forms of public education.” Not all of them are equally effective or equally desirable or equally appropriate for all audiences.
At one point in our history is was a “proven form of public education” for children to be beaten regularly in public schools, as simply one example. Capital punishment has been seen as a “proven form of public education” to people that if they commit certain crimes they will die as a means to reduce violent crime. Segregation and Jim Crow laws were “proven forms of public education” in educating black Americans on their “proper” place in society, as were lynchings, beatings, cross burnings, etc.
Simply because billboards, sides of trucks, etc are “forms of public education” does not mean that as a society we deem them usable for all messages to all audiences. As I have mentioned, it is not usual even for groups like Hollywood or the pornography industry to claim that they have an inherent “right” to show any image they like at any time they like to any audience they like just because they have a right to make a certain style of film and show it to the public.
Funny, you would think that someone who has been so vocal in his fear of being ignored or not included would take pains to actually answer posts directed at him. I am still waiting for you to tell me in exactly what ways you find my application of the principle of double effect (about which you were incredibly vocal) is “incomplete” or incorrect as applied to this situation. There has been an echoing silence on that front for a while now.
What you are doing, as a means of trying to get out of your duty to uphold the part of the social contract that includes the appropriate protection of young children by adults, is to try to repeatedly frame this as an “all or nothing” situation. That if anyone dares to suggest you shouldn’t show these pictures absolutley any and everywhere you like at any time and in any manner you like to anyone you like, your “rights” are being totally abrogated. That is not part of the social contract in this society. It is not the standard we as a society use for every other means of communication.
I have a duty to prepare my child to live in a society which upholds free speech by teaching that child the responsible use of such, not that she has the “right” to do whatever she pleases for whatever reason she pleases without any consideration for the rest of the people who live on this planet, regardless of how noble she feels her cause is. That is also part of the social contract.
Would that that inseperable pairing of rights and responsiblity were more evident among adults.
S
seekerz
Guest
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Oh but it is the point we’re discussing.
Marketing is about appealing to the emotions. Our consumer society is living proof that appealing to the emotions goes very far indeed.
So when are you going to start showing us some sound logic, seekerz?
Strawman. How can you live with yourself when you misrepresent what we say so boldly in order to justify your illogic?
NO ONE has said anything about targetting children. The posters are for public education. The public includes people of all ages, not just children.
You are trying to justify limiting the right to free speech of everyone else simply to justify you not meeting your duty to uphold that free speech.
No. I was exposed to gunfire in a warzone.
What on this wide green planet are you talking about? Step us through your cause and effect, please because you have completely lost us.
You tell us. And while you are telling us, please also tell us what proportion of the hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions worldwide) of women entering abortuaries to have abortions were exposed to these graphic pictures at an early age?
D-uh! Ya thenk? Ya thenk maybe their parents were prepared to talk to their kids about the unpleasant realities of living in the world?
Ya thenk maybe their parents clued into the possibility that it is more important to talk to their kids about not playing fire, not running into the road, not talking to strangers, than it is to idolize some sort of ill-conceived notion of ‘innocence’?
Can you imagine a parent saying, "Oh, I am not going to tell my kid not to play with fire because I don’t want to destroy his ‘innocence’? Or "Oh, I am not going to tell my kid not to run into the road because I don’t want to destroy his ‘innocence’ " Or "Oh, I am not going to tell my kid not to talk to strangers because I don’t want to destroy his ‘innocence’ "
Can you imagine the loss of innocence in that child resulting from his trustingly playing with fire or running into the road or talking to a stranger who hurts him? Who takes the blame for the harm which ensues to the child from not having been ‘talked to’? The fire? The road? The stranger? The child?
[sign]Or you?[/sign]
S
seekerz
Guest
- Status