Fr. Pavone on the use of graphic images of abortion

[Ani_Ibi]

Al Masetti:

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).

They are only pro choice for their own choice. They are not pro choice for the choice of other people. They have dismantled social contract and led us back into the freaking jungle.

Planned Parenthood sprang from the Birth Control Movement which sprang from the heart of Margaret Sanger. Margaret Sanger was not promoting the choice of African Americans for ‘justice and liberty for all.’

She was promoting the choice of herself and those of her ilk to live in a country depopulated of African Americans – at least insofar as African Americans chose not to be slaves hidden in the kitchen and in the shed at the end of the master’s field.
Al Masetti:

So let us use graphic images of abortion to show people what abortion really is.

Why not? No one has given us a reason for hiding the truth.
Al Masetti:

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.

Speaking about adoption, next time you all are eating out, put some loose change in the box at Wendy’s. Dave supports adoption.

 

[seekerz]

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]

At the same time you are saying children are not being targeted, you are saying young children need to be taught about abortion? Am I misunderstanding something here?

Also, education of children about the realties of life has to be done at the appropriate stage of development. Constantly repeating that children need to be educated, will not change the fact that there is a right/wrong time and way of doing this.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

seekerz: I have asked you before to go to the technical help forum and ask the mod there how to put your replies in quote tags.

Mini-tutorials
Help! Something’s Wrong

(Just can’t look em up for yourself, right? )

By refusing to use the quote tags correctly, you make it extraordinarily inconvenient for others to reply to your posts. We have to copy your entire post and post it into the reply window, rather than just clicking the reply button.

If you refuse to learn how to use the quote tags, then at least do not post your replies inside the quote tags which the reply window gives you.
Ani Ibi:

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?

seekerz:

I never or implied that “is” equals “should” and to characterize my statement as such is wrong.

Saying that you did not does not make it so. Bald statements on your part are unpersuasive. I have already dealt with this numerous times. What I suggest is that you spend some time on a website which teaches logic.

Argument Forms
A List Of Fallacious Arguments
The Fallacy Files

(Just can’t look em up for yourself, right? )

 

[Ani_Ibi]

seekerz:

At the same time you are saying children are not being targeted, you are saying young children need to be taught about abortion? Am I misunderstanding something here?

No you are not misunderstanding. The children need to be taught about abortion in the same vein that children need to be taught about not playing with fire, not running into the road, and not talking to strangers.

Why? Because life happens and children who are prepared to deal with life … deal with it. Children who are not prepared to deal with life … flounder in any number of counterproductive ways.

To fully understand what I am saying, you will have had to have read the section of PDE on proximal and remote intention of the object of the act. So why haven’t you? And yes I can tell that you haven’t, because your posts do not refer to any part of PDE in any specific cogent way.

Let us say that the act in question is displaying room-size posters of aborted babies in public places.

Let us say that the object of the act is to dissuade women from having abortions.

The proximal intent is to open the eyes of those women.

The remote intent is to open the eyes of children.

The remote intent are those further ends that are chosen in addition to the… proximal [intent] of the action.

Because such [remote intents] are not essential to the act, [they] can only increase or decrease the moral goodness of an already morally good act, but they cannot determine the… essential moral character of the act.

Summary: you don’t get to blame anyone but yourself for not preparing your child for accidentally seeing the image of an aborted baby on a poster.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

seekerz:

Also, education of children about the realties of life has to be done at the appropriate stage of development.

Are you trying to tell me that, when a toddler goes up to a lit barbecue you don’t say “no!” When same toddler crawls toward the road, you don’t say “no!” When same toddler reaches out a hand to a stranger in a mall, you don’t take the hand away and shoo along the toddler?

seekerz:

Constantly repeating that children need to be educated, will not change the fact that there is a right/wrong time and way of doing this.

You misunderstand age-appropriate education. It does not mean that the child does not get educated at all until the parent is ‘prepared’ to educate the child. It is not about your age appropriate education. It is about the child’s age appropriate education.

Age appropriate education is about the method used to impart information according to the child’s method of finding things out. Art education for toddlers is completely different from art education for six yr olds and teens and even older adults.

That does not mean that only university age adults get art education. It means that the form of the art education differs according to the age of the student.

You are thinking in either/or faulty dichotomies: either the child gets an education or he/she doesn’t. We are saying that the child always gets an education in a form which the child can understand.

But how would you know any of this? You have flatly refused to educate yourself in how to educate your child! You have said more than once that you are not ‘prepared’ to have that talk with your child. So this is not essentially about your child being unprepared, but about you being unprepared to prepare your child.

I ask once more: are you not prepared to teach your child to not play with fire, not run onto the road, not talk to strangers? If you are prepared to teach your child these things then why are you not prepared to teach your child about abortion?

If you are not prepared to teach your child these things, then what are your alternatives? Never cooking? Living on a boat in the middle of a lake so that you never run the risk of being trapped in a burning house? Banning cars? Banning roads? Living on a desert island where there are no strangers?

What is your alternative to not teaching your child about abortion? Besides preventing everyone else from being taught about abortion? Surely you are not putting making the mistake of putting all your eggs in an unconstitutional and frankly morally illicit basket. That’s what it seems to us that you are doing.

You want what you want because you want it and you are unwilling to look at any alternatives, any balance, any way of honouring the social contract in which you are a participant. This approach on your part is unpersuasive. Repeating it over and over does not make it any less unpersuasive.

 

[joab]

You misunderstand age-appropriate education. It does not mean that the child does not get educated at all until the parent is ‘prepared’ to educate the child. It is not about your age appropriate education. It is about the child’s age appropriate education.

You are thinking in either/or faulty dichotomies: either the child gets an education or he/she doesn’t. We are saying that the child always gets an education in a form which the child can understand.

By this definition, the child’s age appropriate education would include graphic abortion pictures at age 2-7, 8, when?

If I follow the logic: How about graphic pictures of a couple having sexual intercourse, a unmarried couple of course , to educate the general public of where babies that are to be aborted come from? We would be showing that sex should only happen in marriage and that sex outside of marriage produces children to be aborted. Of course, young children might see these pictures, but that would be okay.

I also am wondering who should decide that the child is ready for the education. Is it the parents? The child? The people holding up the posters?

 

[Philothea53]

I see where you’re coming from. I do believe that certain people can care for preschoolers properly, but it really isn’t their job to discuss abortion with them. I don’t think want the preschool teacher or assistant having to explain abortion to them. It’s just not acceptable to me. I also don’t want my friends and family doing so either. At age 4 or 5, it truly is mine and my husband’s job to give them information as needed. I guess I do see why my question made no sense to you at first glance, but now do you see where I’m coming from?

I am taking a break from my time off and really felt the need to respond to this.

I guess I see things differently for in the first place I was a stay-at-home Mom except for a few very short forays into the ‘working’ world for extra Christmas money or whatever so I didn’t have to worry much about anyone other than me teaching my kids what I wanted them to learn at an early age.

In the second place, although Karen seems to question my knowledge of children (after raising five and now working in an elementary school), I never had a problem calming and reassuring my children about things that they didn’t understand or that seemingly frightened them. I was always able to very calmly explain the truth of a situation or when matters called for it, to steer away from an unnecessary discussion and just love them back to doing whatever we were doing before they got frightened.

That included times we spent in the car - and as Californians we spent a lot of our time in the car on gridlocked freeways at various times of day - where we were singing and talking and reading road signs, etc. If there was anything untoward to be seen I could very easily have told them to close their eyes, that we were playing a game or whatever or in some other way distracted them. If they did see whatever it was that would cause them grief, I would not have had a problem in loving them forward.

I just can’t get what the problem is. No one is going into your home or your child’s school with these pictures and holding your child captive. Besides, if your age 2 - 7 year old child is spending a lot of time with people you don’t trust, them maybe that is what you need to be considering instead of whether or not these photos need to be shown to fight abortion. If you can’t trust the ability of certain people you allow your child to spend time with to calm and reassure your child when frightened, then maybe they should not be around that person ever. If these particular people cannot be trusted to calm your children at these times, can you trust that they aren’t maybe also teaching your children other things you wouldn’t? And should your youngster be with those kind of people? You have choices and you have recourse. You can bet your bottom dollar ain’t nobody gonna tell my kids things that are wrong/improper/differ from my values. Not as preschoolers, not even as high schoolers. On the few times something did come up, I reassured my child then MADE DARN SURE IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.

 

[seekerz]

seekerz: I have asked you before to go to the technical help forum and ask the mod there how to put your replies in quote tags.

Mini-tutorials
Help! Something’s Wrong

(Just can’t look em up for yourself, right? )

By refusing to use the quote tags correctly, you make it extraordinarily inconvenient for others to reply to your posts. We have to copy your entire post and post it into the reply window, rather than just clicking the reply button.

If you refuse to learn how to use the quote tags, then at least do not post your replies inside the quote tags which the reply window gives you.

Saying that you did not does not make it so. Bald statements on your part are unpersuasive. I have already dealt with this numerous times. What I suggest is that you spend some time on a website which teaches logic.

Argument Forms
A List Of Fallacious Arguments
The Fallacy Files

(Just can’t look em up for yourself, right? )

I just use the quote button. I assume it’s there to be used right? Sorry for inconveniencing you by not doing things exactly your way but then again this is the reality of life: different people do things differently. Surely if this phenomenon was not God-ordained, He would have simply created a single giant brain that all people could plug into. Maybe you would be less inconvenienced if you did not expand every word of mine into a detailed concept.

 

[seekerz]

Repeating it over and over does not make it any less unpersuasive.

Ditto for every reason given on this board justifying indiscriminate use of the graphics in question.

 

[bmmckinney]

Warning… there are things in the world that cause feelings to be upset, unplug the tv, turn off the radio, close the blinds, and keep your children indoors!

For if they are taken into the world they might see many things that will upset them and might even make them cry! Now one of those things are photos of the reality of abortion. Now much different then rap on the radio, pornography, or violence on tv, these photos and videos of butchered aborted babies help save born babies, help save souls, and are following the only historically effective methods of ending injustice in semi-free countries!

Yet people who claim to be against these atrocities don’t understand this fact and want these truths not to be shown simply because they believe that feelings of born children is worse then the murder of unborn children.

Come on people stop being so selfish! This is such a rediculous argument that it isn’t almost worth justifying. I look forward to the day you tell your grandchildren when they ask you what you did to end abortion and you have to tell them nothing in shame. History has already given you folks a label, its called apathetic bystander. You were the whites during Civil Rights who did nothing but hide in your homes, you were men during the abolition movement who did not speak against the oppressive males in society, you were the people during the holocaust who stood by and watched the Nazi’s execute Jews and others in the street, and today you are the pro-feelings people who care more to spend your energy on sheilding born children from photos of unborn children who are killed by born people for selfish reasons. History will not be kind to you and I can only guess to what God will say if you ever face Him. What you do to the least of me, you do to me!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

seekerz:

I just use the quote button. I assume it’s there to be used right?

You have been placing your posts inside the quote tags. This has been your typical response to every request we have made of you: argument for argument’s sake; a total lack of accountability for anything you say or do; a total stubborn clinging to you’re right you’re right you’re right even when the facts clearly prove otherwise. And speaking about facts: do have any?

seekerz:

Sorry for inconveniencing you by not doing things exactly your way

Until I see you stop putting your posts inside the quote tags, then I will have to assume this is a false apology.

seekerz:

but then again this is the reality of life: different people do things differently.

It is the reality of people refusing to cooperate with the social contract in which they are participants.

seekerz:

Surely if this phenomenon was not God-ordained, He would have simply created a single giant brain that all people could plug into.

He did. It is called socialization.

seekerz:

Maybe you would be less inconvenienced if you did not expand every word of mine into a detailed concept.

Maybe you would have a case if you had something to say besides the same old unsubstantiated tautologies and if you would respond to other peoples posts in a reasonable manner rather than just attempting to dismiss and marginalize them out of hand.

 

[seekerz]

I just can’t get what the problem is. No one is going into your home or your child’s school with these pictures and holding your child captive. Besides, if your age 2 - 7 year old child is spending a lot of time with people you don’t trust, them maybe that is what you need to be considering instead of whether or not these photos need to be shown to fight abortion. If you can’t trust the ability of certain people you allow your child to spend time with to calm and reassure your child when frightened, then maybe they should not be around that person ever. If these particular people cannot be trusted to calm your children at these times, can you trust that they aren’t maybe also teaching your children other things you wouldn’t? And should your youngster be with those kind of people? You have choices and you have recourse. You can bet your bottom dollar ain’t nobody gonna tell my kids things that are wrong/improper/differ from my values. Not as preschoolers, not even as high schoolers. On the few times something did come up, I reassured my child then MADE DARN SURE IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.

Are you saying that just because I would not have a teacher or bus driver explain abortion to my kid, it means I don’t trust these people?

Thank God if you are able to stay home with your child - some people just aren’t able to, so they entrust care of their children to others. That doesn’t necessarily include delegating responsibility for teaching them about abortion.

Incidentally, what did you say to your child when introducing the topic of abortion and at what age was this done?

 

[bmmckinney]

The only thing that keeps evil at bay is a few good people who do something, it is evident that some here don’t understand that. So it is up to us who care about injustice to inform the world that it is complicit and complacent in genocide the likes that shock the conscience as you learn more and more about it and is unbelievable until you see photos of that evil.

 

[seekerz]

You have been placing your posts inside the quote tags. This has been your typical response to every request we have made of you: argument for argument’s sake; a total lack of accountability for anything you say or do; a total stubborn clinging to you’re right you’re right you’re right even when the facts clearly prove otherwise. And speaking about facts: do have any?

Until I see you stop putting your posts inside the quote tags, then I will have to assume this is a false apology.

It is the reality of people refusing to cooperate with the social contract in which they are participants.

He did. It is called socialization.

Maybe you would have a case if you had something to say besides the same old unsubstantiated tautologies and if you would respond to other peoples posts in a reasonable manner rather than just attempting to dismiss and marginalize them out of hand.

And this personal attack refers to the topic at hand exactly how…?

 

[seekerz]

What you do to the least of me, you do to me!

Indeed, very well said and worth pondering on and applying to all children: the born and the unborn.

 

[boppaid]

Philothea, see I told you it was hard to stick by a “time off”.

I see where you are coming from. I am a wm now (was a sahm with my youngest), but we honestly cannot afford for me to sahm anymore. At first I was really sad about it, but now I love teaching, and my children love school, so it all woks out well for us!

Even though you sah, did your children go to preschool?

Besides, if your age 2 - 7 year old child is spending a lot of time with people you don’t trust, them maybe that is what you need to be considering instead of whether or not these photos need to be shown to fight abortion.

Not everyone shares my views about abortion. My daughter goes to a free, public school (age 4) while I am at school/work. (I can’t afford private education for my kids. ) I am not comfortable trusting them to educate my children about abortion. I trust themt o take care of my children, and I value their degrees in education to adequately (More than adequately) educate my children in reading, writing, and arithametic, but not on subjects like abortion. What else shall I do?

Anyway, thanks for explaining why the question seemed stupid. I hope my explanation of where I’m coming from, and where others may be coming from, helps you to see why it’s not a stupid question to me.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

joab:

By this definition, the child’s age appropriate education would include graphic abortion pictures at age 2-7, 8, when?

It is not OUR duty to educate YOUR children.

joab:

If I follow the logic: How about graphic pictures of a couple having sexual intercourse, a unmarried couple of course , to educate the general public of where babies that are to be aborted come from?

Well, one thing is obvious, isn’t it? You didn’t follow the logic. Hey if that’s what your kids are watching on tv, then what are YOU going to do about it?

joab:

We would be showing that sex should only happen in marriage and that sex outside of marriage produces children to be aborted. Of course, young children might see these pictures, but that would be okay.

So does what you propose to show conform to the act and the object of the act under PDE? Have you even bothered to read the material that I linked on PDE? Let me guess. Your posts make no reference to anything set out under PDE – so no.

Is this the sort of age appropriate education you are proposing to give your kids? If so, then no wonder you are up against a wall. Oh for gosh sakes, don’t admit that you haven’t a clue what kind of material is available for age appropriate education. Just make other people responsible for your refusal to PREPARE YOURSELF to PREPARE YOUR CHILDREN.

joab:

I also am wondering who should decide that the child is ready for the education. Is it the parents? The child? The people holding up the posters?

If your child is wandering into a road and his parents are saying nothing – preferring to ‘protect his innocence’ – then guess what? It is the civil authorities who say when the child is ready for the education. In other words if you do not hold up your end of the social contract, then you lose the rights and privileges therefrom.

By the way do you know what social contract is? If not, please do some reading on the internet before you comment again. OK? Thank you.

By the way, why should I feel in any way obliged to answer your silly frivolous rhetorical questions when NOT ONE effort has been made to answer mine. This I believe is still a discussion board. Yet I am not seeing any discussion from your side of the question. NONE.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Ditto for every reason given on this board justifying indiscriminate use of the graphics in question.

Oh ditto is such a persuasive argument. Where do I sign up?

 

[seekerz]

Oh ditto is such a persuasive argument. Where do I sign up?

Then we both remain unpersuaded and it’s perfectly fine with me that you have a different opinion on use of graphic abortion photos? How do you feel about my having an opinion that disagrees with yours?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

And this personal attack refers to the topic at hand exactly how…?

A personal attack is an attack against the person.

It is not a disagreement with what the person says.

You didn’t go to the material I linked on logic and fallacies, did you? How can anyone help you if you simply refuse to learn?

This is the trouble isn’t it? That you don’t know how to prepare your child but are too proud to admit that you could learn how to prepare your child.

Feeling a little desperate now that it is clear that you have run out of substantive material to contribute to the discussion? Have to grab at straws? Make rash accusations?

I haven’t run out of substantive material at all, btw. I haven’t even started. And where I leave off I know Vern, e-bob, and Philothea have all sorts of information that I haven’t even dreamed off.

You, on the other hand, have what? You want to shut down the poster campaign because you don’t want to learn how to prepare your child because you don’t want to learn how to prepare your child because you don’t want to learn how to prepare your child… and so on ad tedium.