I don’t recall reading that it has been necessary to blow up graphic photos of either dog fighting or a child mutlitated, bloody and dead from child abuse, and put them on tractor trailers or trail trail them behind airplanes in order for adults to be aware either of the practice or that it was wrong.
Um, I was under the impression that all of us in this conversation understood that the two were equated? That abortion always and in every case ends the life of a child? Realizing that would fall under “emotional consequences,” in my book, unless you are saying that ending someone’s life has no emotional consequences for the person who made that decision?
I am very surprised that you categorize the consequences of having an abortion as “emotional discomfort.” I would never be so dismissive. The emotional trauma and long lasting effects of choosing to end a human life I would believe fall a bit beyond the range of “discomfort.”
Who is saying that ending these lives on this scale is acceptable?
Yes, they do, however, based on statistical data from the CDC for 2003 (the last year information is available currently, report came out in late 2006):
I was asked directly about whether I meant exclusively marriage when I said “committed relationship.” I was answering a question with a direct, honest answer that was actually relevant to the question being asked.
Um, maybe because it’s a good thing for people to be committed to each other before they start having sex with each other?
Excuse me? You are going to need to be more specific.
Is this clinic giving out stickers that say “I got an abortion today?”
The Pope gives a free ride to abortion because you do not happen to see him outside a clinic holding up a graphic sign?
“Heard of” from whom, exactly?
She has answered this question before. Although she claims not to be pro-choice she says there are circumstances were abortion is acceptable.
It sounded like you were saying ‘committed’ couples, as long as they understand the emotional ‘consequences’, may well do as they please. No reference to the understanding that abortion kills human beings, which is the purpose of billboard signs.
Nope, you did when you said: “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.”
But should not be the only concern. The death of the child is even more important.
Not financially prepared because of what, so called committed relationships? The man walked out on her when he found out she was pregnant? So much for commitment. Again, define committed relationship. Anything other than marriage comes up short.
But, what does it say about whether or not they knew full well that they were killing a human person. How many of those would not have had an abortion if they knew?
So you do mean marriage? It should be taught, not that it is the best situation, but rather it should be taught that unmarried people should not be having intercourse, period.
Commitment without marriage is a lie.
Can you understand sarcasm?
Again, sarcasm. It is a literal device.
When your 3 year old daughter points to the building across the street and says “what do they do there” and you say “they kill people”.
From anyone who they ask of course.
Seriously?! I can’t tell if you’re joking? What kind of parent would say that to their 3 year old??
I’m sorry. I’m a little slow on the uptake here. (Long night with sick child.
) Are you answering my question here? Were you joking? (Or are you addressing someone else?)Really? Interesting how you get that from:
Funny, I don’t see anything about “discomfort” in that statement.
If you are unclear on the meaning of “committed” then I suggest you refer to any one of a number of dictionaries. There are plenty online if you don’t have one to hand at home.
All I can tell you is that not one woman in that study responded that she had an abortion “because it isn’t really human” or “it isn’t really a baby.” The vast majority of answers seemed to indicate that they were fully aware that this was a baby and would have a lifelong impact of responsibility for them, so I would say that that shows at least some indication that they knew this involved a human life.
I can, but it might be useful to identify it when you intend such. It’s kind of hard to tell in most of your responses, as you have indicated previously that things I would only have expected to be sarcastic were in fact meant absolutely literally.
Reading what is actually written is an evidently neglected skill.
The context for those deaths is that they are morally illicit. To have an abortion or to engage in remote material collaboration with an abortion is a mortal sin. That is the context.
If what we can’t see can’t hurt us, then let’s solve the problem of evil by making sure it all happens behind closed doors. To other people.
Again with the claim but again never with the supporting evidence that this is indeed “the most effective way” to do anything. Is there anything other than anecdotes and your own “feelings” that support your claim that displaying graphic images of mutilated bloody dead babies in places where you know they are likely to be seen by preschoolers is measurably more effective than any other prolife strategy or even as effective?
Actually I consider myself pro-sanity, thanks.
Well, I do have to grant that there aren’t a lot of people who were aborted participating in this discussion. Now as to whether anyone is “dismissing” these photos is another claim altogether and one, as far as I can see, that is baseless.
Pretty much on target, yes, though I would reword the first point a bit. It is not just that young children may become traumatized, but that, as a culture, we have very widely demonstrated cultural norms of recognizing that young children should be actively protected from exposure to graphic scenes of violence as much as is possible. Also that there are evidently no objective measures demonstrating that showing these images in this way is any more effective than or even as effective as any other method that does not ignore those norms at preventing abortion.
Okay. Don’t see anyone in this discussion who is having an abortion. An example of “engaging in remote material collaboration with abortion”?
Couple key words here. “Age appropriate” and “context.” How is flying a plane towing an image of a bloody mutilated pile of dismembered parts of babies across a city sky providing “context” in an “age appropriate” way?
Our society does indeed “censor” these media programs by applying ratings to them, placing descriptions of them in tv guides listing when and where they will be shown, not showing them in breaks between children’s programming, requiring an act of will on the part of the parent to invite these images into his or her home for the viewing of his or her child.
There is a vast difference between a parent taking a 3 year old child into the shallow end of the pool to start to teach them how to swim and a stranger dumping the same child in the deep end of the shark pool at the aquarium with the same goal.
I have seen the photos. I have actively looked at and for the photos in the course of this very discussion. I have never once in this discussion referred to these images as anything other than as photos of dead, bloody, mutilated, dismembered human babies. In what way am I ignoring what disturbs me or advocating that anyone considering an abortion should not be “disturbed” by what they are about to do?
All of this will disappear from our culture if we don’t show graphic bloody pictures of them to 3 year olds?
Then why will blazing them through the sky do any good?
Recommended by whom, exactly?
People were watching them knitting and it had the desired effect. I have no objection to preschoolers seeing someone knitting.
Millions of babies murdered each year in the US by abortion? Where in the world do you get your statistics?
Ok, thanks. I should think we’d all agree that that young children should be actively protected from scenes of violence as much as possible.