Fr. Pavone on the use of graphic images of abortion

[mapleoak]

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.

Young children may become traumatized is only your opinion and a largely unsupported one at that. The average three year has not the adequate comprehension to understand what a photo of an unborted child is. Children that are old enough to comprehend, are also old enough to be taught to understand.

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.

Anecdotes give credibility to their effectiveness. If you would like to do a scientific study as to their effectiveness, that is your call. Advertising firms, as has been stated before, think otherwise.

 

[Jerry_Heil]

Why not post the pictures? If they make someone uncomfortable, so much the better. It’s precisely the separation of act and consequence that has blinded so many Americans in so many areas of their conduct. We show dead birds from oil spills, etc. We all need to understand the consequences of our acts, good or bad. To hide the hideous consequences of aboprtion is to condone it. What is the saying? For evil to florish all that needs to happen is for good people to do nothing?
Jerry Heil
PS-What is the purpose of the Caveman blog? Pretty much trash as far as I can tell.

 

[mapleoak]

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?

Because they are not directed at children. They are directed at an intended audience. An audience capable of understanding what they are viewing. Children old enough to comprehend what they are seeing, should already have been taught to understand.

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.

I don’t agree with what hollywood says is appropriate. Therefore no TV at all. Billboard signs however are acceptable. You say they aren’t and say the intention is to direct them at children. Again, they are not directed at children, but those old enough to understand.

Yes, murder and death disturb me and thank all that’s holy for that. Lots of things disturb me. I don’t need to rub a three year old’s face in photographs of them to prove that.

And again…they are not directed at children, but those old enough to understand. Certainly not rubbing childrens’s faces in them. Children old enough to comprehend are also old enough to understand with proper guidance and teaching. No reason at all to delay this understanding when it is one of the most, if not the most important issue affecting humanity today.

I hope what my child learns from me is a sense of perspective and respect for other human beings no matter what their age and that the ends do not justify any and every means.

End - Promote public awareness of murder. Means - Graphic literature. The end does justify the means in this case.

Then why will blazing them through the sky do any good?

Because lots of people will see them.

 

[boppaid]

Several states DO NOT report their abortion numbers, no law requires them to!

All abortion numbers are derived from pro-abortion sources courtesy of The Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood’s Family Planning Perspectives.
WORLDWIDE

Just out of curiosity, could you post the source to your numbers?

 

[proudnifi]

Here is another concern of mine - not only showing graphic images of violence to young children, but hardening the hearts of people who are “pro-choice” by using indiscriminate shock tactics. Not everyone who sees the photos becomes pro-life. Many people are looking for any reason to tear down pro-life - why make it easier for them? I was struck by these thoughts while visiting abortionno.org/RCC/feedback.html

I am impressed that they are posting negative as well as positive feedback. Also, I am not saying I agree with everything posted, some of the negative comments were a total waste of time to read. However, still strikes me that there are rational reasons to disagree with indiscriminate use of graphic pics.

“It is a real shame that your group cannot get its message across to the public without distasteful, disgusting trucks parading up and down our highways…You are invading my privacy and the privacy of my family…Please rethink this avenue of advertising. Your group is giving a good name to the abortionists. At least they don’t invade my privacy.”

“After my grade school grandchildren saw your shocking and tasteless photos on one of your trucks, me and my family were outraged. Not all of us were previously sympathetic to your cause, but you have now made our entire family unanimous…every single family member is now utterly opposed to your organization.”

“Your unwarranted display of pornographic material on the freeway this morning is contemptible at best. Terrorists like you will stop at nothing to get your message heard. Your morality is suspect, your methods reprehensible and your character non-existent, so much for your ethics! If I had been on your side, I would certainly be against your cause now. I shall urge my Congressman to have your organization declared “terrorist” so that NO financial aid can be given to your reprehensible organization by any law abiding US citizen.”

 

[KarenNC]

:clapping:

Thank you! Now we can finally actually discuss something concrete (doesn’t address whether your methods are effective, but I’ll take what I can get)! A link to the data would be even better, but with a name, I can find it. guttmacher.org/sections/abortion.php

Several states DO NOT report their abortion numbers, no law requires them to!

The CDC report I have been referencing cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm#fig1
is very clear on where and how the data were collected and analyzed and limitations on it.

If the states do not report the numbers then we have no way of knowing whether they were higher or lower than the overall trend, so the only thing we can state about that data is that we do not know what it is. We can only work with data that is actually known.

Okay, based on those numbers you have provided, let’s examine what you have said about abortion numbers:

Post 62
"it has cost us well over 50 million murdered babies in this country "

If I take even the stated number of abortions in the US in the year quoted 1.37 million (ignoring the fact that the rate has been falling for a couple of decades) and multiply that times 34 (years since Roe v. Wade), I get 46,580,000, well shy of "over 50 million).

guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
“From 1973 through 2002, more than 42 million legal abortions occurred.”

So take a base of 42 million, then add for the sake of argument, 1.37 million per year times 4.5 years (2003-half of 2007), you get 6.156 million + 42 million= 48.156 million substantially less than "well over 50 million). We can also assume that this number is likely a bit high as the abortion rate and numbers have been falling for years.

Post 137
“All that giberish means nothing if babies are being exterminated at the rate of 160,000 a day or more, so don’t try to justify not saving them with Catholic writings.”

Post 144
“As a national prolife leader I won’t dare post something that can’t be backed up statistically. 160,000 a day is from abortion supporters statistics!”

160,000 a day times 365 days equals 58.4 million, not 46 million as is stated by the data you provided.

Post 163
“160,000 abortions across the world each day, about 4000 or more in the US.”

Your quoted statistics
“WORLDWIDE
Number of abortions per year: Approximately 46 Million
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 126,000”

UNITED STATES

Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700

Note that the Guttmacher Institute also agrees that thenumber of abortions per year in the US is falling

guttmacher.org/media/nr/2003/01/15/nr_011003.html

“The U.S. abortion rate continues to decline and is now at the lowest level since 1974”

 

[KarenNC]

Because they are not directed at children. They are directed at an intended audience. An audience capable of understanding what they are viewing. Children old enough to comprehend what they are seeing, should already have been taught to understand.

They are not “directed” at all, anymore than opening a firehose on a crowd is “directed” only at certain members of that crowd.

I don’t agree with what hollywood says is appropriate. Therefore no TV at all.

Now here are you saying that it is inappropriate to put these images on television because you don’t agree with what hollywood says is appropriate or that there should be no TV at all for anyone because you don’t agree with what hollywood says is appropriate?

If you mean you choose not to watch tv because you don’t agree with what hollywood finds appropriate, perfectly valid choice. We have had neither commercial nor cable television access for years.

Regardless, even Hollywood provides warnings and ratings to help parents avoid what they deem is inappropriate for their young children.

Billboard signs however are acceptable. You say they aren’t and say the intention is to direct them at children. Again, they are not directed at children, but those old enough to understand.

I have said that as a society we have not historically said that it is appropriate to put graphic bloody photos of real dismembered people on billboards.

End - Promote public awareness of murder. Means - Graphic literature. The end does justify the means in this case.

No end justifies all and every means, particularly when there are a wide variety of means available and you have no evidence that the one that you are choosing is any more effective than any of the others and it contravenes all social norms.

 

[estesbob]

:clapping:

So take a base of 42 million, then add for the sake of argument, 1.37 million per year times 4.5 years (2003-half of 2007), you get 6.156 million + 42 million= 48.156 million substantially less than "well over 50 million). We can also assume that this number is likely a bit high as the abortion rate and numbers have been falling for years.

"

“only” 48 million children killed Well that makes me feel a lot better

 

[KarenNC]

I was struck by these thoughts while visiting abortionno.org/RCC/feedback.html

I was struck by the fact that, out of all the feedback they posted (3 pages worth), only 1 statement was from a woman who said that she had changed her mind about whether or not to have an abortion based on the images and it was not stated whether she saw the trucks or saw the information on the website or in some other adult-appropriate venue.

 

[KarenNC]

“only” 48 million children killed Well that makes me feel a lot better

Should make you feel better than “well over 50 million” as should the information that both the actual numbers of abortions and the abortion rate have been falling for many years in this country rather than increasing.

No one is applauding the fact that children are dying from abortion.

No one.

At all.

In any way.

Inflating the numbers to make it look worse than it is to justify using means that society finds repugnant under any other circumstances is at best mistaken, bad at math and reading, and, at worst, dishonest.

 

[estesbob]

No end justifies all and every means, particularly when there are a wide variety of means available and you have no evidence that the one that you are choosing is any more effective than any of the others and it contravenes all social norms.

They’re been repeated posts in this thread pointing out testimonials by women who said viewing these billboards kept them from having an abortion. You continually ignore that. We have two scenarios- a child that might be bothered by viewing one of these billboards or a child whose life might be saved if their parent viewed one of these billboards. Under the principle of double effect clearly the second scenario is the one which should go for. However after viewing your post where you minimized the importance of 48 1/2 million abortions I doubt you agree.

 

[estesbob]

Should make you feel better than “well over 50 million” as should the information that both the actual numbers of abortions and the abortion rate have been falling for many years in this country rather than increasing.

No one is applauding the fact that children are dying from abortion.

No one.

At all.

In any way.

Inflating the numbers to make it look worse than it is to justify using means that society finds repugnant under any other circumstances is at best mistaken, bad at math and reading, and, at worst, dishonest.

At least forty eight half million children dead and you criticize people who believe it’s over 50 million? What an unbelievably callous attitude

 

[estesbob]

I was struck by the fact that, out of all the feedback they posted (3 pages worth), only 1 statement was from a woman who said that she had changed her mind about whether or not to have an abortion based on the images and it was not stated whether she saw the trucks or saw the information on the website or in some other adult-appropriate venue.

“Only” one child whose life we know is saved, oh well- no big deal accepted that job of course.

It has become apparent in this thread where most of us see children being killed you just see statistics to be argued about. It is only such an attitude that would lead someone to believe there is a significant difference between 48 1/2 million dead children and 50 million,

 

[KarenNC]

It has become apparent in this thread where most of us see children being killed you just see statistics to be argued about. It is only such an attitude that would lead someone to believe there is a significant difference between 48 1/2 million dead children and 50 million,

It is significant to that 1,500,000 individual children.

 

[KarenNC]

They’re been repeated posts in this thread pointing out testimonials by women who said viewing these billboards kept them from having an abortion. You continually ignore that. We have two scenarios- a child that might be bothered by viewing one of these billboards or a child whose life might be saved if their parent viewed one of these billboards. Under the principle of double effect clearly the second scenario is the one which should go for. However after viewing your post where you minimized the importance of 48 1/2 million abortions I doubt you agree.

“repeated posts in this thread pointing out testimonials by women who said viewing these billboards kept them from having an abortion”

Could you point to the specific posts please?

I found
#120 *photo posted to nurse, she became prolife *(does not indicate she was at any time ever actually considering having an abortion, and the image was shown directly and privately to her)

#170
*“I was thinking of (having an) abortion because may children are gonna be less than 2 years apart but after reading everything and looking at the pictures i can’t do it.” *(example of feed back from abortionno.org. Out of three pages of feedback on their site, this is the sole one that says that a woman actually changed her mind after seeing the images, but it gives no information on whether she saw them privately, on the website, or on the side of a truck with her preschooler in hand)

and
*“Your photos changed me from pro-choice to pro-life. More has got to be done to educate the public on the true horrors of abortion. Please continue to spread your word any way you can. this is truly a cause that cannot be ignored. I think it should be mandotory for every woman who is to under go this surgery to see photos like these so they to would understand exactly what is taking place.” *(again, no indication of the venue in which this person saw these images, nor whether this person was ever at any point actually personally considering having an abortion or is even female)

#198 you said
"There are testimonials from women that viewing the pictures on these trucks stopped them from having an abortion. (note that you failed to provide even these testimonials or a link to them)

#245
We’ve had people look at the signs and not go into the clinic, and people that have come out after a preliminary appt. and not come back but kept their baby. (note that these are images displayed directly at an abortion clinic to women entering the clinic not driving down the highway)

So, rather than having “repeated testimonials from people who viewed billboards” we have the above, and in none of the above do we have any indication that the choice not to personally have an abortion was influenced by anything other than a direct, targeted showing of these images, which is what I have been suggesting all along.

 

[KarenNC]

At least forty eight half million children dead and you criticize people who believe it’s over 50 million? What an unbelievably callous attitude

I criticize people who misrepresent themselves as credible and accurate authorities then proceed to misrepresent facts, particularly when they can present (under great duress) as the basis for their claims statistics that blatantly don’t support their statements.

Such people do nothing good for the credibility of the movement as a whole. Overinflating numbers and saying that trends are the opposite of what they actually are is flatly wrong and does nothing to help folks figure out what is really working to accomplish the goal—fewer abortions.

What would be the reaction of folks if I said there were millions fewer deaths than you could actually show records for? Do you think that there would be some who would be willing to point out that I was underestimating and misrepresenting the severity of the problem, using dishonest propaganda tactics to discredit the prolife movement and here’s the information that shows that? Would they be right to do so?

Fewer abortions and a falling abortion rate in this country is something to be celebrated! Shout out the good news from the rooftops! Hundreds of thousands fewer babies are dying each year! A difference is being made!

Next step is to actually figure out why and how the difference is occurring so that it can continue and hopefully be reduced even more. That takes objective data. Anecdotes are fine as far as they go, but that is not far enough to give an accurate and useful answer.

 

[KarenNC]

I would support placing guidelines on people distributing images to make sure they have a targeted market and limit them to that market (as in the case of protesting in front of an abortuary as opposed to protesting in front of a supermarket).

I will disagree with the level of understanding of children under 7 and whether these trucks, etc constitute “hit or miss,” but yes, we agree in principle, I believe.

The thing is, too many people in our society honestly believe abortion is a matter of removing body tissue belonging to a mother, similar to removing a cyst or small tumor. They’ve been lied to with words to such an extent that they’ve bought into it. Words contrary to those are not sinking in. They believe we are making the descriptions up. Pictures are more powerful and undeniable. We have reached the point in this society that we cannot afford to let the truth be suppressed any longer. How we let the images circulate is something worth discussing and compromising on, but suggesting images be banned from use altogether is not an option. I don’t think that’s what you’re suggesting though.

You are right. I do not support banning them from use. I firmly believe that anyone old enough to think they can decide to engage in sex should know all the possible consequences of that decision and anyone who considers an abortion should be made aware of exactly what they are planning to do. We are responsible for our own actions and need to be willing to face those consequences.

I do question whether the particular images chosen, particularly of first trimester abortions, are actually more effective than showing pictures of intact, living babies of the same age instead of bloody mutilated piles of body parts.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Ani Ibi:

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.

KarenNC:

Okay. Don’t see anyone in this discussion who is having an abortion.

Relevance?

KarenNC:

An example of “engaging in remote material collaboration with abortion”?

Helping or making it easy for someone to have an abortion; funding abortuaries, abortionists, abortion publicity; obstructing pro-life activities; withholding from pregnant women information on the effects of abortion; normalizing abortion; looking the other way when abortions are happening; and so on.
Ani Ibi:

It is a question of proportion. It is a question of dealing with real life and death and of teaching one’s children to deal with same in age-appropriate language – rather than teaching children that they can ignore with impugnity what they might find disturbing.

Life is not a rose garden. Children should not be taught that it is a rose garden. Children who are ‘damaged’ by watching violent tv are children who have no context with which to understand that violence.

KarenNC:

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?

I see you are resorting to evasion, strawman, and misrepresentation to forward your point of view. Pity. One would expect that, if your point of view could stand on the strength of reason and reference alone, it would not need rhetoric. My reference to ‘teaching one’s children to deal with same in age-appropriate language’ was clearly about the parent’s responsibility to help the child contextualize pro-life activities. It was clearly not about society’s role in same.

Is flying a plane towing an image of a bloody mutilated pile of dismembered parts of babies across a city sky a method a parent would use to provide “context” in an “age appropriate” way for posters depicting abortions? I don’t know too many parents who have banner planes. Does one rent them to teach children?

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Ani Ibi:

That lack of context exists because parents do not take the time to discuss with the children what is appearing on tv screens. TV violence is too often used as a free babysitting service.

If you want to censor abortion posters, then why not censor media programs on famine, homelessness, war, disasters, sickness, and so on. That way, children will not be ‘damaged’ by any disturbing images.

KarenNC:

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.

You are drawing an analogy between a lady from the Church sitting by a poster on the one hand and films like Natural Born Killers on the other hand. This is a faulty analogy. One is politics. The other is art. One is real life and death. The other is fantasy.
Ani Ibi:

And therefore they will also never learn how to deal with these facts of life.

KarenNC:

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.

Perhaps the reason it might feel like the deep end of a shark pool to you is that things like swatting flies, putting on mosquito repellant, eating hamburgers, not petting wildlife, putting the family dog down, funerals for grandparents and ex-presidents are sometimes withheld by parents from their children. Death is part of life.

KarenNC:

Swimming is a good skill and can save lives. Sharks exist and it is good to know to avoid them in order to save lives. It is not the content of the message but the method that I question.

And your claims rest on the assumption that pro-life poster holders should be responsible for providing contextual skills for small children where their own parents have neglected to do so. Either that or they should just ‘disappear.’
Ani Ibi:

And therefore they will take their values from their parents: ignore what disturbs you.

KarenNC:

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?

By advocating the censorship of these images.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

KarenNC:

Yes, murder and death disturb me and thank all that’s holy for that. Lots of things disturb me. I don’t need to rub a three year old’s face in photographs of them to prove that.

False dilemma. There are more choices than you have presented.

One comes to mind: not flinching from explaining that death is a part of life. Not creating an elephant in the room which kids themselves know is there but may not have the terminology to deal with. Not flinching from giving children the tools that they need in an age-appropriate way to deal with unpleasant realities. Not flinching from empowering children instead of imprisoning them in a perfumed garden. The responsibility for age-appropriate communication is the parent’s not society’s.

KarenNC:

I hope what my child learns from me is a sense of perspective and respect for other human beings no matter what their age and that the ends do not justify any and every means.

I hope someone at school teaches children how to apply the Principle of Double Effect.
Ani Ibi:

And therefore remedies for famine, homelessness, war, disasters, sickness, and so on will disappear from our culture.

KarenNC:

All of this will disappear from our culture if we don’t show graphic bloody pictures of them to 3 year olds?

Did I say that? No. It is another strawman. I set out an analogous relationship. You are claiming I set out a causal relationship.
Ani Ibi:

There is something wrong with this reasoning. Folks who don’t want to see things, don’t see them. Folks who do not have the emotional strength to see things, don’t see them.

KarenNC:

Then why will blazing them through the sky do any good?

That way, people who choose to see them can see them. People who do not choose to see them don’t have to see them. They can turn a blind eye.
Ani Ibi:

What is being recommended here is that nobody should see them whether they are willing, strong, or anything else. That is disproportionate.

KarenNC:

Recommended by whom, exactly?

By you.
Ani Ibi:

In a high-crime neighbourhood in Toronto, the mothers found that if they just showed up in the drug-trafficking areas with their knitting, the drug-trafficking stopped in that area. Why? Because people were watching.

KarenNC:

People were watching them knitting and it had the desired effect. I have no objection to preschoolers seeing someone knitting.

Evasion. And strawman. The point is that crime is reduced by making sure criminals know that they are being watched. It is the rare criminal who wants to be caught and therefore it is the rare criminal who wants to be watched. Now, I concede that there may be the odd criminal who wants to be caught and thrives on the drama of the chase and the arrest.

In my example, it is the knitters who are watching. It is not the knitters who are being watched. end.