Fr. Pavone on the use of graphic images of abortion

[Reformed_Rob]

We discussed this at a meeting getting ready for a high school pro-life speech competition. The lady in charge, very active prolifer, said that the images, in her opinion, are not as effective as rational discussion and reasoning with people about the topic.

I agree, but at the same time, a picture can say a thousand words. For general pro-life use, I would think that the use of such images should be very used with great discretion.

But people do need to “see” the truth, that is one thing that has affected me greatly.

 

[Mimi]

People driving by a Face the Truth demo along a busy street could probably tell any yound children in the car, “Kids, I want you to cover your eyes until I say to uncover them.” I have held these signs. What people usually do not see is the info printed on the sign: female -age: 7 months, 2 wks - anesthesia: none

These signs are usually large enough so the driver could see what’s coming up far enough ahead to give a warning.

I see the point about these graphic photos possibly traumatizing young children, or even sensitive older children. It IS a subject our small pro-life group has talked about. We have a sign that travels around the city; on one side it says, “Thank God Your Mother Was Pro Life”, on the other it says, “It’s a Child Not a Choice”.
One of the msgs was “Abortion Kills Children”; a parent complained that this might be harmful to grade school children, so we changed it.

While I agree that positive photos of fetal development and showing the humanity of the unborn instills the idea that this IS a human life and should be the way children learn about human development, adults need to be reminded about the awful truth that abortion is murder.

Until adults are abhorred by legalized killing of innocents, we should use every tactic available. The survival of our civilization is at stake!

Protect the innocent (born and unborn), educate the ignorant!

Peace,
Mimi

 

[KarenNC]

Guess what? All that giberish means nothing if babies are being exterminated at the rate of 160,000 a day or more, so don’t try to justify not saving them with Catholic writings.

If you choose to characterize statements from the Vatican as “gibberish,” I suppose that is up to you. Sorry, I expected that a Catholic would give some weight to such writings. My mistake–perhaps I erred in assuming you were a Catholic? Your profile doesn’t say.

Out of curiosity, on what do you base your figure of 160,000 a day? Is that in the US, in developed countries, worldwide?

 

[bmmckinney]

Karen,

As a national prolife leader I won’t dare post something that can’t be backed up statistically. 160,000 a day is from abortion supporters statistics!

The Catholic church should do more and guess what if abortion didn’t exist I would say we are to look more seriously at what you posted earlier. But the fact is that these babies are still being exterminated and none of that writing you gave us will save a single baby. That’s the real issue, do we want to save these little ones from being murdered or just spend our time debating feelings and words instead of saving lives. It seems you only spend your energy in the first. Guess what? Your children need to see these images because sheilding them from the truth will put them into the risk pool for having abortions, we can’t trust parents to do the right thing anymore, 50+ million abortions prove that.

 

[KarenNC]

Karen, As a national prolife leader I won’t dare post something that can’t be backed up statistically. 160,000 a day is from abortion supporters statistics!

Great. Then you should have no problem actually telling me what that source is and maybe even providing a link to it, should you?

Guess what? Your children need to see these images because shielding them from the truth will put them into the risk pool for having abortions, we can’t trust parents to do the right thing anymore, 50+ million abortions prove that.

How do you determine exactly who is in the “risk pool” and why exposure to these images at age 10 rather than 4 puts one more at risk?

While you are at it, could you also link your source for “50+ million abortions”? What time period and geographical area that covers?

 

[bmmckinney]

Karen,

I’m done dealing with someone who supports abortion like yourself. Either you are incredibly nieve or you are here to stir up trouble, I think it is the latter actually.

Anyone who would rather protect a young child’s feelings rather then save an unborn’s life isn’t prolife, they are “profeelings.” Its very clear that you aren’t prolife because you don’t know any statistics either. The Alan Guetmacher (check that spelling) Institute has those numbers and they are part of Planned Parenthood.

You know I do think that we should have shown these graphic photos to the women who had abortions when they were 4 years old, a lot of their parents shielded their children who became women who had abortions because they didn’t know the truth.

Because you and people like you won’t be responsible enough to help end abortion and instead play word games people like myself, people who care about saving babies, won’t stop showing the world what abortion does to babies. I don’t care if I make every 4 year old in the world cry, babies will be saved.

 

[bmmckinney]

Karen incase you don’t know what abortion really is go to: abortionno.org/ and see what it is yourself. This video is what happens to unborn children. Showing this horror causes women not to do this to their children. Not wanting to show these horrors for any reason isn’t prolife.

 

[proudnifi]

And do you therefore you support censorship? Should people be prohibited by law from showing such images?

And with no law against the actual killing that results in such grim pictures?

Actually, yes, I support a limited degree of censorship, especially self-censorship. I am not supportive of hard core porn being shown on basic television channels in the middle of the day.

With regard to “such images” and legal issues, we haven’t been discussing what should or should not be legal. Just because something is legal, doesn’t mean it should be done or that it is a great idea. I would probably be against making it illegal to display “such images” and hope that people can exercise good judgment as to when it’s appropriate to exercise (or not exercise) their legal rights.

With your last comment, you are using straw man tactics and it’s not appreciated. I have never suggested that abortion is ok or that I support its legality; I don’t.

 

[proudnifi]

Not wanting to show these horrors for any reason isn’t prolife.

There are perfectly valid reasons for not showing these images in certain circumstances while still remaining pro-life.

 

[mapleoak]

There are those also who think we shouldn’t allow children to see images or statues of the scourging, crown of thorns, nor the crucifixtion of Christ. Might harm them mentally.

 

[KarenNC]

There are those also who think we shouldn’t allow children to see images or statues of the scourging, crown of thorns, nor the crucifixtion of Christ. Might harm them mentally.

Yes, there are definitely reasons that Mel Gibson’s movie “The Passion of the Christ’” was rated R (under 17 requires permission from parent or guardian) for graphic violence rather than G (for all audiences).

 

[mapleoak]

Yes, there are definitely reasons that Mel Gibson’s movie “The Passion of the Christ’” was rated R (under 17 requires permission from parent or guardian) for graphic violence rather than G (for all audiences).

Thanks, that explains alot. I would be the last to ever say a child should be shielded from a crucifix or an image of the crowning of thorns.

 

[Scottgun]

I don’t think we’re allowed to discuss presidential candidates.

I do want to point out, though, (without alluding to any particular political figures, so as not to break the rules), that said sex education in kindergarten is meant to discuss what is inappropriate and appropriate touching to avoid being manipulated by child molesters. HECK YES I want all children taught this! And the sad truth is that many parents are negligent in doing this, and make their children easy prey for predators in having that “talk”. Thus, I think this kind of topic in schools is a great idea! I can’t understand why a parent would object?

Because there are good programs and bad programs, but bringing the Feds in (who can barely deliver the mail) is a bad idea because they run roughshod over the principle of subsidiarity.

How does showing graphic pictures of aborted fetuses stop this? Whether or not the 9 year old knows the horror of abortion, her abusive family member will still force her to get one.

What I don’t get is the suggestion that graphic pictures are off the table. Slavery was abolished through things like helping slaves escape, networking, lobbying, and ultimaley force. But it also included graphic descriptions of what slavery was like. Most pro-lifers don’t think graphic pictures are to be used at all times, but people need to stop bleating in Jocelyn Elders fashion, “the chiiilldrinnn” as if pro-lifers were incapable of excercising common-sense.

 

[KarenNC]

Thanks, that explains alot. I would be the last to ever say a child should be shielded from a crucifix or an image of the crowning of thorns.

I don’t doubt it.

I thought it did a fairly good job of giving an example of the understanding that not all means of presentation are appropriate for all audiences, regardless of the intended value of the lesson.

BTW,
“Mel Gibson recommends that the movie not be seen by persons under the age of 13.”
religioustolerance.org/chrgibson6.htm

cccm.ca/mt/archives/000028.html
“To help understand this film, the Communications Service of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) has developed this Internet resource to promote discussion and foster a deeper awareness of Christ’s Passion…The film contains extreme violence and is not suitable for all audiences, especially young children. Older youth should not see it unless accompanied by a parent.”

Many screenings of the movie for the kindergarten classes in your parish, then?

 

[KarenNC]

Because there are good programs and bad programs.

Bingo!

Most pro-lifers don’t think graphic pictures are to be used at all times, but people need to stop bleating in Jocelyn Elders fashion, “the chiiilldrinnn” as if pro-lifers were incapable of excercising common-sense.

I thank the ones who do exercise common-sense (and in truth they are the majority).
Have you actually been reading this thread? It is the actions of the ones who evidently don’t choose to exercise that capability to which I am objecting. Unfortunately, I happen to live in an area where the headquarters of one of the groups who choose not to show any indication of exercising common sense is located.

The ones who, on this very thread, keep justifying exactly the use of graphic images at all times as the only possible way to work against abortion.

The ones who keep repeating over and over that there is no possible way that anyone is capable of working to prevent any abortion in any way whatsoever if they are not allowed to parade billboard sized graphic color photographs of bloody, butchered, mutilated baby body parts through the streets at any and all times, leave cards with these images in any place whatsoever, or hold up poster sized versions of them on well-travelled public streets, knowing full well that in doing so they are showing these images to untold numbers of young children without warning and without their parents’ permission.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Not sure what you mean by “in action”. If you mean that they are not video of an actual procedure, no, but there is a poster on one of these threads that will be glad to refer you to one, as I was referred. Thankfully, I don’t know that these particular members of the prolife movement have found a way to show video on a billboard truck–at least not yet.

You said:

I don’t see that people are therefore staging re-enactments of them in the public square,

A re-inactment is an action. It’s physically doing what was done before.

In what precise way does saying that it is possible to convey a message to adults without showing graphic photographs of bloody butchered babies to three year olds as they ride to the mall an effort to “trump everyone else’s rights”?

That’s meaningless.

We aren’t trying to “convey a message” – that’s a cognitive stragegy. And adults aren’t our only target audience. It is a legitimate goal to reach people before their values are formed – which means at a young age. And to do that, we need an affective strategy.

 

[Scottgun]

Bingo!

I thank the ones who do exercise common-sense (and in truth they are the majority).
Have you actually been reading this thread? It is the actions of the ones who evidently don’t choose to exercise that capability to which I am objecting. Unfortunately, I happen to live in an area where the headquarters of one of the groups who choose not to show any indication of exercising common sense is located.

 

[Mag_Uidhir]

And they are now giving nursing degrees to preschoolers? I did not know the shortage was that bad.

Aww haww I’m doubled up in pain laughing, actually :nope:

Maybe if she had been told it as a child and shown a picture she wouldn’t have had been in the dark so long, and her turning 40, like I said, out of sight is out of mind.

Oh about your stove analogy, I assume you will let your child see the stove, unless your advocating saying "look dear there is a thing in that room called a stove, and when lit, it is very dangerous ", might be a good idea to let them see it as well.

Or better still, don’t light the stove, meaning don’t butcher babies in the first place.

 

[KarenNC]

We aren’t trying to “convey a message” – that’s a cognitive stragegy.

I have to admit that this answer is a bit confounding…If you aren’t trying to convey a message, then what precisely, may I ask, do you think you are doing? Landscaping?

And adults aren’t our only target audience. It is a legitimate goal to reach people before their values are formed – which means at a young age.

Which puts paid to the argument that any exposure of young children to these images is “unintended,” then, doesn’t it?

And to do that, we need an affective strategy.

Upon what evidence do you base your belief that showing these photos on billboard trucks running around the city, holding up posters at well-travelled intersections and strewing cards with them in every possible public place is effective?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I have to admit that this answer is a bit confounding…If you aren’t trying to convey a message, then what precisely, may I ask, do you think you are doing? Landscaping?

Human learning theory has three domains;

• Cognitive – logic, math, speech and so on
• Psychomotor – riding a bicycle, throwing a ball and so on
• Affective – values, beliefs and attitudes.

You cannot teach someone calculus by having him shoot hoops. You cannot teach someone to ride a bike by having him memorize the multiplication table.

And you cannot work in the affective realm with cognitive or psychomotor strategies.

Which puts paid to the argument that any exposure of young children to these images is “unintended,” then, doesn’t it?

The exposure of young children – those too young to understand – may happen, but there will be no effect. For those who can understand, their value system may be affected – if their parents do their part.

I
Upon what evidence do you base your belief that showing these photos on billboard trucks running around the city, holding up posters at well-travelled intersections and strewing cards with them in every possible public place is effective?

Several posters have already given that evidence.