Fr. Pavone on the use of graphic images of abortion

[Teeliumtrozzle]

I don’t think it would be prudent to actually post the photos that Fr. Pavone and the Priests For Life have placed on their website.

But click here for Fr Pavone’s address to Canadian youth at a recent pro-life rally concerning the usage of graphic images that we MUST show the world if we ever hope to get it through this evil world’s head that ABORTION IS MURDER!

Warning, I’ve posted one of the many images from their site. Use discretion.

I agree.We have GOT to do something…visit my pro-life web page-http://pages.matmice.com/home/let_the_babies_live. It does have a horrible picture because I want to convince as many people as possible.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Killing chickens?

I see the poster who always screams STRAWMAN likes to trot it out often enough.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

David MacDonald has had a dramatic conversion to Catholicism and he is on fire for the unborn.

His pro-life testimony
His CD MP3 samples
His Catholic Bridge to Evangelicalism

 

[KarenNC]

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. …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.

Kelly, glad you act on your conscience and have been able to educate your children on this issue in the time frame and in the manner that you chose. Glad, too, that you saw fit to use these images in a setting that is actually relevant to them and in which there can be a reasonable assumption that any young children there have likely been brought by their parents who expect that such signs will be visible and prepared them for such.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Killing chickens?

I see the poster who always screams STRAWMAN likes to trot it out often enough.

If you have a dictionary, I recommend you use it to look up the definition of “strawman.”

 

[mapleoak]

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.
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.
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.

Are you actually serious? Is that how you interpret these stories to say? I was giving you more credit than that?

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

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?

No, the message is that children are more durable than you make them out to be. You have a mistaken notion that they will be severly traumatized by seeing such things. If you by chance, by your statements were to agree that they are not traumatized by them, it still would not be acceptable for them to see it, since oh-no, they should be shocked and traumatized when they see them, right?

 

[estesbob]

Are you actually serious? Is that how you interpret these stories to say? I was giving you more credit than that?

No, the message is that children are more durable than you make them out to be. You have a mistaken notion that they will be severly traumatized by seeing such things. If you by chance, by your statements were to agree that they are not traumatized by them, it still would not be acceptable for them to see it, since oh-no, they should be shocked and traumatized when they see them, right?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Are you actually serious? Is that how you interpret these stories to say? I was giving you more credit than that?

No, the message is that children are more durable than you make them out to be. You have a mistaken notion that they will be severly traumatized by seeing such things. If you by chance, by your statements were to agree that they are not traumatized by them, it still would not be acceptable for them to see it, since oh-no, they should be shocked and traumatized when they see them, right?

And the related message is children take their cues from adults. They don’t know they’re supposed to be traumatized by what they see unless an adult tells them.

 

[Stac4Grace]

My sister informed me last night that her friends sister in law was 28 weeks pregnant and she went and had an abortion. Doctors can deliver healthy babies at that stage and she decided to end her babies life, what a shame.

 

[KarenNC]

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,

Okay, on what basis do you find that displaying tractor trailer sized photos of bloody dismembered and mutilated corpses of babies in neighborhoods and on public streets where young children can see them is statistically more effective in preventing abortions than showing those same photos in smaller form directly to the women who are the ones who might consider abortion, either as part of sex education classes to preteen/teens, by a mass mailing or handing material directly to them or leaving the material in bars and other adult venues that one may reasonably expect are not frequented by small children?

You casually dismiss the\ose women who decided not to abort because they been exposed to these pictures as propaganda.

I have “casually dismissed” nothing and no one. I have said that testimonials and anecdotes do not substitute for actual objective data in determining the actual efficiency of a method of communication as compared to another.

Any infomercial worth its salt can give you reams of testimonials about how wonderful and effective its product is, with the implication that everyone feels the same way. That may or may not be true, but you certainly can’t tell based on simply the anecdotes they themselves report. They are hardly likely to be putting up on their websites or in their literature the situations in which their product or method failed or was less effective than advertised, are they? Anecdotes and testimonials do necessarily not offer an objective representative picture of the true situation.

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.

pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/113/6/1771 discusses the issue of the graphic depiction of real life violence on television news and the exposure of young children to it.

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.

The fact that many people repeat an ad hominem attack that is untrue does not make therefore either make it true or substitute for actual data proving the claims of such superior efficiency of these images shown in inappropriate ways to young children that it outweighs any possible concern for those children.

 

[KarenNC]

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.

Then, please, certainly, expand on exactly how the example of you and your brother gaining entertainment from watching chickens be decapitated then run around a yard spewing blood and then eating them applies to teaching children via graphic photos of dead mutilated babies that abortion is something that is bad, wrong and should not happen?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I have “casually dismissed” nothing…

You have casually dismissed the application of the Principle of Double Effect which determines which of the following routes to teaching is licit:

a) displaying large posters of aborted children; or
c) censoring large posters of aborted children.

 

[KarenNC]

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.

Then, please, certainly, expand on exactly how the example of you and your brother gaining entertainment from watching chickens be decapitated then run around a yard spewing blood before having them cooked and eating them applies to teaching children via graphic photos of dead mutilated babies that abortion is something that is bad, wrong and should not happen?

What affective lesson did you learn from that? That it is wrong to kill chickens or that killing chickens is just a normal part of everyday life if you want to eat? That chickens feel pain when their heads are cut off or that headless bleeding chickens are funny and entertaining? That the lives of chickens should be respected or that chickens are disposable property to do with as we wish?

 

[KarenNC]

No, the message is that children are more durable than you make them out to be. You have a mistaken notion that they will be severly traumatized by seeing such things. If you by chance, by your statements were to agree that they are not traumatized by them, it still would not be acceptable for them to see it, since oh-no, they should be shocked and traumatized when they see them, right?

Yes, young children are durable. They are capable of surviving, more or less intact, situations that are indeed horrible. I have seen this happen. I did not, however, then claim that because some young children have done so, it doesn’t really matter whether or not all young children are exposed to these same situations because they’ll either not pay attention to it or bounce back.

The fact that children are durable also does not give adults, particularly adults who have no connection to the child whatsoever, either the right or obligation to subject them, either without consulting their parents or contrary to the parents’ expressed position, to any and everything needlessly, heedlessly or without absolutely overwhelming evidence that there is no other possible option to achieve an end the adults see as vitally necessary.

 

[vern_humphrey]

My sister informed me last night that her friends sister in law was 28 weeks pregnant and she went and had an abortion. Doctors can deliver healthy babies at that stage and she decided to end her babies life, what a shame.

And there, for those who are interested, is the difference between the cognitive and affective realms. She knows the baby is viable, but she doesn’t value it.

 

[KarenNC]

And the related message is children take their cues from adults. They don’t know they’re supposed to be traumatized by what they see unless an adult tells them.

Ok, then, we are supposed to tell our young children that tractor trailer sized color photographs of bloody dismembered and decapitated corpses of babies is not something that is supposed to be viewed as bad or traumatic? You do not intend, by showing such pictures, to teach the lesson to all who view them that murder should be seen as traumatic?

 

[estesbob]

Yes, young children are durable. They are capable of surviving, more or less intact, situations that are indeed horrible. I have seen this happen. I did not, however, then claim that because some young children have done so, it doesn’t really matter whether or not all young children are exposed to these same situations because they’ll either not pay attention to it or bounce back.

.

Not very durable when they are dead. Again the choice is between the* chance* a billboard may disturb a child and the fact that women have affirmed that the billborad saved their chids life. Seems preety cut n dried to me.

 

[YinYangMom]

How certain is anyone that young children have not already been exposed to graphic sexual images via cartoons, video games, billboards and posters marketing lingerie, perfumes, games, tv shows, etc?

I ask because while these images they are already exposed to may not be as traumatic as abortion images, the images are entering their mindset whether we want it to or not, and it is leaving an impression contrary to truth.

I am of the strong opinion that these images should be balanced or offset by truthful images. Yes, this means inundating them with picture books showing happy, loving families, and letting them watch shows which are wholesome and such, but outside the control of parental presence, when these kids get to school or visit neighborhood kids’ homes, they are seeing the bad stuff - whether they want to or not - and whether you are aware of it.

If your children are not seeing pictures of premarital sex they are hearing news stories on tv and radio talking about pro-choice. They are seeing the subject addressed on any sitcom these days, and if they watch Family Guy, the Simpsons, or other adult ‘cartoons’ you can be sure reference to pro-choice is there. They aren’t tuning into it purposefully, of course, but it’s pervasive in our society.

You can be at a women’s gathering or a baby shower, or a kids birthday party and the topic of conversation can be about somebody’s niece or daughter’s friend who is pregnant and such. Children hear the conversation whether or not they are sitting still in the middle of it. They could be playing with blocks off to the side, but if they’re in earshot, it’s entering their consciousness.

Now, I concede, those are words, not images. If the conversations end up heated, the child learns that the term ‘abortion, pro-choice, pro-life’ is something adults get upset about. Later in life they’ll hopefully question why. If they already have the image of an aborted fetus in their consciousness from something at age 3 or 4 then that will surface at that later time and they will ‘remember’ why abortion is bad. They won’t even need to ask an adult for clarification.

If the conversations end up even keeled and non-eventful, the child learns those terms are no big deal, and when they see them shown on tv in sitcoms and such, they’ll put 2+2 together…tv says it’s funny, it’s normal, it’s ok, people in my family seem to agree so it must be true. If the image of the aborted fetus is in the consciousness that will surface the first time that now-young-preteen encounters a pro-lifer who overreacts to the term ‘abortion or pro-choice’.

Abortion photos are graphic, yes, but they aren’t necessarily bad for children. We’re talking about an occasional exposure, not inundating them with the images attached to the baby crib mobile or plastered to their bedroom wall. I do not see how the occasional glimpse of an abortion photo differs from the occasional glimpse of a burn victim, fatal traffic incident victim, murder victim and we all know they are exposed to those on occasion. Those images help us to teach them about the dangers of fire, water, playing around cars, or wandering off. What we do with the images, how we respond to their exposure - using it as a teaching moment or not - makes the difference on the level of trauma a child experiences.

 

[KarenNC]

Abortion photos are graphic, yes, but they aren’t necessarily bad for children. We’re talking about an occasional exposure, not inundating them with the images attached to the baby crib mobile or plastered to their bedroom wall. I do not see how the occasional glimpse of an abortion photo differs from the occasional glimpse of a burn victim, fatal traffic incident victim, murder victim and we all know they are exposed to those on occasion. Those images help us to teach them about the dangers of fire, water, playing around cars, or wandering off. What we do with the images, how we respond to their exposure - using it as a teaching moment or not - makes the difference on the level of trauma a child experiences.

If this were actually a case of occasional unintentional exposure, a case of the people showing these images doing everything they reasonably can to avoid small children being exposed to them (and by small I mean 2-7 year olds), it would be a very different matter.

On the contrary, some people are indeed talking about “inundation.” Inundation via blowing these images up to the size of tractor trailer trucks and driving them around interstates, well travelled public roads, etc. Parking them in front of churches on Sunday morning (not necessarily with the church’s permission), in front of people’s houses or apartment complexes (without their permission or their neighbor’s) or at the entrance to basketball games and other recreational activities.

Inundation via blowing these images up to the size of large posters and holding them up beside well travelled roads that are not necessarily anywhere close to an abortion provider.

Inundation via printing these images on business cards and leaving them laying on tables in public restaurants, public restrooms, on people’s cars in grocery store parking lots, in dentists’ waiting rooms, in library books, anywhere the public may be, with or without the permission of the owner of the business or property.

I have certainly not experienced any such concerted campaign to place tractor trailer sized graphic color photographs of the blood covered, mutilated, dismembered or decapitated corpses of “burn victims, fatal traffic accident victims or murder victims” on trucks and ride them through city streets or park them in such areas under the guise of teaching adults about fire safety, traffic safety or murder prevention with the excuse that “well, a couple of kids might see them even though we certainly don’t intend for them to see these, but it will be good for them if they do.”

I don’t really see the benefit, for example, to a strategy of using huge pictures of a child’s head crushed and leaking brains and blood under a tire to teach children not to play around cars.

 

[mapleoak]

Ok, then, we are supposed to tell our young children that tractor trailer sized color photographs of bloody dismembered and decapitated corpses of babies is not something that is supposed to be viewed as bad or traumatic? You do not intend, by showing such pictures, to teach the lesson to all who view them that murder should be seen as traumatic?

My point exactly. It doesn’t matter if they are viewed as traumatic or not, they are out of the question.