Fr. Pavone on the use of graphic images of abortion

[Philothea53]

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

An important distinction.

Is it Peter Singer who said that infanticide should be legal? That parents should have the right, up until a child is about, wasn’t it 3 months old, to have their child killed if a defect reared it’s ugly head after birth? Quite a slippery slope we are on. It’s been and continues to be one hell of a ride.

 

[estesbob]

Yes, it is a good idea to post these pictures.

The women who have abortions have to live with what they have done forever. They suffer.

They are lied to, and at a time when they are so vulnerable, they want to believe that the child within them is not really a child. But, in their hearts, they know it is.

America must see abortion, if it is to end.

It is the pro-abortion crowd that abandons them The Pro-life ministry includes trying to bring peace to those hanuted by their abortion-both men and women.

 

[sprout]

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 think this says it all.

It wouldn’t be prudent to display these images here or on a streetcorner, or on a truck driving around town. There should be a WARNING! as you’ve done here. The use of these images can be an effective tool when used discreetly in front of abortuaries, asking the individual’s permission before showing them.

I’m opposed to the indiscriminate use of these images i.e. on trucks, cars, large posters.

I agree with several posters here that the more positive use of ultrasound and 3D imaging is the most effective.

 

[Cohibas]

Discretion is required with the use of graphic abortion photos. Very young children should be kept away from them if possible to avoid shocking them unnecessarily until they can understand right from wrong. Similarly, professional, trained pregnancy counselors know that thrusting them in front of a woman in the crisis stage of an unplanned pregnancy often has extreme adverse effects. The women typically lose all trust in the counselor and no longer think the counselor has her best interests at heart. This can and does lead immature and unsophisticated girls and women to go down the street to the Planned Parenthoodlums who shower them with completely fake care and “love,” so that they can grab the money right after they grab the developing fetus. Caution is very important. A professional counselor knows there are other tools today which are more effective such as ultrasound, fetal models, fetal development charts, etc. For the general teenage and adult public, I’m all for the use of graphic photos to properly educate them with the truth of what is occurrung.

 

[defenderoftruth]

KarenNC,

Are you pro-“choice”? Please answer the question. If so why do you care about what children out in the world think if you think it’s ok to rip preborn children limb from limb? You care about those already here outside the womb having “hurt feelings” but those inside “well hey it’s up to the mother to have them torn limb from limb”?

If you AREN’T pro-choice please tell us who’ve had experience and results with dead baby pictures what we can and or should do to teach/show people the absolute horror of abortion? Text doesn’t work I’ve already told you that, and that’s standing outside a clinic for over a year now.

 

[defenderoftruth]

The use of these images can be an effective tool when used discreetly in front of abortuaries, asking the individual’s permission before showing them.

What?! Ask permission? Who in their right mind would say yes to see a torn up child??? The women who go into the clinic deserve to see what they are about to have done to another person. This isn’t some “surgery” it’s MURDER. (of the most hideous and grotesque fashion and done to the most innocent and vulnerable people)

“Permission” hmmmmmffff!!

Uh as long as this rebellious ungodly nation sits back and enjoys life while others lose it violently the trucks and planes will be out there to show them what they are complacent about. Those that do nothing are part of the problem and should share in the guilt.

I love the fact Center for Bioethical Reform is out there in full effect. I volunteer at the GAP projects in the Northwest universities. Our friend is the northwest director and drives the truck around I say AMEN!! And I KNOW Father Pavone would too.

 

[KarenNC]

KarenNC,

Are you pro-“choice”? Please answer the question. If so why do you care about what children out in the world think if you think it’s ok to rip preborn children limb from limb? You care about those already here outside the womb having “hurt feelings” but those inside “well hey it’s up to the mother to have them torn limb from limb”?

If you AREN’T pro-choice please tell us who’ve had experience and results with dead baby pictures what we can and or should do to teach/show people the absolute horror of abortion? Text doesn’t work I’ve already told you that, and that’s standing outside a clinic for over a year now.

Hon, you’ve already decided what I am simply based on the fact that I disagree with you on whether these photos should be shown to preschoolers. The truth is apparently irrelevant or you would have bothered to read some of the 17 or 18 pages of discussion that I have already been having on this topic. The fact that you have jumped immediately to ad hominem attacks is pretty indicative of the sort of “discussion” in which you are interested. If it is any comfort, you are far from alone.

Read the thread, then get back to me and maybe we can actually have a reasonable discussion.

 

[KarenNC]

Uh as long as this rebellious ungodly nation sits back and enjoys life while others lose it violently the trucks and planes will be out there to show them what they are complacent about. Those that do nothing are part of the problem and should share in the guilt.

Planes? What in the heck are they doing with planes?

Ok, I looked for it
abortionno.org/RCC/Articles/newsherald.html

“In some larger cities, they will use planes to tow images of aborted fetuses across the sky”

This would be the group that bmmckinney keeps referencing as the only one that is doing anything about abortion.

In my opinion, this puts every bit of lip service to “no we would do anything we could to shield children from the images” into perfect, crystal clear perspective.

Planes???

 

[MariaGorettiGrl]

This is tough love and a despreate last-stitch effort to save a life. Sometimes words aren’t enough.

The reason most people have abortions is because they have been lied to and they don’t understand what abortion really is. They believe it is just a small surgery in which a little piece of tissue is removed and that tissue is absolutely, positively not a baby. Babies suddenly pop into your stomach much, much later. This piece of tissue is like your appendix. Pro-lifers can explain until they’re blue in the face that abortion actually murders an innocent baby, but people like to believe their happier, no-consequences-to-my-actions idea. And the pro-choice community is happy to keep them in that comfortable fantasy land. But everyone can tell the difference between an appendix and a severed head or hand. When a person sees these horrifing images of what abortion actually does, they have a much harder time clinging to fantasy. Some do. Those who do will still never be able to forget the image and maybe it will influence them at a later time.

These pictures are not gore for the sake of gore. We write horror flicks with imaginative ways to put people through painful deaths. These images were not made up. These images are the truth. What is so terrible is not what the photographer did, but what the abortionist did.

 

[MariaGorettiGrl]

In my opinion, this puts every bit of lip service to “no we would do anything we could to shield children from the images” into perfect, crystal clear perspective.

What about TVs? A kid can see disturbing images 24/7 in their own home. Then there’s the previews before movies. Even children’s movies have innappropriate ads before them. What about Harry Potter in which children die in awful ways? That is supposed to be a children’s movie.

Most importantly, a child can recover from seeing something frightening. No child ever recovers from being killed. If your child was in danger of being killed, you would probably kill the murderer right in front of your child. That would be traumatizing, but necessary in order to save a life. I prefer these images to have warnings around them, but I won’t get too upset at people who spread the message. If people don’t like to see aborted fetuses, then maybe they should stop aborting them.

 

[sprout]

What?! Ask permission? Who in their right mind would say yes to see a torn up child??? The women who go into the clinic deserve to see what they are about to have done to another person. This isn’t some “surgery” it’s MURDER. (of the most hideous and grotesque fashion and done to the most innocent and vulnerable people)

“Permission” hmmmmmffff!!

The most effective team of sidewalk counselors I know are always very respectful of the dignity of the women they sidewalk counsel, and they always first ask the woman if she would mind seeing these graphic images of the procedure she is considering. Showing women this kind of respect from the get-go establishes trust and shows her that this is where she will get the “Truth”.

It is important to keep in mind who the enemy is and what tactics they use, while always keeping in mind who we are and what tactics we won’t use. The enemy is not the woman about to go into the abortuary, the enemy is the father of lies and deceit, the murderer from the start. You can’t “rescue” a child without first rescuing their mother from the bondage of lies and fear.

 

[seekerz]

It would be interesting to know what proportion of posters here actually have very young kids.

As to the question of whether it’s prudent to display graphic anti-abortion images where very young kids might see them, I’d have to say no.

For one thing, today’s kids are increasingly exposed to gore and violence and showing those pics might just help in the process of desensitizing them. The shock effect only lasts so long, and my belief is that it’s gonna wear off pretty soon for the public as a whole (Just think why violent movies have to get more and more gory to titillate those inclined to such fare).

For another, innocence is lost at an increasingly earlier age these days and it should be a parent’s decision as to when to discuss sex and related topics.

As a Catholic parent, I would hope that if my preschooler grew up to choose life it would be because I taught him of God’s omnipotence and life’s value - if he needs the gory graphics to deter him, then I’ve somehow failed in my task.

 

[Nino]

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.

 

[Nino]

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was silent about what was happening to the europeon Jews under the left wing National socialist party of Germany…from 1935-45…it was not until 1960 or so that graphic images of that holocaust were flashed around the world…the horror of it shocked the world…abortion is the taking of innocent lives also…and now numbers in the tens of millions…child abuse is rampamt in all its ugly forms…abortion and just what happens during the procedure must be shown in all its disgusting imagery…why not we recently have been shown the dispicable practice of animal ie Dog fighting by a moronic football player…we have been shown that why not abortion!..or is human life not so important after all?..Nino

 

[mapleoak]

I fully agree that anyone who is old enough to be considering sexual intercourse is old enough to be informed of all the possible consequences of such, including the potential long term physical and emotional consequences of choosing an abortion. This is what I see as part of comprehensive and responsible sex education.

Informed about such things as the physical and emotional consequences of choosing an abortion. What about the consequence of an innocent life being murdered?

Would seem to me that the best way, honestly, to deter abortions is to work to prevent unintended and unwanted pregnancies in the first place as well as encouraging sexual activity only within the confines of a committed relationship between two adults who are emotionally and financially ready to accept the possible consequences of their decision to have sexual relations.

What do you define as a committed relationship? Also if these people in ‘committed’ relationships are aware of the ‘consequences’ of abortion such as emotional discomfort, what difference does it make then that they are financially ready? All they have to do is hop down to the abortuary.

Context?

Context is that if the murder of that many people is not an ‘in your face’ assault on humanity, how can you say a billboard sign is?

Ideally, yes, for the purposes of intentional childrearing, I believe children are better served when their parents are legally as well as emotionally committed to each other.

According to whom? People in so called legally and emotionally committed realationships also have abortions.

Do I believe that two consenting adults should be required to only have a sexual relationship within the confines of legal marriage? No. I do believe, however, that they should not be engaging in a sexual relationship if they are not both committed to each other in a monogamous relationship and fully prepared to shoulder the responsibilities that come with all the potential consequences of such a relationship. I do not believe that sex is or should be a casual thing.

What does this have to do with graphic images? Also why do people have to be committed to each other? They can run to the abortuary if ‘something happens’.

I fully recognize that this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church on the subject, but then, that would be one of the myriad reasons I’m not Catholic, as has been pointed out before.

At least you realize this.

But my views on appropriate sexual relationships between adults really has nothing to do with whether I believe it is appropriate to show graphic photographs of mutilated babies to preschoolers without their parents’ permission.

Whew!

 

[mapleoak]

Considered the possibility that the synagogue a) did not choose or advocate for the placement of the abortion clinic and may have predated it

So the abortion clinic get a free ride to go ahead and not only murder those children that enter the clinic, but also to traumatize those children on the outside by its existence next an area highly frequented by children?

and b) may indeed be actively doing a heck of a lot but choosing to do so in a different way than you are? Have you ever bothered to ask? Be wary of judging others based only on what you can see of them and whether they are visibly acting in exactly the manner you are when you are.

See mom go into clinic, see former mom walk out. One more down. Boy, acting in an invisible manner sure does a lot of good!

 

[mapleoak]

An important distinction.

Is it Peter Singer who said that infanticide should be legal? That parents should have the right, up until a child is about, wasn’t it 3 months old, to have their child killed if a defect reared it’s ugly head after birth? Quite a slippery slope we are on. It’s been and continues to be one hell of a ride.

Sadly, I have heard of up to six years, not to mention the old, crippled, and ‘useless eaters’.

 

[mapleoak]

What?! Ask permission? Who in their right mind would say yes to see a torn up child??? The women who go into the clinic deserve to see what they are about to have done to another person. This isn’t some “surgery” it’s MURDER. (of the most hideous and grotesque fashion and done to the most innocent and vulnerable people)

No one, of course. It is all about covering up the reality so that the mother does not know what they are about to have done to another person.

Uh as long as this rebellious ungodly nation sits back and enjoys life while others lose it violently the trucks and planes will be out there to show them what they are complacent about.

Actually, I think people have gotten too use to being comfortable and ejoying to much pleasure. Whoa be to anyone who would upset that comfort.

 

[KarenNC]

This is tough love and a despreate last-stitch effort to save a life. Sometimes words aren’t enough.

Could you clarify what you mean by “last ditch effort” exactly?

 

[KarenNC]

What about TVs? A kid can see disturbing images 24/7 in their own home. Then there’s the previews before movies. Even children’s movies have innappropriate ads before them. What about Harry Potter in which children die in awful ways? That is supposed to be a children’s movie.

As I have said before, TVs require an act of will on the part of the parent in terms of whether or not to have it even on, much less choice of channel, ability to change the channel if something inappropriate comes on, etc. There is also an act of will involved in going to movies or renting dvds. Not too many preschoolers that I know of wandering into local movie theaters alone without their parents’ permission. Hardly equivalent.

Most importantly, a child can recover from seeing something frightening. No child ever recovers from being killed. If your child was in danger of being killed, you would probably kill the murderer right in front of your child. That would be traumatizing, but necessary in order to save a life.

These preschoolers are neither in danger of being aborted nor in imminent danger of having abortions.

Sorry, my standard of behavior toward young children falls a bit higher than “they can recover from it so it must be acceptable.”

I prefer these images to have warnings around them, but I won’t get too upset at people who spread the message. If people don’t like to see aborted fetuses, then maybe they should stop aborting them.

If the preschoolers were the ones choosing abortions, then I might come closer to agreeing with you.