Fr. Pavone on the use of graphic images of abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Caveman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Before you presume to tell me what I think, have the courtesy to put on your turban and gaze into your crystal ball.

You’re not clear because you presume to tell me what I think. You’re arguing with your own ideas, not with mine.

Once again, you presume to tell the rest of us what we think.

Note that no one is ascribing motive to you. No one is presuming to tell you what you think.

Can you not extend the same courtesy to others?
As you said you did not understand what I meant, I expalined, including exactly what I was replying to and why. As you seem more interested in making jokes than actually responding to either the original point or the explanded explanation, I will be glad to try again in simpler terms if you still don’t understand.
 
Here in Ireland there is a group that make postcard size graphic pictures that disturb, they do change hearts.

Sadly out of sight is out of mind, I could scarcely believe that I posted a picture to a nurse in Illinois and she didn’t know that babies were so well formed before they were cruelly torn from their mothers.

Have to say she was pro-choice, but after seeing the pictures she is pro-life, so they do work.

She thought it was a clump of cells, so yes out of sight is out of mind, we need to show the world these graphic images, HELL will be the reward for this unrepented sin.
How does showing graphic photographs of piles of the blood-covered mangled body parts of mutilated dead babies do a better job of teaching children ages 2-7 (or anyone, for that matter) what children look like at different stages of development than showing them what intact, living children look like at the same stages? My daughter has had books since she was 4 with very detailed pictures of babies at various stages of development before birth. They are some of her favorite books. She is well aware that they are babies and not “clumps of cells.” I didn’t have to show her pictures of bloody body parts to make that message abundantly clear.
 
As you said you did not understand what I meant, I expalined, including exactly what I was replying to and why. As you seem more interested in making jokes than actually responding to either the original point or the explanded explanation, I will be glad to try again in simpler terms if you still don’t understand.
And you seem determined to make this personal.
 
I won’t ascribe motive to anyone – but I wonder why some people get so hot against those who show pictures of aborted babies, but not against those who killed the babies?
How in the world do you know whether or not someone “gets hot” toward abortion providers based on what they say about the tactics of certain prolife activists on this board?

Do you expect that there are large numbers of people who provide abortions on this board? I don’t. What good would it do me to ask people who already don’t provide abortions to stop doing so? It does, however, hopefully do me some good to ask people who are actually showing these graphic images to preschoolers to change their tactics.

Chooosing an appropriate audience for the particular message is part of effective communication.
 
How does showing graphic photographs of piles of the blood-covered mangled body parts of mutilated dead babies do a better job of teaching children ages 2-7 (or anyone, for that matter) what children look like at different stages of development than showing them what intact, living children look like at the same stages? My daughter has had books since she was 4 with very detailed pictures of babies at various stages of development before birth. They are some of her favorite books. She is well aware that they are babies and not “clumps of cells.” I didn’t have to show her pictures of bloody body parts to make that message abundantly clear.
Babies that you believe are acceptable to kill under certain circumstances. How do you explain that to your child?

If you dont explain to them in detail the horror of abortion the culture they live in will convince them its not.
 
I don’t get it. What are we protecting children from again? Their own valid emotional responses to a manifest evil which they recognize because moral law is already written on their hearts?.. I believe we cannot protect children from life but we can give them the tools to make their own preliminary forays into the world of choice. Without information children don’t learn to make choices.

My best friend btw had a nervous breakdown many years later. Her mother said that she had carried the weight of the world too heavy on her shoulders. I don’t think so. I think that her shoulders were never given a chance to strengthen themselves for adult life.
Then I suggest that you and mapleoak and vernhumprhey and philothea all get together to put together a curriculum involving these photographs of piles of bloody baby body parts for preschoolers and present it to your local Sunday School and Catholic school preschool curriculum committees.

What other graphic images of what the Church teaches is immoral behavior that costs lives do you believe we also should be showing to preschoolers without their parents’ permission lest they get an incorrect understanding of the world? You could include documentaries on the Holocaust and other genocide, there’s been recent video footage of live beheadings, soldiers laying on the ground or young children laying on the streets after a terrorist bombing --bleeding, crying, missing body parts and waiting for medical attention, footage of the people killed by drunk drivers (I bet that film we were shown in drivers’ ed is available–was it “Death on the Highway?”–I think I remember a particularly good image of a body partially melted onto a twisted car frame), alcoholics having DTs or drug addicts going through withdrawal…the list could continue. Surely we can’t trust parents to tell children about these either, particularly not before kindergarten, and by that point, it’s probably too late to affect their behavior anyway.

There may not be much time left for learning their colors and letters or the rest of the usual curriculum, but then all that is of at best secondary importance for children this age.

Education is a process. What is appropriate for adults, highschoolers, even middle schoolers, is not automatically, therefore, appropriate for preschoolers.
 
The only way one can rationalize supporting abortion is to discuss it only in the abstract. Usually this entails talking about reproductive rights or “choice”. When pressed on the issue they generally resort to attacking the pro-life position on the fringes. They trying change the subject to a discussion on very rare estopic pregnancies , equally rare pregnancies that directly imperil the life of the mother or question our compassion for rape and incest victims. Anything but talk about the horror that goes on these clinics.
In what way have I tried to “avoid talking about the horror that goes on in these clinics” to anyone other than preschoolers and young elementary children? What have I said that gives you the indication that I believe abortion is anything but a terribly tragic situation or that I support abortion in all and every case for all and every reason? Have I even said that you should never show these pictures to anyone ever? No, I have specifically said that I believe these photos do indeed have a place in the discussion, just not in front of very young children.
 
In what way have I tried to “avoid talking about the horror that goes on in these clinics” to anyone other than preschoolers and young elementary children? What have I said that gives you the indication that I believe abortion is anything but a terribly tragic situation or that I support abortion in all and every case for all and every reason? Have I even said that you should never show these pictures to anyone ever? No, I have specifically said that I believe these photos do indeed have a place in the discussion, just not in front of very young children.
What makes you think I was talking about you?
 
guttmacher.org/presentations/abort_slides.pdf

Here is a sickening compilation of facts from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood. While you have to wade through these pages of facts according to AGI on how ‘safe’ abortion is and the selfish, self-serving reasons women give for killing their unborn children, you can see on page 23 that Guttmacher reports <1% of abortions are done on girls younger than 15 years of age. The website has changed - they removed reference to the pre-teens having abortions that they used to have (gee, imagine that). There used to be clear reference to babies having babies - when it suited their purpose. I won’t do any more research for you,…

But, doing the math, 1% of 1.3 million abortions per year (down from a high of 1.5 million) is 13,000 babies of pregnant girls younger than 15 years old are killed every year . Again with the math, that’s 442,000 babies killed since 1973 of pregnant little girls.
While pregnancy in any young girl is tragic, there is a difference between talking about pregnant 14 year olds and pregnant 9 year olds, whatever the outcome of the pregnancy. Just like there is a difference in talking about appropriate sexual education strategies for a 4 year old and a 12 year old. Statistics about pregnancy and abortion rates in girls under 15 do not tell us how many of those girls were 9, 12 or 14. None of these statistics are related to whether the practice of showing graphic photos of piles of mangled bloody baby parts to the 2-7 year olds that I am discussing is appropriate.

Asking someone to cite sources for information that they provide is hardly something I would think should constitute a hardship. The the facts and figures have to come from somewhere and without knowing what that source is, it is impossible to judge its likely reliability. I would actually think that you would be anxious to show the studies, etc that support your argument.
 
And you seem determined to make this personal.
I am not sure how to respond to a question that you asked me directly about not understanding something that I posted in response to a comment you made without making it “personal” by directing the response to you.
 
Getting back on topic of this THREAD. I have seen the “graphic images” and I have no problem with showing them to adults and possibly even teens.

However I don’t like it when it could be easily exposed to a 4 year old. At that age they can distinguish between real and fake and showing an unspeakable atrocity (which abortion certainly is) to a 4 year old is not good.

I am not suggesting we pack up and not use it at all but perhaps we could show it places where young children are not likely to see it.

Our children’s innocence is being lost through the crud of the Internet and TV.
I totally Agree with this!

I think women who are considering Abortion should have to face these images, and actually consider the child they are aborting. I don’t care if she is 12 if she is trying to have an abortion then she is old enough to think about the child God is growing inside of her. My mom was 14 when she had my sister, and I wouldn’t exist if she had gotten an abortion. I like remind the Pro abortionists that they should be very thankful their mothers didn’t believe in it, or they might not be here.
 
If you dont explain to them in detail the horror of abortion the culture they live in will convince them its not.
Oh no I must believe that abortion is okay, b/c I never saw images like this until I became an adult…

Oh wait no, I don’t. :rolleyes: I was taught all through my life as it was age appropriate about life, and where babies come from, and about sex, and about abortion itself.

You teach children over their entire lifetime, not in one instance and there is never just one moment or one time to teach a child something. I have been trying to teach my 4yo his letters for 2 years, and my 5yo how to write them for 6 months. She won’t learn cursive until she is much older, and to try to teach her before then is just stupid.

B/c I am pregnant right now, and they have been to see the doctor, and they have seen pictures of their little brother they know that he is a person, and he is living in my belly until God says he is ready to meet the world. 👍
 
Babies that you believe are acceptable to kill under certain circumstances. How do you explain that to your child?

If you dont explain to them in detail the horror of abortion the culture they live in will convince them its not.
I will and have explained to my child those of my views that she has the need and developmental ability to understand. I will continue to do so.

I am still waiting for a convincing argument that I should be required to “explain in detail the horror of abortion” to a 4 year old.
 
Education is a process. What is appropriate for adults, highschoolers, even middle schoolers, is not automatically, therefore, appropriate for preschoolers.
Hi Karen,

You explained very clearly what I was trying to express but apparently failed to convey.

Sincerely,

Maria1212
 
Then you better keep your 4 year old from ever going outside or getting on the internet or watching tv.

The next time you take your 4 year old to the grocery store look at the magazine photos or what is on your daily newspaper lying around the house.

I refuse to accept your totally disingenuious double standard that you have. You haven’t seemed to complain about all the graphic images your child has seen except when they are photos of aborted babies.

Could it be that you are ashamed of your own views if your 4 year old asked you “Mommy do you think it is ok to do that to a baby?” How would you answer that?

How is it that I have met dozens of young children that see those photos and are your child’s age and know that those pictures help save babies but yours doesn’t seem to be able to do that? I’ll lay the blame on the parent on this one. Its not hard to explain the fact that people hurt babies for no good reasons and these photos help save the lives of babies that might be hurt if they aren’t shown.
 
How does showing graphic photographs of piles of the blood-covered mangled body parts of mutilated dead babies do a better job of teaching children ages 2-7 (or anyone, for that matter)
They do get the message across however horrifying, as per example above.

I posted one to a nurse :eek: in Illinois, who was pro-choice, she was gobsmacked to say the least and didn’t know the baby was so well formed, she is now pro-life, at least I’ve changed one heart.

Some women have turned away from abortion clinics because of these pictures, I have posted them in our town.

We would like to shelter our children, yet many children watch adult movies, Halloween for example, they do see stuff on TV that they aren’t supposed too, theres supposed to be protection for them from such images.

And what about bringing our children into some newspaper shops, there is some pretty graphic stuff in these stores, all top shelf, but children aren’t blind.

As Vern said, people get upset over the death of an animal, but a child, NO, killing a child for some is a service to the woman, a service to the God fearing community, Sunday morning Christians.🤷
**
Anyway with some children these images don’t just register in their tiny minds, some can’t comprehend it, others probably yes, but I don’t think we should try to hide the horror of abortion, otherwise satan has done a number on us.**

I mean your talking to someone that was told that the nurse brought my little sister on her bike in a suitcase, off-course I believed it.:rolleyes:
A little too graphic Bob, come on tighten up…😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top