Fr. Pavone on the use of graphic images of abortion

[KarenNC]

Young teens, and we’re talking 13+, will engage in oral sex and likely premarital sex. I do not see them knowingly and willingly seeking out pictures of abortions before deciding whether or not to go ahead with the sexual relations. Heck, they aren’t even trying to find out about STDs, let alone facing the thought of pregnancy.

Agreed.

It’s one thing to hold the position ‘people should seek information before taking action’ but the reality is they don’t.

Agreed. I am all for including this information in sex education classes for this age group.

What’s worse, is the information prevalent to ‘joe user’ who doesn’t ‘seek’ info but takes it in by ‘happenstance’ is being fed lies via magazine images, articles, television shows, movies, song lyrics and such. I’m all for throwing images of aborted fetuses into that mix in an effort to represent Truth among all those lies.

Under targeted circumstances, perhaps.

That a handful of under 7 year olds might be exposed to the images is a small price to pay in order to reach those pre/teens looking to lose their virginity. That, maybe, just maybe, one of those 13 year olds being peer pressured into considering sex has a flashback of a memory of an image on a passing semi he/she recalls back when they were 4 would be a good thing, in my book, if that flashback causes the kid to pause long enough to go back and ask mom and dad about that truck.

If it were truly a “handful” it would not be as big an issue, but it isn’t.

Actually, I would hope that we could be laying the foundation with inundations of images of what live babies look like at different gestational ages,the knowledge that babies are indeed human before birth and that actions have consequences and responsibilities (and additional ones other than a possible abortion). That will also build a corpus of knowledge for the “flashback” of the 13 year old.

I agree that the main goal is to get that 13 (and 15 and 18 and 25 adn 30) year old to pause long enough to hopefully make the correct choice about engaging in sexual behavior, but that pause is going to require a lot more targeted information than graphic photos of dead babies seen when they were preschoolers.

 

[mapleoak]

Are there any means which a prolife activist may not use in pursuit of his or her goal as long as it saves one baby?

Yes, it would be wrong to murder the abortionist for instance, blow up the abortuary, vandalize, etc. Truly, here the end does not justify the means. This would be using immoral means for a moral good.

How can you know it is not in spite of your signs and that the numbers might not be even lower if that energy had been focused in another area or using another strategy?

Because it is unreasonable to common sense to think it is ‘in spite of’. A twisted mind indeed would look at such a sign and say: 'oh, so that’s what abortion is, I’m gonna go get me one." Yes, there may very well be more effective ways, however that does not make the use of signs illicit. In many things in life, there are multiple tools to perform the same task. Some people are better suited one type of tool, and others to another tool. Not everyone is going to use the same nor the most effective one at all times. Some people can’t show signs for instance, because they are confined to a wheel chair in their home. They can write letters to the editor of their local paper. Are these letters more or less effective than photos? If photos are more effective, should this person then not write letters since they are not as effective? Visa/Versa as well. Each to their abilities and talents and whatever good they can do. For me, not having an abortion clinic anywhere where I live (thanks be to God) do not have the option of picketing, for instance. I must then use whatever means I have available to me, not excluding writing letters to the editor.

That a handful of under 7 year olds might be exposed to the images is a small price to pay in order to reach those pre/teens looking to lose their virginity. That, maybe, just maybe, one of those 13 year olds being peer pressured into considering sex has a flashback of a memory of an image on a passing semi he/she recalls back when they were 4 would be a good thing, in my book, if that flashback causes the kid to pause long enough to go back and ask mom and dad about that truck.

No need to question it. It works. Personally speaking, I was one who used to believe the lie that it was ‘a blob of tissue’ and defended pro-choice based upon that ‘fact’ for many years. It wasn’t until I was able to see that ‘blob’ up close that I realized there were fingers and toes in there and that changed everything for me. I had ‘heard’ the verbal arguments all along. It was the photo which made the difference.

Keep in mind that in that time I had given birth to 2 children and miscarried one. I had seen all the pictures of ‘life’ in each of those stages, of course, but for whatever reason those images did not equate with abortion. It’s a disconnect Planned Parenthood and Co. have successfully ingrained in the masses by constant ‘exposure’ to lies, using words, music, pictures. Pictures of everything but what a real abortion looks like, of course. It’s time to give the masses the whole truth.

Amen to that. Wonderful post.

 

[whatevergirl]

Excuse me? You are going to need to be more specific.
A) free ride? by whom?

B) exactly how does an abortion clinic “traumatize those children on the outside by its existence?” Most clinics I have seen are basically plain office buildings. Most don’t have huge banners saying “get your abortion here!” across the outside nor are they running video billboards showing their services.

Is this clinic giving out stickers that say “I got an abortion today?”
to these women? A free tshirt? Exactly how are these children (I think that’s what you mean) finding out that the women going in and out had an abortion?

The Pope gives a free ride to abortion because you do not happen to see him outside a clinic holding up a graphic sign?

actually…that is precisely why abortion clinics are dangerous…they appear like medical clinics…trying to help women. They have done far more damage. I have had 5 friends…back in college, who had abortions. They have never been the same…carry the shame daily…and two of my friends cannot get pregnant due to these abortions, their docs told them. Abortion clinics appear like ‘normal’ ‘blah’ buildings…like your regular old doctor’s office…where you get medicine…and life GIVING treatment. There should be neon signs glaring…‘get your abortion here,’ and look like a sleazy hotel…because that’s what those places are…sleazy…the people there tell half truths to get women to have abortions. WHY?

Money. Money. Money. Planned Parenthood makes a killing (no pun) off of hurting babies…hurting women. They help no one.

 

[YinYangMom]

Actually, I would hope that we could be laying the foundation with inundations of images of what live babies look like at different gestational ages,the knowledge that babies are indeed human before birth and that actions have consequences and responsibilities (and additional ones other than a possible abortion). That will also build a corpus of knowledge for the “flashback” of the 13 year old.

That is the approach which has failed us.
Even now, it is so interesting how cities will vote in legislation to charge a drunk driver or killer with 2 charges of manslaughter if the primary victim is pregnant, but keeps it legal for that same primary victim to walk into a clinic to allow a physician to kill that same baby.

Women are conditioned to consider pregnancies as blobs of tissue until such time as they determine they want to be a mother. That’s when they start counting the days of each missed menstrual cycle looking up reference books to see ‘what stage’ her baby’s development is in.

Same photos which had been around for years. Did she consider them when she chose to abort the previous 1-3 pregnancies? Did she consider what an aborted fetus would look like before making those decisions? No.

The other misconception which leads to this ‘disconnect’ is the abortion procedure itself. Women are led to believe a suction is used to remove ‘the blob’ in one fell swoop, much as one would remove a scab and then put a bandaid over it with Neosporin. It isn’t until one sees the aborted fetus that one realizes it takes more than one ‘pass’ to remove the fetus from the womb. The image of the dismembered limbs is burned into my mind, much as the images of Auschwitz, and I will never ever question whether or not the procedure is brutal to the victim. Prior to seeing the images I dismissed all charges of Truth as the ramblings of zealots, lies, deceit aimed to frighten me toward their position. With the photos, however, backed with testimony from physicians as to the accuracy of those photos, there’s no going back if one values the life of a child.

There are women who will continue to believe it is her body first and foremost and she does indeed have the inalienable right to put into or take out of that body what she chooses. The photos won’t change their position easily.

 

[sprout]

And there are other strategies available to the prolife movement than these trucks and planes. There has been nothing presented to show that this particular strategy is as effective as or more effective than other methods and therefore absolutely required in order to achieve the goal.

I agree, in fact, at all of the organized ProLIfe protests I’ve attended the past few years “Walk for Life” etc it is specifically requested “No Graphic Images”.

It has been my experience that asking a woman who is considering an abortion if she would mind viewing some images of the procedure beforehand is the most effective, because it shows respect.

It is the more humble approach that works best.

 

[boppaid]

Better a child die than have your child have bad dreams, correct?

Do you beleive abortion should be illegal?

I will answer your questions, even though you didn’t respond to my post that you quoted in the least. No, I don’t think it’s better that a child die than my child have bad dreams. Who here is talking about ‘bad dreams’ anyway? I’m talking about situations like another poster on this board who’s emotionally handicapped child had to be hospitalized because those pictures made him want to kill people. I’m not sure if it was discussed on this thread or one of the others going on regarding the same subject. I, too, know a mother whose child who was diagnosed w/ autism and bipolar disorder who had to be hospitalized after seeing graphic abortion photos on the street because he knew that his aunt had an abortion, and he threatened to kill her on numerous occassions, and had the strength to do it. So, no, I’m not worried about ‘bad dreams’. I’m not sure where you got that I was.

To answer your second question, I do believe abortion should be illegal.

Now, please return the favor and respond to this:

So, “obstructing pro-life activities” are an example of “engaging in remote material collaboration with abortion”? What about immoral pro-life activities? Because I think (as does Karen) that it is immoral (without question) to present these graphic images where very young children are suseptible to seeing them. I also think it’s immoral to kill doctors who perform abortions, or bomb clinics which perform them. (As I’m sure you agree.) So, I STRONGLY disagree w/ your statement that “obstructing pro-life activities” are an example of “engaging in remote material collaboration with abortion”, because you write that without any qualifications about what kinds of activities the pro-life groups are taking part in.

 

[boppaid]

Is that what I said?

When Karen asked for an example of “engaging in remote material collaboration with abortion” you responded,

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

To what are you referring?

That’s the million dollar question of the day isn’t it? The problem is that there are many different kinds of “pro life activities”. Some of these include sidewalk counseling, literature mailings, lobbying, displaying graphic photographs, bombing clinics, and murdering abortion doctors. There are people in the “pro life” group who participate in all those types of activities. Now, I know you don’t participate in all of them, and are morally opposed to some of them. But there are some people who believe things as extreme as murder are morally acceptable. Just because they believe it is moral doesn’t make it so. I believe that there are varying degrees of what is ‘okay’ and what isn’t. Obviously, I don’t feel that showing graphic photos is as bad as murder, but I do believe it is immoral because it can be harmful. It seems to me that the Church does too, or they would allow it in their schools. Regardless, I am quite sure that you would have no problem not supporting someone who participates in “prolife activities” that you believe are immoral. Well, I don’t support prolife activities that I believe are immoral. That does not mean either one of us are in remote material collaboration with abortion. I support pro-life causes in different ways, as do you. Just because I find one of your ways immoral doesn’t mean that I am in material collaboration with abortion, and I think it’s terrible of you to say that.

Who is arguing with that?

I’m sorry. I thought you said that people who obstruct prolife activities are in remote material collaboration with abortion. Oh wait a minute…I wasn’t dreaming. You did.

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

Is it only obstructing pro-life activities that you agree with? Because I don’t agree w/ pro-life activities that display graphic images where children can see them.

It can be strongly argued that blowing up abortuaries and murdering abortionists actually contributes to abortion in that it marginalizes all pro-life activists as fringe elements whose points of view are to be dismissed.

Yes, it can. I totally agree with you here! My point is, though, that I believe the people who display graphic images in the public, where children can happen upon them, is doing the pro-life movement the same disservice, as I know for a fact that many look at those people as finge elements whose points of view are to be dismissed. That’s why I don’t believe they are effective enough to warrant a the damage they can do as well.

Don’t get me wrong, I do respect all your efforts. I just don’t agree with your methods.

 

[YinYangMom]

I agree, in fact, at all of the organized ProLIfe protests I’ve attended the past few years “Walk for Life” etc it is specifically requested “No Graphic Images”.

It has been my experience that asking a woman who is considering an abortion if she would mind viewing some images of the procedure beforehand is the most effective, because it shows respect.

It is the more humble approach that works best.

I would agree that would be the best way to approach a woman considering abortion.

The billboards and the semis, however, are targeted for that woman’s lover, her parents, her friends, he co-workers - anyone who would advise, encourage or pressure this woman to consider an abortion as a viable option. They’re the ones we need to slap into reality. They are speaking lies based in lies fed to them. Hit them with the truth and perhaps they will change their position so that they will no longer encourage others to consider abortion.

 

[YinYangMom]

My point is, though, that I believe the people who display graphic images in the public, where children can happen upon them, is doing the pro-life movement the same disservice, as I know for a fact that many look at those people as finge elements whose points of view are to be dismissed. That’s why I don’t believe they are effective enough to warrant a the damage they can do as well.

Don’t get me wrong, I do respect all your efforts. I just don’t agree with your methods.

There is truth to what you post, as I was one who for several years looked up the people trying to get me to look at graphic images as ‘fringe’ zealots. It did, indeed, dig me deeper into my pro-choice trench. It gave me, my husband and co-workers ammunition to use against the cause.

They’re persistence, however, and their growth in numbers, eventually got through to me though, and I did look at one of the links. Had they stopped their efforts I may never have known the truth.

That one afternoon changed my life forever. It put me at odds for several months with my husband and friends whenever the topic came up about pro-choice anything (particularly candidates). I have swayed my husband about 95% of the way of the Truth and that is a big deal. I have not convinced my co-workers, but they definitely know that I no longer support any causes they do in this regard and they no longer raise the subject in my presence. They know what my response will be and they don’t want to hear it.

That’s just it. As with all Truth, I think the pro-choicers, deep down in their souls, know there is something amiss in their conviction, that there is something about the pro-life position which rings true. It is unsettling and so they avoid it like the plague. The semis and the billboards make that harder to do. If it plants a seed which moves them to look into the matter one day - if only to prove the ‘zealot nutcases’ wrong - then good. I know their search will change their lives forever.

I guess I get that point of view from listening to conversion stories of Protestant pastors and others. They say something moved thme to prove once and for all that the Catholic church was a fraud as they’d always been told and always believed. That search led them to Catholic apologetic people who led them to the writings of the early church fathers and after that, there was no going back.

The pro-life people who believe in the power of the graphic images need to remain in force so that they will be there with their images when a pro-choicer seeks to disprove them. Now I know this is different than using the images on semis and on billboards, but again, the occasional glimpse of such images may serve to be that catalyst which moves a pro-choicer to begin that mission to disprove pro-lifers and thus end up in Truth.

 

[iamrefreshed]

You know, here in Florida, on a stretch of I-75 there are beautiful billboards showing babies at various stages of development. They have captions like:

“Heartbeat at 18 days”

Aren’t these just as effective as pictures of babies aborted?

Here’s a thought. Maybe the mom going to the clinic would say to herself after seeing a picture of a second trimester abortion “It’s OK, I’m only 6 weeks, it’s not a baby yet”.

Maybe showing positive pictures is a better idea?

I don’t think shock therapy works. That’s my opinion. I have no statistical data for either method. Apparently, no one here does either.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Maybe showing positive pictures is a better idea?

I don’t think shock therapy works. That’s my opinion. I have no statistical data for either method. Apparently, no one here does either.

Those who use it report a high rate of success. Why fight aganist them?

 

[proudnifi]

Those who use it report a high rate of success. Why fight aganist them?

1. Self-reported statistics and results may not be free of bias and/or might not show the full picture (ex, unintended consequences such as hardened hearts of pro-choicers or effects on young children).
2. Success is not the only standard used to judge actions.
3. There are people who think indisciminate use of graphic images of violence is wrong noting that other methods exist (ex, targeted audiences, use of graphic non-violent pictures such as ultrasounds of living babies). These people have a reason to request other methods be used (and disagree with the use of methods they consider wrong).

 

[sprout]

I would agree that would be the best way to approach a woman considering abortion.

The billboards and the semis, however, are targeted for that woman’s lover, her parents, her friends, he co-workers - anyone who would advise, encourage or pressure this woman to consider an abortion as a viable option. They’re the ones we need to slap into reality. They are speaking lies based in lies fed to them. Hit them with the truth and perhaps they will change their position so that they will no longer encourage others to consider abortion.

Indiscriminate slapping and hitting is not the way to change hearts and minds. It is disrespectful and completely lacking in charity and humility.

 

[YinYangMom]

Those who use it report a high rate of success. Why fight aganist them?

There are legitimate reasons for fighting against them being used in the wrong manner, as we’ve seen in this thread. I remain convinced the images and the methods used to display them should not be stopped outright, but it wouldn’t hurt the cause to set some agreed upon guidelines to establish ‘appropriateness’ in those methods.

Inundating the masses, particularly in locations which have nothing at all to do with abortions, can have a negative effect on the pro-life cause as some have noted, and I testified myself. Displaying them in appropriate ways may even have a more positive effect than this hit-and-miss one taken by the semis. Billboards are another matter. Those can easily be purchased for display based upon demographics.

 

[KarenNC]

Billboards are another matter. Those can easily be purchased for display based upon demographics.

Upon what sorts of demographics would you base the placement of billboards?

 

[vern_humphrey]

1. Self-reported statistics and results may not be free of bias and/or might not show the full picture (ex, unintended consequences such as hardened hearts of pro-choicers or effects on young children).

And viewing-with-alarm is more accurate?

Those who oppose using such pictures have better statistics?

2. Success is not the only standard used to judge actions.

But it’s a better standard than, “I don’t care what you say, I don’t like it.”

1. There are people who think indisciminate use of graphic images of violence is wrong noting that other methods exist (ex, targeted audiences, use of graphic non-violent pictures such as ultrasounds of living babies). These people have a reason to request other methods be used (and disagree with the use of methods they consider wrong).

How is what they** think** better statistics than what the people who are actually in the front lines report?

Does imagination trump actual experience?

 

[YinYangMom]

Upon what sorts of demographics would you base the placement of billboards?

Well, for example, a Planned Parenthood abortuary is slated to open in Aurora, IL September 18th. I don’t know if billboards are used in Aurora, IL, but if they are then I say that’s a great place to buy out several billboards to use to push a pro-life campaign.

Certainly I’d think billboards should be used within at least a 50 mile radius of any abortuary.

If one can access statistics on which communities perform the most abortions then that’s a place to used billboards.

There are some communities which have legislation in effect which prohibit abortions from being performed in their communities. Where to young women from those areas go to get the abortions? How many miles are women traveling in order to abort a pregnancy? Let’s say there are 7 communities surrounding a community which provides abortions. I would place billboard ads at the borderlines entering into the one community providing the abortions, that way any women/men driving into town to schedule an abortion can see just what it is they are about to do and hopefully turn around.

We can even combine both approaches mentioned here…we can have 3 billboards along the road leading to the borderline showing positive pictures of fetal development (first and second trimester) and then the closer one gets to the borderline smack them with the photos of those same staged developed fetuses aborted.

Maybe that will help mend the ‘disconnect’ infecting our society when it comes to human development. A baby isn’t either a blob or a baby depending on whether or not it’s wanted. It is always a baby. People will see a baby allowed to develop and one just like it which was denied life.

 

[proudnifi]

1. Self-reported statistics and results may not be free of bias and/or might not show the full picture (ex, unintended consequences such as hardened hearts of pro-choicers or effects on young children).

And viewing-with-alarm is more accurate?

Those who oppose using such pictures have better statistics?

I don’t understand what you mean by the term “viewing-with-alarm”.

It was said that the people who use the indisciminate tactics report success rates and I pointed out that those self-reported successes are suspect. It doesn’t mean the other side has better stats, just that the ones being reported are potentially suspect and not a good foundation for an argument.

In other words, XYZ company might tell us they had 30% growth in net income this year. I don’t need stats from the other side to question that assertion. It doesn’t mean it’s necessarily wrong either, just that there are reasons to question.

But it’s a better standard than, “I don’t care what you say, I don’t like it.”

No one has said “I don’t care what you say, I don’t like it”. Some people have said there are reasons to avoid indiscriminate use of violent images such as hardening of hearts and affecting small children (and therefore don’t like it). People are giving good reasons for their disagreement.

How is what they** think** better statistics than what the people who are actually in the front lines report?

Does imagination trump actual experience?

Well, the stats being tossed around are in question. Regardless, the stats really don’t affect whether I think indisciminate use of violent images is wrong. I don’t use effectiveness as a moral compass - that is saying the ends justifies the means (not allowed under Catholic thought).

I’m not sure how imagination comes into play. There are clearly people who are pro-choice or “undecided” who are pushed further away from the pro-life movement by strong shock tactics (I posted some comments from the same website being used to offer commentary on the effectiveness of the method). There are clearly parents who are being given unnecessary challenges in their role as guardian of childhood innocence.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I don’t understand what you mean by the term “viewing-with-alarm”.

All I see in opposition is “If my child saw such a picture.”

I
It was said that the people who use the indisciminate tactics report success rates and I pointed out that those self-reported successes are suspect. It doesn’t mean the other side has better stats, just that the ones being reported are potentially suspect and not a good foundation for an argument.

And I pointed out, the opposition has no statistics or experience at all.

I
In other words, XYZ company might tell us they had 30% growth in net income this year. I don’t need stats from the other side to question that assertion. It doesn’t mean it’s necessarily wrong either, just that there are reasons to question.

But to validly question it, you’d need** real** numbers, no? Not a blanket statement that it might “traumatize” a child whose parents couldn’t deal with it.

I
No one has said “I don’t care what you say, I don’t like it”. Some people have said there are reasons to avoid indiscriminate use of violent images such as hardening of hearts and affecting small children (and therefore don’t like it). People are giving good reasons for their disagreement.

Their disagreements fall into the “I don’t like it” category. They have no countering data.

I
Well, the stats being tossed around are in question. Regardless, the stats really don’t affect whether I think indisciminate use of violent images is wrong. I don’t use effectiveness as a moral compass - that is saying the ends justifies the means (not allowed under Catholic thought).

Which is a meaningless statement – before you can use that argument, you must show the means are wrong. And them you still have to deal with the “double effect” argument.

I
I’m not sure how imagination comes into play. There are clearly people who are pro-choice or “undecided” who are pushed further away from the pro-life movement by strong shock tactics (I posted some comments from the same website being used to offer commentary on the effectiveness of the method). There are clearly parents who are being given unnecessary challenges in their role as guardian of childhood innocence.

“Clearly?” Upon what is that based? Is there a better, more statistically valid study than the information offered by the people who use such pictures?

If so, post it here.

 

[proudnifi]

All I see in opposition is “If my child saw such a picture.”

More than one parent and non-parent has given their (name removed by moderator)ut as to concern about the effect on young children in general. Specific examples involving posters’ children have been given. Comments about the need to guard childhood innocence for children in general has been given. There is more than “if my child saw”. Anyway, so what? If my child was hit on the head I’d be ticked off - it doesn’t matter that I am using my child as an example.

And I pointed out, the opposition has no statistics or experience at all.

Experiences with specific children have been given. And with regard to stats …

But to validly question it, you’d need** real** numbers, no?

As I wrote before, no, I don’t need numbers to question other people’s numbers. Someone might tell me 110% of women have abortions - it’s clearly wrong whether I have the actual number or not. A company might tell me to buy their product because there is a 90% satisfaction rate - I don’t need the real rate to question theirs. I’d be crazy to take theirs at face value.

Not a blanket statement that it might “traumatize” a child whose parents couldn’t deal with it.

Again, we can question methods being used. Church leaders (ex, John Paul II) tell us childhood innocence is important.

Their disagreements fall into the “I don’t like it” category. They have no countering data…

Data has been repeatedly given.
Data: Church leaders (ex, John Paul II) tell us childhood innocence is important.
Data: The website promoting use of graphic abortion images include comments indicating viewers with hardened hearts. I posted some of those comments already - and, again, kudos to the site for not hiding the negative comments.
Data: Posters have shared personal experiences in which they and/or their child was negatively affected/harmed by graphic abortion images.

This is more than “I don’t like it”.

Which is a meaningless statement – before you can use that argument, you must show the means are wrong. And them you still have to deal with the “double effect” argument…

I assume you are referring to my comment “Regardless, the stats really don’t affect whether I think indisciminate use of violent images is wrong. I don’t use effectiveness as a moral compass - that is saying the ends justifies the means (not allowed under Catholic thought).”

I disagree that the statement “the ends don’t justify the means” is meaningless. The concept is specifically called out and rejected in the Catechism. One reason I brought it up is that I keep reading rebuttals that say graphic abortion images work, so we must use them. That’s simply not true. We must also consider if they are wrong. Clearly we disagree on whether they are wrong to use indiscriminately, but you shouldn’t win anyone over to your side using effectiveness as an argument.

Should the “double-effect” argument be used if there are alternative methods available? Are there alternative methods to fight abortion? Yes. How do I know? Well, I don’t believe in abortion and it’s not because of graphic abortion pics. Were you pro-abortion prior to seeing the pics? If not, then something else worked.

“Clearly?” Upon what is that based? Is there a better, more statistically valid study than the information offered by the people who use such pictures?

If so, post it here.

I wrote: “There are clearly parents who are being given unnecessary challenges in their role as guardian of childhood innocence.”

Um, just read the posts on this thread. There are parents who are not happy with their children’s exposure to the images and/or who worry that such exposure will continue given that some groups desire to put the pics up all over on purpose. I am also concerned about the indiscriminate usage being a threat to childhood innocence.

It might just come down to you think no child should retain childhood innocence as it might threaten their future, and others think childhood innocence should be protected until the parent feels the child has matured to a level ready to handle the info. Thus, you would not stop people from posting those images willy-nilly. However, for those of us who believe childhood innocence is a good thing, we will continue to call for the end of such tactics as they are wrong.