Fr. Pavone on the use of graphic images of abortion

[vern_humphrey]

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?

It’s obvious.

 

[mapleoak]

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.

If your four year old child can even adequately comprehend what she is looking at, I don’t think you should have any trouble explaining to her when she asks what such a photo represents. If she doesn’t adequately comprehend what she is looking at, how you answer her questions is one of the great blessings bestowed on parents as the primary educators of their children.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If your four year old child can even adequately comprehend what she is looking at, I don’t think you should have any trouble explaining to her when she asks what such a photo represents. If she doesn’t adequately comprehend what she is looking at, how you answer her questions is one of the great blessings bestowed on parents as the primary educators of their children.

Children see horrible things all the time – from an automobile wreck to combat scenes on TV, to a nursery school classmate with a serious disease. A parent who is not prepared to explain such things is severely disadvantaged.

 

[proudnifi]

Time and place seems to be a big theme here. Parents should have the choice to shield their young children as much as possible from graphic images. Yes, sometimes life intervenes but that’s no reason to stop trying to reduce such images from their lives. Even with inappropriate billboards/magazines/commercials, I doubt most parents will just decide it’s a waste of time to shield their children and take them to R-rated movies, etc. They still teach values - you can teach Little John or Jane that it’s not ok to hit someone without showing photos of abused women. When John is older, then it makes sense to give him more information on the terror that people inflict on each other.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Time and place seems to be a big theme here. Parents should have the choice to shield their young children as much as possible from graphic images. Yes, sometimes life intervenes but that’s no reason to stop trying to reduce such images from their lives. Even with inappropriate billboards/magazines/commercials, I doubt most parents will just decide it’s a waste of time to shield their children and take them to R-rated movies, etc. They still teach values - you can teach Little John or Jane that it’s not ok to hit someone without showing photos of abused women. When John is older, then it makes sense to give him more information on the terror that people inflict on each other.

The primary burden is on the parents, though. While pro-life acts should be directed where they will have maximun effect, they cannot always be placed where children will not see them – and children should see them, long before puberty.

Parents should think ahead and work out how they will explain the evils of the world to their children before the children are caught up in those evils.

 

[KarenNC]

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

A parent who allows their 4 year old unrestricted and unsupervised access to either television or the internet or freedom to roam unsupervised and unrestricted anyplace in the world that they so choose is showing even less judgement than I am crediting the prolife folks who use this specific tactic are.

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.

The topic of the discussion is the use of graphic images of abortion, so you are surprised that I am addressing that topic?

However, Post #57 (which I repeated in post 68 in case you missed it the first time) “I also do not advocate putting video clips of people being gassed at Auschwitz on Sesame Street or going on field trips to the crack house, drunk tank and brothel just to make sure that the little ones know the “REAL TRUTH” of what goes on there.”

or we could go directly to post 110
"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."

 

[KarenNC]

They do get the message across however horrifying, as per example above.

I can certainly choose to get the message across to a child that the stove is hot by holding her hand to the burner, I suppose, but I don’t have the gall to suggest that it is an appropriate or acceptable way to do so.

I posted one to a nurse 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.

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

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

How many of those women were ages 2-7?

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.

Yes, and as adults, we are the ones who are supposed to be protecting them.

If you are allowing your 4 year old to watch adult movies despite the warnings, ratings, descriptions of the content and the fact that you have to actively take the child to the movie or turn on the TV and choose that movie, that is your choice. Unfortunately, I saw people who chose to bring their young child to “Bourne Ultimatum” last night and was not at all surprised when he had to be carried out screaming. I cannot reasonably say that parents cannot or should not be able to wallpaper their own child’s nursery with all the graphic photos of dead bloody mutilated babies that they want, regardless of what I think of such parenting choices.

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.

Why are you choosing to frequent these newspaper shops with your small child in tow rather than waiting until she is not with you? The stores where I have been that had these types of magazines either kept them behind the counter or up on top shelves, with something that blocks most of the front. If you are taking young children into stores that openly display graphic images more than once and then extremely briefly (ie until you could see what it was and turn around to leave), then their exposure is no longer unintentional.

Again, this is by your choice. The last time I looked, Playboy centerfolds and their ilk weren’t being held up on public street corners or blown up to billboard size and driven around the city on trucks. If one wants to see the centerfold, one has to actually seek out a vendor, purchase the magazine and open it up.

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.

You are welcome to discuss that point with someone who supports it.

**
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.**

If it doesn’t register with them, how in the world can one claim that it is good for them and teaches them something, on the one hand, or that they should be shielded from anything, on the other?

 

[proudnifi]

Parents should think ahead and work out how they will explain the evils of the world to their children before the children are caught up in those evils.

Exactly. And this is why some folks don’t want graphic images used without consideration of the likely viewing audience. Not everyone thinks a 9 or 10 year old should see dismembered bodies, photos of untreated STDs, photos of corpses from DUI accidents, etc. I think such images can be valuable teaching tools - but I don’t want them used for a general viewing audience.

 

[KarenNC]

While pro-life acts should be directed where they will have maximun effect,

You and the others have yet to show any credible, objective evidence (not just anecdotes) that showing these photos in the manner described (billboard trucks with these photos, random strewing of cards with these photos, holding up these photos on street corners) actually consistently and more effectively produce the desired results to a greater degree than other methods of providing the same information (ie showing these photos in a more targeted manner to a more targeted audience). If these groups have the money to rent billboard trucks, surely they have enough to do some actual market research?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Ok, we have a double effect here. Harm by not showing the graphic images. Harm by showing the graphic images.

Has anyone thought of applying the Principle of Double Effect?

For the act in question to be licit, all Five Tests for Double Effect must be met.

1. The object of the act must not be intrinsically contradictory to one’s fundamental commitment to God and neighbor (including oneself), that is, it must be a good action judged by its moral object (in other words, the action must not be intrinsically evil);
2. The direct intention of the agent must be to achieve the beneficial effects and to avoid the foreseen harmful effects as far as possible, that is, one must only indirectly intend the harm;
3. The foreseen beneficial effects must not be achieved by means of the foreseen harmful effects, when no other means of achieving those effects are available;
4. The foreseen beneficial effects must be equal to or greater than the foreseen harmful effects (the proportionate judgment);
5. The beneficial effects must follow from the action at least as immediately as do the harmful effects.

Object of the Act

There are two categories of intention: proximate intention and indirect (remote or circumstantial) intention. It is the proximate intention which counts.

 

[KarenNC]

It’s obvious.

In what way precisely?

 

[KarenNC]

Children see horrible things all the time – from an automobile wreck to combat scenes on TV, to a nursery school classmate with a serious disease. A parent who is not prepared to explain such things is severely disadvantaged.

So we should blow up pictures of these things and put them on trucks and run them around the city lest any of the children happen to have missed them?

I can see the equivalence of these photos with happening upon a particularly gruesome car wreck, but I don’t see that people are therefore staging re-enactments of them in the public square, and then claiming that such are beneficial and educational to small children.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Exactly. And this is why some folks don’t want graphic images used without consideration of the likely viewing audience. Not everyone thinks a 9 or 10 year old should see dismembered bodies, photos of untreated STDs, photos of corpses from DUI accidents, etc. I think such images can be valuable teaching tools - but I don’t want them used for a general viewing audience.

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?

 

[vern_humphrey]

So we should blow up pictures of these things and put them on trucks and run them around the city lest any of the children happen to have missed them?

I can see the equivalence of these photos with happening upon a particularly gruesome car wreck, but I don’t see that people are therefore staging re-enactments of them in the public square, and then claiming that such are beneficial and educational to small children.

A “reinactment?” The pictures in question are neither in action nor are they reinactments.

Your desire that your child not see something doesn’t trump everyone else’s rights.

 

[KarenNC]

A “reinactment?” The pictures in question are neither in action nor are they reinactments.

Your desire that your child not see something doesn’t trump everyone else’s rights.

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.

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”?

Let’s take a look at the speech made by Archbishop Celestino Migliore, permanent observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, to the Third Committee of the 58th U.N. General Assembly, on the “Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Children” on Oct. 20, 2003. (I have highlighted some phrases)

catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=4659

"In promoting the well-being of children, the family, as the fundamental unit of society and the natural environment for the growth and development of children, should be given all the necessary protection and assistance. It is in the family that the rights of children are respected best, in accordance with the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity. The concern for the child, while it is a challenge to society as a whole, is primarily and more directly a challenge to families. The Holy See has always affirmed that parents have the duty and the right to be the first and the principal educators of their children. …
In our day and age, the recognition of the rights of the child has undoubtedly made progress. But the violation of these rights in practice, exemplified by the many terrible assaults on their innocence and dignity, remains a cause for distress and, at the same time, calls us into action, We must see to it that the welfare of the child is always given priority during all the stages of its development, right from the moment of its conception when they become individual human beings. The international community should assure the well-being of children through political action at the highest level; for, in the end, the attention we give now for the well-being of the children is an assurance for the well-being of society, now and in the future.

Since children are in need of almost everything, they can only spend a peaceful and joyful childhood when they have our solidarity and care. We must not fail them. "

Care to elaborate on exactly how viewing supersized graphic color photographs of bloody butchered baby parts on the way to the mall or when they go to eat their Happy Meal achieves this stated goal? I don’t see the words “unless it is not convenient to our other goals” appended to the last paragraph.

Or we can look at the “Formation of Christian Chastity” program
arlingtondiocese.org/childprotect/

"In 1995 the Pontifical Council for the Family issued a document entitled " The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality ". This document offers guidance on how the question of forming young people in these critical, yet sensitive areas of human sexuality, should be addressed. At the very heart of this document is the understanding that parents are the primary teachers of their children. This is especially true in the formation of children for a life of healthy and holy chastity. The questions around human sexuality require a certain maturity and development on the part of the child for a proper and healthy understanding. Those best situated to know their children and what they need are the very ones who have given them life and nurture them on a daily basis.

The document specifically notes a concern for the “years of innocence”, as Pope John Paul II refers to them. These are the years generally from the age of five to the onset of puberty. Children at this time are generally not overtly interested in sexual matters, and this natural innocence should not be disturbed. … Parents are best situated to monitor the needs of their child at this stage of his or her life, and are able to provide appropriate and sufficient information for their healthy development and their safety, without going into great details that may not be age appropriate.

The program “Formation in Christian Chastity” has been developed with the understanding that most of the human and religious concepts that revolve around the topics of human sexuality, family, and moral living, are best and most meaningful when coming directly from the parents to their child."

 

[KarenNC]

We can also go on to the THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE FAMILY: THE TRUTH AND MEANING OF HUMAN SEXUALITY to see what the Church says should be taken into consideration when providing information related to sexuality to young children:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_08121995_human-sexuality_en.html

Children’s Principal Stages of Development

1. It is important for parents to take their children’s needs into consideration during the different stages of development. Keeping in mind that each child should receive individualized formation, parents can adapt the stages of education in love to the particular requirements of each child.
2. The Years of Innocence
3. It can be said that a child is in the stage described in John Paul II’s words as “the years of innocence” from about five years of age until puberty — the beginning of which can be set at the first signs of changes in the boy or girl’s body (the visible effect of an increased production of sexual hormones). This period of tranquility and serenity must never be disturbed by unnecessary information about sex. During those years, before any physical sexual development is evident, it is normal for the child’s interests to turn to other aspects of life. The rudimentary instinctive sexuality of very small children has disappeared. Boys and girls of this age are not particularly interested in sexual problems, and they prefer to associate with children of their own sex. So as not to disturb this important natural phase of growth, parents will recognize that prudent formation in chaste love during this period should be indirect, in preparation for puberty, when direct information will be necessary.
4. Nonetheless, in the context of moral and sexual information, various problems can arise in this stage of childhood. In some societies today, there are planned and determined attempts to impose premature sex information on children. But, at this stage of development, children are still not capable of fully understanding the value of the affective dimension of sexuality. They cannot understand and control sexual imagery within the proper context of moral principles and, for this reason, they cannot integrate premature sexual information with moral responsibility. Such information tends to shatter their emotional and educational development and to disturb the natural serenity of this period of life. Parents should politely but firmly exclude any attempts to violate children’s innocence because such attempts compromise the spiritual, moral and emotional development of growing persons who have a right to their innocence.
5. A further problem arises when children receive premature sex information from the mass media or from their peers who have been led astray or received premature sex education. In this case, parents will have to begin to give carefully limited sexual information, usually to correct immoral and erroneous information or to control obscene language.
6. Finally, as a general guideline, one needs to bear in mind, that all the different methods of sexual education should be judged by parents in the light of the principles and moral norms of the Church, which express human values in daily life. The negative effects which various methods can produce in the personality of children and young people should also be taken into account.

Solidarity with Parents

1. In fulfilling a ministry of love to their own children, parents should enjoy the support and cooperation of the other members of the Church. The rights of parents must be recognized, protected and maintained, not only to ensure solid formation of children and young people, but also to guarantee the right order of cooperation and collaboration between parents and those who can help them in their task. Likewise, in parishes or apostolates, clergy and religious should support and encourage parents in striving to form their own children.

 

[bmmckinney]

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.

 

[boppaid]

As I mentioned in another post, Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama, on national TV during one of the recent debates advocated for sex education starting in kindergarten.

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?

Girls as young as 9 years old have been taken for abortions of the babies conceived as a result of rape by their fathers, step-fathers, dutch uncles, etc. The truth of these abortions has been hidden from the law and we would never know about it if not for the hard work of the prolife community. .

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.

 

[boppaid]

edited

 

[Jesusstreet]

You know they put to death a man for killing the murderers who abort the babies . … Millions are downloading hardcore pornography, including children.

If a man tells the truth, GOD praise him for it.

Psalms
Chapter 64
1 For the leader. A psalm of David.
2 O God, hear my anguished voice; from the foes I dread protect my life.
3 Hide me from the malicious crowd, the mob of evildoers.
4 They sharpen their tongues like swords, ready their bows for arrows of poison words.
5 They shoot at the innocent from ambush, shoot without risk, catch them unawares.
6 They resolve on their wicked plan; they conspire to set snares; they say: “Who will see us?”
7 They devise wicked schemes, conceal the schemes they devise; the designs of their hearts are hidden.
8 But God will shoot arrows at them and strike them unawares.
9 They will be brought down by their own tongues; all who see them will shake their heads.
10 Then all will fear and proclaim God’s deed, pondering what has been done.
11 The just will rejoice and take refuge in the LORD; all the upright will glory in their God.