Fr. Pavone on the use of graphic images of abortion

[vern_humphrey]

Specific citation on where I have said that no one should be allowed to show these pictures ever?

Unfortunately I cannot force anyone into showing what the majority of our society seems to be able to understand are considered reasonable and appropriate standards of behavior in that society.

You have proof of what the majority of our society seems to be able to understand are considered reasonable and appropriate standards of behavior in that society?

Until someone comes up with some convincing shred of actual evidence other than anecdotes (which are the equivalent of testimonials in an infomercial) that there is indeed no other effective avenue of sharing this information without the need to involve young children as the audience, I will continue to stand on my position that they are wrong to do so and that the ends do not justify these particular means, yes.

The evidence is the First Amendment. No one needs someone else’s approval to exercise their First Amendment rights.

 

[KarenNC]

Karen,
Its sort of very obvious you support abortion now. Who do you work for is the question, Planned Parenthood? American Abortion Providers? Are you sitting in your clinic right now being able to see women about to have abortions in the waiting room?

You wouldn’t believe this truth no matter what evidence is shown apparently but its clear to see why.

Credibility is important and you have none because you have dismissed all evidence to prove you wrong simply because you don’t like that fact and you are obviously not prolife. I can’t image why you are here trying to play games with us all.

Hon, the only “fact” you have presented (160,000 abortions a day) was inflated by at least 100% as far as I can tell and you still won’t give me a source for it.

Adding additional ad hominem attacks doesn’t really help, you know. They still are fallacious arguments (as well as incidentally being totally wrong ).

Yes, credibility is important. That would be why I cite sources.

Which particular truth is it that I am supposed not to be willing to believe, just so I am clear? Let me know if I miss any in the list below.

That children are just as human before they are born as they are after they are born and both are just as worthy of our compassion and protection from harmful influences? I agree.

That abortion kills children? Agreed.

That people who consider an abortion should be aware that they are ending a human life? Agreed.

That anyone old enough to be considering sexual activity should be educated about the possible consequences of that activity, including the consequences of choosing an abortion? Agreed.

That engaging in sexual activity other than in the context of a committed relationship between two adults who are mature enough emotionally and financially to be able to deal with the potential consequences in an appropriate way is not a good idea? Agreed.

That it would be better if people did not use abortion as a means of ending inconvenient pregnancies? Agreed.

That presenting abortion as a choice with no consequence for the woman, physical or emotional, is a lie? Agreed.

That fewer abortions are desirable? Agreed.

That not everyone understands all of the above? Agreed.

That graphic images of the consequences of abortion can have a role in the discussion with the appropriate audience in the appropriate venue? Agreed.

That it is inappropriate to bring specific discussions of abortion and graphic images of babies who have died violently into preschool and early elementary classrooms as part of the education process? I agree.

That young children are not the ones having abortions and so should not be the intended targets of prolife campaigns that use images that would not otherwise be considered appropriate for viewing by children? I agree.

That running tractor trailer sized photos of bloody, dead, dismembered baby corpses through towns, parking them in neighborhoods and apartment complexes, across from grocery stores, in front of churches on Sunday morning, etc where we know young children are going to see them is the only possible way anyone has ever influenced someone not to have an abortion and therefore it is not important that young children see it? I don’t agree.

 

[Philothea53]

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).

I wonder what the commercials for Viagra and Cialis and K-Y Personal Lubricant are rated?

 

[estesbob]

It appears for many in this thread it is better for children to die than for their children to be exposed to these images. We have seen testimonials from women who say they have decided not few have an abortion after seeing these images on trucks. It is not a a few offended children better than a fewdead children?

 

[KarenNC]

I wonder what the commercials for Viagra and Cialis and K-Y Personal Lubricant are rated?

Don’t know, but I don’t recall anyone talking about them being on between the Saturday morning cartoons. Are they big on Nickelodeon, Discovery Kids, Cartoon Network, Noggin, Disney Channel, etc on cable? Of course, PBS still doesn’t have commercials, I don’t believe, and they still run a lot of age appropriate children’s programming at times young children are likely to be watching, I understand.

You’ll have to ask someone who actually has access to commercial or cable television if you want more specifics, I’m afraid. We opted to go dvds only several years ago. Making the choice not to deal with advertising or supporting the channels that might be carrying inappropriate content has been a nice benefit.

Which particular programs have you noticed showing these commercials? Are there ones that are particularly graphic? Youtube has a bunch of commercials available on it, so I would be willing to go look so that I could have a more informed opinion.

Also, last time I looked, don’t you usually have to physically choose to turn on a television and select a program? Not too many tractor trailer trucks driving down the street or parked in front of your house playing the commercials. Can’t recall ever seeing any billboard ads for any of those products either, now that you mention it, and the area of the grocery store where they are is pretty well labeled.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Don’t know, but I don’t recall anyone talking about them being on between the Saturday morning cartoons. Are they big on Nickelodeon, Discovery Kids, Cartoon Network, Noggin, Disney Channel, etc on cable? Of course, PBS still doesn’t have commercials, I don’t believe, and they still run a lot of age appropriate children’s programming at times young children are likely to be watching, I understand.

And when did you see pictures of aborted babies on Nickelodeon, Discovery Kids, Cartoon Network, Noggin, Disney Channel, etc ?

 

[KarenNC]

And when did you see pictures of aborted babies on Nickelodeon, Discovery Kids, Cartoon Network, Noggin, Disney Channel, etc ?

Would be really surprised to see either pictures of aborted babies or ads for personal lubricants and medication for erectile dysfunction on any of those, which was my point. Not likely to be too many Playboy ads or graphic footage of the Holocaust or the war in Iraq, either, I wouldn’t think, because there is apparently a general consensus that there are some things that we, as a society, don’t need to be showing to preschoolers. At least enough of one that we don’t typically intermingle Sesame Street and World At War or CSI Special Victims Unit.

Funny, we also have a little thing that comes up on the screen showing a rating for the show (TV-G, for instance), a thing called a TV Guide so that we know what’s coming on when on what channel with a bit of a description of the program and the rating, a remote so that we can switch the channel if something inappropriate happens to come up that we weren’t expecting (a newsflash, for instance), an off switch and a power plug.

 

[TOP]

My family and I came across “In the Begining” on the ion channel. We had to turn it off because of the commercials.

 

[whatevergirl]

Would be really surprised to see either pictures of aborted babies or ads for personal lubricants and medication for erectile dysfunction on any of those, which was my point. Not likely to be too many Playboy ads or graphic footage of the Holocaust or the war in Iraq, either, I wouldn’t think, because there is apparently a general consensus that there are some things that we, as a society, don’t need to be showing to preschoolers. At least enough of one that we don’t typically intermingle Sesame Street and World At War or CSI Special Victims Unit.

Funny, we also have a little thing that comes up on the screen showing a rating for the show (TV-G, for instance), a thing called a TV Guide so that we know what’s coming on when on what channel with a bit of a description of the program and the rating, a remote so that we can switch the channel if something inappropriate happens to come up that we weren’t expecting (a newsflash, for instance), an off switch and a power plug.

are these pics that are being described here on tv as commercials? if so, i have not seen these?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Would be really surprised to see either pictures of aborted babies or ads for personal lubricants and medication for erectile dysfunction on any of those, which was my point.

Then your point eludes me. Why discuss these venues when you know no such things will be shown there?

 

[KarenNC]

Then your point eludes me. Why discuss these venues when you know no such things will be shown there?

Because Philothea posted hers specifically in response to my commnet that Gibson’s “Passion” had an R rating, an example of material that is considered inappropriate for young children based on presentation. She has previously brought up such commercials as examples of other inappropriate things besides the graphic abortion images that children might also be exposed to.

The comparison does not hold as my objection to the use of the graphic abortion images is specifically related to their use in areas where it can reasonably be expected that numbers of young children will be present and parents cannot either reasonably predict that the images will be there or do anything to avoid them or mitigate exposure if they are encountered. To the best of my knowledge, KY, Viagra and Cialis commercials do not fall into that category.

It was my experience that, since advertisers actually do market research and make an effort to target their audience rather than simply throw their info out there, that shows rated TV-G were likely to have commercials in keeping with that level, while shows rated for adults were more likely to have ads aimed at adults (for Viagra, Cialis and KY, for instance).

 

[KarenNC]

My family and I came across “In the Begining” on the ion channel. We had to turn it off because of the commercials.

Can you elaborate? Not familiar with either the show or the channel you mentioned, so I have no frame of reference. Is it one aimed at preschoolers and young children?

Glad you had the option to turn it off.

 

[KarenNC]

are these pics that are being described here on tv as commercials? if so, i have not seen these?

The abortion photos, no, not to my knowledge. If they were, though, one would at least have the option to turn the channel or turn off the television.

Can’t do that to the tractor trailer truck sitting beside you at the stoplight with the image of a bloody decapitated baby which is several times as large as the preschooler in the back seat of your car who is staring at it, can you?

 

[boppaid]

Karen,

Its sort of very obvious you support abortion now. Who do you work for is the question, Planned Parenthood? American Abortion Providers? Are you sitting in your clinic right now being able to see women about to have abortions in the waiting room?

You wouldn’t believe this truth no matter what evidence is shown apparently but its clear to see why.

Credibility is important and you have none because you have dismissed all evidence to prove you wrong simply because you don’t like that fact and you are obviously not prolife. I can’t image why you are here trying to play games with us all.

HOnestly, this is really an unfair statement. Based on her disgust with letting children see graphic images of mutilated fetuses, you believe that she must work for PP? Or have some sort of pro-choice “agenda”??

I don’t have an agenda. I am a Catholic mom, who is against abortion. I agree w/ Karen on each of her points, though. I can assure you…I do not work for pp.

All she is asking for is statistics. Why is that so difficult and unreasonable??

 

[mapleoak]

Until someone comes up with some convincing shred of actual evidence other than anecdotes (which are the equivalent of testimonials in an infomercial) that there is indeed no other effective avenue of sharing this information without the need to involve young children as the audience, I will continue to stand on my position that they are wrong to do so and that the ends do not justify these particular means, yes.

And if there are indeed other effective avenue of sharing this information, then it is no longer wrong. Or will it still be wrong? hmm?

 

[mapleoak]

Still waiting on something other than anecdotal evidence to show that a) it is effective at all for the target audience (however you are defining that)

Well, lets tell Coca-Cola that billboards aren’t effective means of persuasion. I’ll let their advertising firms be one of the many so called sources of effectiveness.

 

[KarenNC]

Well, lets tell Coca-Cola that billboards aren’t effective means of persuasion. I’ll let their advertising firms be one of the many so called sources of effectiveness.

Thankfully, the last time I looked, Coke wasn’t using graphic photos of dismembered and decapitated bodies of babies as an advertising strategy. Content and presentation matter as much as form.

I would be interested to read material from Coke’s advertising firms on the use of shock tactics in selling their product and whether it was effective.

 

[KarenNC]

And if there are indeed other effective avenue of sharing this information, then it is no longer wrong. Or will it still be wrong? hmm?

The practice of showing these in areas where preschoolers can see them would still be wrong, but those who do so would no longer be able to argue that the only reason they do so is because there is no other effective way to spread the message. They would no longer be able to claim that the end justifies the means as is currently happening.

 

[estesbob]

The practice of showing these in areas where preschoolers can see them would still be wrong, but those who do so would no longer be able to argue that the only reason they do so is because there is no other effective way to spread the message. They would no longer be able to claim that the end justifies the means as is currently happening.

There are testimonials from women that viewing the pictures on these trucks stopped them from having an abortion. So i ask again should a child die on the off chance your child might get upset?

BTW-20,000 children have died in the nations obortuaries since this thread started.

 

[mapleoak]

Thankfully, the last time I looked, Coke wasn’t using graphic photos of dismembered and decapitated bodies of babies as an advertising strategy. Content and presentation matter as much as form.

I would be interested to read material from Coke’s advertising firms on the use of shock tactics in selling their product and whether it was effective.

No, of course not. In order to sell the idea of buying Coke, they place what will appeal to the senses of the customers they wish to pursuade to buy their product. This is how billboards work. If this is not true, feel free to tell all those companies who spend billions of dollars on billboard signs they are crazy.
You have stated that signs (whether billboards, bumper stickers, or what have you) are not effective and to provide source data saying they are. I said I will leave that to the advertising firms.
So too, with graphic bumper stickers and billboard trucks, the idea is to promote public awareness of the very real evils of abortion. This is not done by putting a graphic of a teddy bear on a sign so as not to offend a child. It is very true that it appeals to the natural sense in man that violence is wrong.
Hence for this reason, the effort needs to be to eliminate the injustice being done, not to cover it up and hope no one notices or gets offended.