Fr. Pavone on the use of graphic images of abortion

[sprout]

QUOTE=Philothea53;2671343
No different than your I, I, I, when talking about the work you do. You expect them to say God was with them when they were doing this? I don’t recall you saying God was right next to you in any of the posts you have made about your prolife work. Double standard here?

The only times in this thread I have talked about my prolife activities have been:

1. to respond to direct inquiries and/or challenges in an effort to defend my position as prolife, having been accused on more than one occasion as not caring about the unborn, etc. ad nauseum because I oppose the indiscriminate use of these images such as that young children would be needlessly exposed.
2. to share my frustrations in how these images of aborted babies make sidewalk counseling more difficult
3. the last time I believe I was sharing quite a bit of gospel and scripture talking about Gideon’s battle and humility.

I’m one of a handful of people in this discussion that repeatedly talks about God, about humility, about grace. Double Standard? perhaps on your part.

 

[PLAL]

There has been Pro’s and Con’s about showing the graphic pictures of abortion. I myself think there are times when the pictures need to be shown and times when they should not be shown.

For instance, I like the idea of showing the pictures on college campuses. The target age group is definitely old enough to handle the pictures. I have held these signs during a few Summer Truth Tours. At times when people had stopped at the light, I saw the people look at the signs and their eyes would tear up. I knew these people where either involved in having an abortion or they advised someone to have an abortion or someone they knew had an abortion.

Fr. Pavone shows these pictures on his Priests For Life website. There are thousands of people who wrote to him on his site and told him the pictures changed them from being Pro-Choice to Pro-Life.

priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/graphicspraise.htm

Pro-Life Action League lists comments to objections to showing the graphic pictures…

prolifeaction.org/truth/objections.htm

Jill Stanek brings up the case of Emmett Till for a case to use the graphic pictures…

freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/947446/posts

Anyhow I do agree if we can somehow keep young children from seeing the graphic pictures, then we should do that. During recent Truth Tours there have been warning signs before entering the zone where the graphic pictures are used.

I think the use of warning signs before entering the graphic picture zone is the common ground both sides of the issue can agree on.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I think the use of warning signs before entering the graphic picture zone is the common ground both sides of the issue can agree on.

Just a small question: do you not have to have a permit for a public demonstration in the US? If so, then that is warning enough. Notice of the demonstration usually appears in the news.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Philothea53:

Is this a veiled attempt to call me a liar? It sounds like it.

Vern’s been called quite a few names, I believe, in this discussion. And e-bob and myself other names in other threads.

When people start namecalling it is usually an indication that they have conceded the discussion. Karen conceded the discussion hundreds of posts ago.

Philothea53:

Don’t just gloss over it and dismiss it.

Good luck on that score!

Philothea53:

…but you complain because you have to shield your child’s eyes or be a good parent and love them past an occasional uncomfortable situation…

And seekerz complains because he would have to bestir himself to prepare himself, notwithstanding that we have provided links and posts to help him do just that.

 

[PLAL]

Just a small question: do you not have to have a permit for a public demonstration in the US? If so, then that is warning enough. Notice of the demonstration usually appears in the news.

I don’t think you need a permit to show the graphic pictures. It’s basically a freedom of speech issue that the signs can be shown on public property. If the right was denied, you can sue the city. Although all the demonstrations I have been in, the local police were informed well ahead of time we would be there holding graphic signs.

Most of these demonstrations are not in the news. The mainstream media has a supreme bias against those who are Pro-Life. The only times I have seen the demonstrations in the news are when Politicians are being protested outside a function for their Pro-Abortion stance.

 

[KarenNC]

Is this a veiled attempt to call me a liar? It sounds like it.

No, it is a very unveiled attempt to expect a coherent stance from you.

I certainly never said that I don’t really believe such a project exists. I did say I have personally never seen the truth trucks even with the many miles I have spent on the highways. That doesn’t negate their existence or the truth of the message they are taking to the people.

It would certainly seem to call into question the repeated claims that these are the only effective or even most effective means of preventing abortions and that is the justification for not only using them but increasing their usage.

I did say that possibly there is exaggeration going on. I do believe that there are some who are not really 100% prolife who would argue this point much more vigorously than actually required.

Arguing this point “more vigorously than actually required” when you yourself say “At this point in time in the fight to stop abortion, there is no such thing as an inappropriate use of graphic photos” in post 606? Exaggeration because you yourself have not had to deal with what we are arguing against? Yes, your children have seen these—because you chose to have them see them in the way you deemed approrpriate.

I think this comes from either their desire to discredit those whose intention it is to educate the public and put an end to “choice” or just plain old overkill.

Overkill? When these groups have plainly said (as well as demonstrated) that they have no limits, that they are willing to go anywhere, do anything, no holds barred?

It comes from my desire to re-establish some sense of civil decent behavior, even when protesting. To remind folks that the ends do not justify any and every means. That with rights come responsibilities. That children don’t cease to be of concern and worthy of care and consideration once they are born.

dear God, how could you not desire this to be stopped using whatever methods work?

Because “using whatever methods work” is not a defensible position ethically or morally.

This is to overlook your repeated agreements that the prolife movement has a singular lack of interest in finding out whether their methods actually work or not as long as it “feels” good and right to use them.

I have a knot in my stomach from reading the arguments you all make that obviously don’t take into account the underlying truths of what abortion is and why certain tactics have to used. I believe you are as selfish as those who admit to being pro-abortion.

Absolutely no one has every denied the underlying truth of what abortion is or that reducing the number of abortions is a good goal.

The “why” of a very limited set of certain tactics is exactly what I have been taking into account and saying is inappropriate and unethical (that I think it is also ineffective is something that stems from observation, but is not based on numbers since you have none).

The very fact that you feel the need and right to characterize anyone who questions a particular use of a particular set of materials as:
“selfish,”
“pro-abortion,”
“mak[ing] up these false worrys to make the pro-life side look bad,”
“pro-aborts masquerade as caring mommies while trying to undermine all the good the pro-life side is doing,”
“put on different personas like satan does to try to infiltrate the ranks and cause us to question if what we are doing is right,”
etc
should raise tractor trailer sized red flags among your fellow workers. It calls for a need to step back and examine the situation and the reasoning behind these actions. This is not the rhetoric of a group who is only doing something because they believe it is effective or that some side effects are regretfully unintended.

This is the rhetoric of a group who is willing to use any means to achieve their goal and demonize anyone who questions those means in any way. This is the rhetoric of a group who has already decided that the norms and boundaries of society do not any longer apply to them because of the goal they are seeking.

This is scary.

 

[KarenNC]

I think the use of warning signs before entering the graphic picture zone is the common ground both sides of the issue can agree on.

As long as those signs are clearly visible and far enough in advance of the area to reasonably allow parents to choose another route, yes, I can agree with this. I am not sure exactly how one would do this in the case of an airplane towing these images across the sky or a tractor trailer truck running up and down the highways and around towns.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

seekerz:

The best preparation for a child is to learn of God’s love and of His total sovereignty over all life from conception to death.

Once the relationship with God is right and suitably reverential from infancy, it would be pretty nigh impossible to grow up and choose to kill a baby.

But growing up to kill a baby is only one of the questions we are dealing with here. The question you have been so vehemently focussed on has been the question of whether or not small children should be exposed to posters of aborted babies.

Why suddenly are you avoiding this latter question? If, as you claim, “the best preparation for a child is to learn of God’s love and of His total sovereignty over all life from conception to death”, then there shouldn’t be any problem with children seeing the images you object to.

seekerz:

…Put another way, basic principles are all a young child needs. The specifics can come later.

Then there is no problem with exposing children to the images, is there? Why the tempest in the teapot then?

 

[KarenNC]

When people start namecalling it is usually an indication that they have conceded the discussion. Karen conceded the discussion hundreds of posts ago.

A link or reference to the posts in which I have called people names? I don’t recall any.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I don’t think you need a permit to show the graphic pictures. It’s basically a freedom of speech issue that the signs can be shown on public property. If the right was denied, you can sue the city. Although all the demonstrations I have been in, the local police were informed well ahead of time we would be there holding graphic signs.

Most of these demonstrations are not in the news. The mainstream media has a supreme bias against those who are Pro-Life. The only times I have seen the demonstrations in the news are when Politicians are being protested outside a function for their Pro-Abortion stance.

In Canada, we need a permit to demonstrate. We are never denied the permit unless some part of the Hate Propaganda Act is being violated. The permit gives the police time to organize protection for all involved.

Notices of the demonstrations usually appear in the media – not always the MSM – but somewhere in the media.

If you are not getting notices in the US, then that is not the fault of the demonstrators. That is the fault of your media and your lack of vigilance of them. The price of freedom is, afterall, eternal vigilance.

 

[PLAL]

In Canada, we need a permit to demonstrate. We are never denied the permit unless some part of the Hate Propaganda Act is being violated. The permit gives the police time to organize protection for all involved.

Hate Speech Legislation is supposed to be very dangerous. I have already heard of Priests being sent to jail for telling their congregation the Homosexual Act is immoral. Pretty soon the Bible is going to be banned.

Unfortunately I think the U.S. is not far behind Canada in enacting Hate Speech Legislation. I really fear this coming to our country soon.

 

[KarenNC]

Hate Speech Legislation is supposed to be very dangerous. I have already heard of Priests being sent to jail for telling their congregation the Homosexual Act is immoral. Pretty soon the Bible is going to be banned.

Unfortunately I think the U.S. is not far behind Canada in enacting Hate Speech Legislation. I really fear this coming to our country soon.

There are entire other threads where we have discussed the actual evidence for statements such as this. There isn’t enough space left in this one to get into it. Here’s one that you can resurrect if that is of interest
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=165165

 

[seekerz]

No, it is a very unveiled attempt to expect a coherent stance from you.

It would certainly seem to call into question the repeated claims that these are the only effective or even most effective means of preventing abortions and that is the justification for not only using them but increasing their usage.

Arguing this point “more vigorously than actually required” when you yourself say “At this point in time in the fight to stop abortion, there is no such thing as an inappropriate use of graphic photos” in post 606? Exaggeration because you yourself have not had to deal with what we are arguing against? Yes, your children have seen these—because you chose to have them see them in the way you deemed approrpriate.

Overkill? When these groups have plainly said (as well as demonstrated) that they have no limits, that they are willing to go anywhere, do anything, no holds barred?

It comes from my desire to re-establish some sense of civil decent behavior, even when protesting. To remind folks that the ends do not justify any and every means. That with rights come responsibilities. That children don’t cease to be of concern and worthy of care and consideration once they are born.

Because “using whatever methods work” is not a defensible position ethically or morally.

This is to overlook your repeated agreements that the prolife movement has a singular lack of interest in finding out whether their methods actually work or not as long as it “feels” good and right to use them.

Absolutely no one has every denied the underlying truth of what abortion is or that reducing the number of abortions is a good goal.

The “why” of a very limited set of certain tactics is exactly what I have been taking into account and saying is inappropriate and unethical (that I think it is also ineffective is something that stems from observation, but is not based on numbers since you have none).

The very fact that you feel the need and right to characterize anyone who questions a particular use of a particular set of materials as:
“selfish,”
“pro-abortion,”
“mak[ing] up these false worrys to make the pro-life side look bad,”
“pro-aborts masquerade as caring mommies while trying to undermine all the good the pro-life side is doing,”
“put on different personas like satan does to try to infiltrate the ranks and cause us to question if what we are doing is right,”
etc
should raise tractor trailer sized red flags among your fellow workers. It calls for a need to step back and examine the situation and the reasoning behind these actions. This is not the rhetoric of a group who is only doing something because they believe it is effective or that some side effects are regretfully unintended.

This is the rhetoric of a group who is willing to use any means to achieve their goal and demonize anyone who questions those means in any way. This is the rhetoric of a group who has already decided that the norms and boundaries of society do not any longer apply to them because of the goal they are seeking.

This is scary.

Excellent post. There is something wrong when any person or group feels like they are above criticism/correction.

 

[seekerz]

But growing up to kill a baby is only one of the questions we are dealing with here. The question you have been so vehemently focussed on has been the question of whether or not small children should be exposed to posters of aborted babies.

Why suddenly are you avoiding this latter question? If, as you claim, “the best preparation for a child is to learn of God’s love and of His total sovereignty over all life from conception to death”, then there shouldn’t be any problem with children seeing the images you object to.

Then there is no problem with exposing children to the images, is there? Why the tempest in the teapot then?

Are you suggesting I need to show my child pictures of dismembered babies to teach Him that God is love or Jesus Christ is Lord?

If I teach a 5yr old that from the very moment of God began creating him in my womb, He has known and loved him, why would that not be sufficient pro-life education?

Tell me, what’s more important than teaching my child to know God (and in so doing teaching him to respect life)? Does even God have to take a back seat to the gory-picture campaign?!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Excellent post. There is something wrong when any person or group feels like they are above criticism/correction.

If that is so, then why do Karen, yourself, sprout post material which concludes that you are above criticism?

One would also have to ask whether or not your criticism of the posters is valid? The criticism your group has offered has not been reasonable. It has been OPINION.

Basically your group wants to limit the constitutional right of free speech because you are uncomfortable with the message and the form of the message and because you are ‘not prepared’ to bestir yourselves to prepare your children.

This has been the case notwithstanding that we have given you educational material and demonstrated how the pro-abortionists will educate your children if you don’t.

I asked all of you several pages ago whether or not Karen has a right to not see the images? Does she? None of you have answered.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

seekerz:

Are you suggesting I need to show my child pictures of dismembered babies to teach Him that God is love or Jesus Christ is Lord?

You haven’t read my posts, have you?

Neither have you read the educational material I posted for you, have you?

What’s your excuse this time? Or are you still relying on stonewalling to promote your point of view?

Why do you presume to post rhetorical questions on material you haven’t bestirred yourself to read? Do you think that forwards the credibility of your posts?

It doesn’t. It erodes the credibility of your posts. And yet you persist in posting material that is not credible. Go figure.

seekerz:

If I teach a 5yr old that from the very moment of God began creating him in my womb, He has known and loved him, why would that not be sufficient pro-life education?

If you say that it is sufficient then why are you making such a fuss over other people exercising their right of free speech to display posters of aborted babies?

If you have educated your children in a way which you deem sufficient, then there shouldn’t be any problem with them seeing the posters, should there?

So what’s the big tempest in the teapot over? Oh I forgot. You want to do what you want to do because you want to do it. And you want other people to stop doing what they are doing for no other reason than you don’t want them to do it.

How could you not know how illogical your point of view is?

seekerz:

Tell me, what’s more important than teaching my child to know God (and in so doing teaching him to respect life)?

As I have pointed out before – and as you have ignored before – your focus has not been on the question of teaching children about God and teaching children to respect life.

Your focus has been on limiting the right of free speech of others so that you can continue to persuade yourself that being ‘not prepared’ to prepare your children to deal with unpleasant realities is OK.

Please tell us what you understand to be the social contract in which you are a participant.

seekerz:

Does even God have to take a back seat to the gory-picture campaign?!

Our Christian God has a front seat in that campaign. Do you worship the Christian God?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Hate Speech Legislation is supposed to be very dangerous. I have already heard of Priests being sent to jail for telling their congregation the Homosexual Act is immoral. Pretty soon the Bible is going to be banned.

Unfortunately I think the U.S. is not far behind Canada in enacting Hate Speech Legislation. I really fear this coming to our country soon.

Hate Propaganda is not principally about preaching against a certain group of people. The police will not arrest unless there has been credible threats of violence to that group of people.

 

[KarenNC]

If that is so, then why do Karen, yourself, sprout post material which concludes that you are above criticism?

One would also have to ask whether or not your criticism of the posters is valid? The criticism your group has offered has not been reasonable. It has been OPINION.

I have clearly offered up the source and basis for any material that I have posted. I have responded to criticisms without calling others the spawn of Satan or trolls, instead showing sources and giving reasons for my disagreement. I have offered source material from psychologists and studies regarding the harmful effects of images of real-life violence on young children and statistical studies on the facts of abortion in this country, including linking the studies themselves or giving citations for them so that folks could judge their applicability and reliability for themselves. I have called into question whether one side should be allowed to unilaterally claim “victory” when they consistently and vociferously refuse to hold themselves to the same standards that they demand of the other side.

I am content with the reasonableness of my responses and will let them stand as sufficient evidence for my choice of strategies.

 

[seekerz]

My question:

Originally Posted by seekerz
If I teach a 5yr old that from the very moment of God began creating him in my womb, He has known and loved him, why would that not be sufficient pro-life education?

Your response:

If you say that it is sufficient then why are you making such a fuss over other people exercising their right of free speech to display posters of aborted babies?

Because it is sufficient. Young childen do not need to be taught that some mothers abort their babies and*** they do not need*** to see pictures of mutilated babies.

As for infringing your right to free speech, that right cannot be unhinged from the Christian responsibilty to exhibit common decency in all forms of speech.

And yes, I do worship the Christian God. Is there any other?!

 

[estesbob]

There are entire other threads where we have discussed the actual evidence for statements such as this. There isn’t enough space left in this one to get into it. Here’s one that you can resurrect if that is of interest
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=165165

It is interesting that we had many of the same people who want to restrict free speech where abortion pictures who are concerned in that thread wanted to restrict free speech about homosexual behavior. In one case they want to protect their children from the idea abortion is wrong in the other they want to protect their child from the idea that homosexuality is wrong. Free speech loses in both cases.