Fr. Pavone on the use of graphic images of abortion

[KarenNC]

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.

How is suggesting that you hand a card with this image directly to an adult rather than leave it on a restaurant table where a young child can find it “covering it up?” Or suggesting that it is more appropriate to have the signs at the know abortion clinic aimed at the people who enter rather than on the public street or parked in a neighborhood “covering it up”? That you could send out mass mailings to adults “covering it up” (but please don’t put the images on the outside of the envelope)? Saying that these images could indeed form a part of a sex education class for young teens “covering it up”?

I have not said they are ineffective, I have said that so far no one has been able to come up with anything other than some testimonials to show that they actually are as effective as has been claimed. Yes, those companies spend billions to be sure their message reaches their target audience in the most effective way possible because they don’t want to waste their resources and energy by doing so ineffectively or to the wrong audience.

If your organizations can fund tractor trailer trucks to ride around towns and streets, especially with the current cost of gas, I remain astounded that no one appears to have found any money to determine whether those huge expenses are actually actively doing your cause any more significant good than other less expensive and less controversial means.

I can find testimonials to claim the effectiveness and desirability of anything. That doesn’t mean that they are overall and objectively better or more effective than something else. That requires actual data.

 

[KarenNC]

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.

Should a child die because no one in the prolife movement has evidently taken the time or effort to find out which strategies actually effectively reach women and change their behavior in a statistically significant way? Are you really likely to be putting up or receiving testimonials that say “your trucks didn’t work” or “more of your trucks had the opposite effect than the one you desired than had the desired effect” or “your trucks convinced me that next time I will get an earlier abortion” ? Testimonials can be illustrative, but they are not a substitute for objective data exactly because they are not likely to be representative of the entire picture.

 

[terri_fortner]

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.

Show me the testamonials of women who saw these pictures as young children, preschools through grade 5, and that was what changed their minds.

You can’t. We keep images from our children that may harm their fragile minds. Why would you want to put such horrificly graphic images in the minds of an innocent child? I am not saying that they don’t change ADULTS (and when I say adult I mean anyone who is grown up enough to try and have an abortion) minds, but children need to learn about things in an age appropriate manner. These pictures are not age appropriate for a 4yo. They just aren’t. If you argue that they are then I suggest you show them to your 4 year old and report back to us on their reaction.

 

[estesbob]

Should a child die because no one in the prolife movement has evidently taken the time or effort to find out which strategies actually effectively reach women and change their behavior in a statistically significant way? Are you really likely to be putting up or receiving testimonials that say “your trucks didn’t work” or “more of your trucks had the opposite effect than the one you desired than had the desired effect” or “your trucks convinced me that next time I will get an earlier abortion” ? Testimonials can be illustrative, but they are not a substitute for objective data exactly because they are not likely to be representative of the entire picture.

As one who has has been active for over quarter-century in the pro-life movement I suspect we know a lot more on effectively reaching women than you do,. Although I don’t have the demeanor or the patience to be a sidewalk counselor I have great respect for those who are, in They’re on the front lines and are often the last thing standing between a child and a gruesome death. Gruesome pictures are appropriate in these circumstances in that they make woman realize what it is they’re about to do The trucks do the same thing.

You casually dismiss the\ose women who decided not to abort because they been exposed to these pictures as propaganda. Yet you yourself offer no evidence whatsoever that these pictures are causing widespread problems other than you don’t want your child to see them. As many have noted it appears your main reason for opposing these pictures is that you don’t want to explain your child why you support what they depict.

 

[estesbob]

Show me the testamonials of women who saw these pictures as young children, preschools through grade 5, and that was what changed their minds.

I never said they did. I just said that we should not refrain from showing pictures on the off chance a small child might see them we know that these pictures have saved lives. The idea they have an ongoing negative effect on small children is idle speculation.

You can’t. We keep images from our children that may harm their fragile minds. Why would you want to put such horrificly graphic images in the minds of an innocent child? I am not saying that they don’t change ADULTS (and when I say adult I mean anyone who is grown up enough to try and have an abortion) minds, but children need to learn about things in an age appropriate manner. These pictures are not age appropriate for a 4yo. They just aren’t. If you argue that they are then I suggest you show them to your 4 year old and report back to us on their reaction.

Again you’re suggesting that the possibility that a child might get upset is more important than the possibility to the child might be killed.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Be my guest.

You have made an interesting case. So have those who oppose your point of view.

The reality of this situation is that harm happens by showing the photos. Harm happens by not showing the photos. So there is a double effect.

To determine which of the two points of view is licit, the Principle of Double Effect must be applied.

You evidently have very strong opinions about what you want. But what role does the licitness of what you want have in your portrayal of this problem? What profit is there for you persuading folks of your point of view if your point of view is not licit?

 

[terri_fortner]

I never said they did. I just said that we should not refrain from showing pictures on the off chance a small child might see them we know that these pictures have saved lives. The idea they have an ongoing negative effect on small children is idle speculation.

Again you’re suggesting that the possibility that a child might get upset is more important than the possibility to the child might be killed.

Here’s to your idle speculation…

nccev.org/violence/media.html

But a little snipit if you don’t want to click and read…

"Research from Georgetown University’s Psychology Department has suggested that the negative effects on children exposed to news broadcasts of violent events may traumatic to children.

Caregivers are encouraged to make sensible choices based on an awareness of individual children’s sensitivities, age and developmental level. The Center for Media Literacy is a possible resource for parents and educators seeking to think critically about media exposure."

Or are you going to go back and claim these are not violent and horrific images, of a viloent and horrific act?

 

[estesbob]

Here’s to your idle speculation…

nccev.org/violence/media.html

But a little snipit if you don’t want to click and read…

"Research from Georgetown University’s Psychology Department has suggested that the negative effects on children exposed to news broadcasts of violent events may traumatic to children.

Caregivers are encouraged to make sensible choices based on an awareness of individual children’s sensitivities, age and developmental level. The Center for Media Literacy is a possible resource for parents and educators seeking to think critically about media exposure."

Or are you going to go back and claim these are not violent and horrific images, of a viloent and horrific act?

As I’ve said numerous times on one hand we have the “chance” that a child might be exposed to these violent pictures, on the other hand we have the chance a child’s life might be saved. I suggest you read Ani Ibii’s excellent post on how the doctrine of double effect applies here.

 

[vern_humphrey]

My grandmother used to kill chickens for Sunday dinner. She did it by chopping their heads off with a hatchet. My brother and I would watch (I was about 3 in my first memory of this).

She would release the headless chicken, which would go running and hopping around the yard, blood pumping from its severed neck. My brother and I, in a delicious frisson of horror, would sit in swings, and pull our feet up as the headless chicken dashed past.

Somehow, we were not traumatized by this horrible sight, and enjoyed the fried chicken later.

 

[mapleoak]

My grandmother used to kill chickens for Sunday dinner. She did it by chopping their heads off with a hatchet. My brother and I would watch (I was about 3 in my first memory of this).

She would release the headless chicken, which would go running and hopping around the yard, blood pumping from its severed neck. My brother and I, in a delicious frisson of horror, would sit in swings, and pull our feet up as the headless chicken dashed past.

Somehow, we were not traumatized by this horrible sight, and enjoyed the fried chicken later.

I seem to remember being taught how to castrate goats at that age. Also got to watch slaughtering and butchering many times, even got to ‘help’ by the time I was 5. Ohhh, the nightmares still haunt me to this day!

 

[estesbob]

My grandmother used to kill chickens for Sunday dinner. She did it by chopping their heads off with a hatchet. My brother and I would watch (I was about 3 in my first memory of this).

She would release the headless chicken, which would go running and hopping around the yard, blood pumping from its severed neck. My brother and I, in a delicious frisson of horror, would sit in swings, and pull our feet up as the headless chicken dashed past.

Somehow, we were not traumatized by this horrible sight, and enjoyed the fried chicken later.

I can recall telling dead baby jokes and singing songs about greasy grimy gopher guts. . I guess I too should’ve been traumatized.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I seem to remember being taught how to castrate goats at that age. Also got to watch slaughtering and butchering many times, even got to ‘help’ by the time I was 5. Ohhh, the nightmares still haunt me to this day!

And what’s the difference? The attitude of the adults!! We childreb took our cues from them – if the adults didn’t react with horror, we weren’t traumatized.

 

[Kelly]

And what’s the difference? The attitude of the adults!! We childreb took our cues from them – if the adults didn’t react with horror, we weren’t traumatized.

Vern,
I agree completely with your above statement. I have participated in the pro-life movement for many years. Until we moved recently my husband, children, and I (I worked as a sidewalk counselor) were involved in a weekly prayer vigil in front of one of our local abortion mills. We used graphic signs every week to show the women and their partners exactly what was going to happen to their babies if they went through with an abortion. Many, many times the woman changed her mind after seeing these images. many times also people passing by the clinic on their way to work, etc would stop and ask questions. A lot of these people had never really thought about what abortion really does to a baby in the womb. As Father Pavone frequently says America will not stop abortion until America sees abortion. The signs work.

As for my children and the many other children that participated in these vigils and were exposed to the graphic images, I can say with all sincerity that they were not harmed in any way. These children are very pro-life today, some of them are reaching young adulthood, none of them were traumatized and scarred for life.

 

[estesbob]

And what’s the difference? The attitude of the adults!! We childreb took our cues from them – if the adults didn’t react with horror, we weren’t traumatized.

It is in my observation that whenever a liberal wants to do something they say they’re doing it for the children and whenever a conservative wants to do something they say they’re doing it for the troops

 

[mapleoak]

It is in my observation that whenever a liberal wants to do something they say they’re doing it for the children and whenever a conservative wants to do something they say they’re doing it for the troops

 

[vern_humphrey]

It is in my observation that whenever a liberal wants to do something they say they’re doing it for the children and whenever a conservative wants to do something they say they’re doing it for the troops

Good point – but those of us in the pro-life movement, regardless of our politics, are doing it for the children.

 

[mapleoak]

Good point – but those of us in the pro-life movement, regardless of our politics, are doing it for the children.

Unborn babies to be exact.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Unborn babies to be exact.

No different from born babies, except they’re younger.

 

[KarenNC]

Ok guys, then let’s apply these techniques to teaching our children about abortion and see what they are likely to learn:

from Vernhumphrey:
My grandmother used to kill chickens for Sunday dinner. She did it by chopping their heads off with a hatchet. My brother and I would watch (I was about 3 in my first memory of this).

She would release the headless chicken, which would go running and hopping around the yard, blood pumping from its severed neck. My brother and I, in a delicious frisson of horror, would sit in swings, and pull our feet up as the headless chicken dashed past.

Somehow, we were not traumatized by this horrible sight, and enjoyed the fried chicken later.

So watching dead chickens running around with blood pumping out of their neck, giving you a “delicious frisson of horror” not only did not convey to you the lesson that “it is wrong to kill chickens” but that “watching chickens getting killed can be fun” and “we can then enjoy the results of the chickens getting killed.”

Interesting lesson you want children to learn about abortion if you are equating the two exposures.

from mapleoak:
I seem to remember being taught how to castrate goats at that age. Also got to watch slaughtering and butchering many times, even got to ‘help’ by the time I was 5. Ohhh, the nightmares still haunt me to this day!

Mapleoak appears to have learned from participating in butchering and slaughtering from an early age that killing animals is simply a normal part of everyday life and not something to be seen as scary, bad or abnormal.

Again, another interesting lesson to desire to teach children about abortion.

from estesbob:
I can recall telling dead baby jokes and singing songs about greasy grimy gopher guts. . I guess I too should’ve been traumatized.

And estesbob seems to have learned that it is appropriate to sing songs about mutilation and tell jokes about dead babies and that this is not only desirable but fun.

Another, but different, interesting lesson to desire to apply to the actual mutilation of real babies.

from vernhumphrey:
And what’s the difference? The attitude of the adults!! We childreb took our cues from them – if the adults didn’t react with horror, we weren’t traumatized.

So based on the above thread of suggestions, the proper response to these photos on the part of adults in order to keep children from being traumatized is to treat them as a joke, a scene that will give one “a delicious frisson of horror,” and that it is just a normal regular part of everyday life and not any big deal?

Your plan in showing these photos to adults is then that they won’t react with horror?

And by doing so, we will be teaching our children that abortion is wrong and should be made illegal so that no one can ever do it again to anyone?

Well, I’ve heard of mixed messages, but really…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ok guys, then let’s apply these techniques to teaching our children about abortion and see what they are likely to learn:

I think you’re really not qualified to do that – after all, you didn’t know the difference between the cognitive and affective realms until I told you.