Fr. Pavone on the use of graphic images of abortion

[vern_humphrey]

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.

I see a lot of me, my, my rights and so on.

I see no critics using we, us and our.

I see no one coming forward and saying, “This is what my group does to fight against abortion, and here are the results.”

Now, I’m a parent, too – and a grandparent. I have a daughter who was called by her doctor to come in for an amniocenisis, because tests showed her unborn child might have Down’s Syndrome. She said to my wife, “Mom, I told them no. The amniocentisis has some risk to the child – and if it does have Down’s Syndrome, there’s nothing we can do about it.”

That’s a daughter to be proud of!!

 

[proudnifi]

I see a lot of me, my, my rights and so on.

I see no critics using we, us and our.

I see no one coming forward and saying, “This is what my group does to fight against abortion, and here are the results.”

Now, I’m a parent, too – and a grandparent. I have a daughter who was called by her doctor to come in for an amniocenisis, because tests showed her unborn child might have Down’s Syndrome. She said to my wife, “Mom, I told them no. The amniocentisis has some risk to the child – and if it does have Down’s Syndrome, there’s nothing we can do about it.”

That’s a daughter to be proud of!!

Absolutely!! I’m always glad to hear stories like hers - and to have the chance to tell others about stories like that.

People often look at me funny when I speak out against abortion - so many people assume I “must” be pro-abortion because I’m a woman. Stories like your daughter’s have made people think - they are struck by how counter-cultural her act is and they stop to think about it.

When I am faced with the “you can’t tell me what to believe” argument I remind people that some people truly believe blacks are inherently inferior to whites. I still support laws that forbid government discimination against blacks - even if it “forces” my beliefs on others. Very effective in rooms with non-whites.

No doubt, I should be doing more and will consider this.

And congratulations on your grandchild! My parents and in-laws are jealous.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Absolutely!! I’m always glad to hear stories like hers - and to have the chance to tell others about stories like that.

People often look at me funny when I speak out against abortion - so many people assume I “must” be pro-abortion because I’m a woman. Stories like your daughter’s have made people think - they are struck by how counter-cultural her act is and they stop to think about it.

When I am faced with the “you can’t tell me what to believe” argument I remind people that some people truly believe blacks are inherently inferior to whites. I still support laws that forbid government discimination against blacks - even if it “forces” my beliefs on others. Very effective in rooms with non-whites.

No doubt, I should be doing more and will consider this.

And congratulations on your grandchild! My parents and in-laws are jealous.

Little strokes fell mighty oaks. Let each of us act according to our lights and abilities.

 

[KarenNC]

Now, I’m a parent, too – and a grandparent. I have a daughter who was called by her doctor to come in for an amniocenisis, because tests showed her unborn child might have Down’s Syndrome. She said to my wife, “Mom, I told them no. The amniocentisis has some risk to the child – and if it does have Down’s Syndrome, there’s nothing we can do about it.”

That’s a daughter to be proud of!!

Thanks. I did the same thing (well, not precisely, we did go for a more advanced ultrasound to check further and I don’t know if your daughter did, because I knew based on my 16 years working with folks with developmental disabilities that if my child did have Down Syndrome, there were certain physical issues that might affect choices of delivery or help the neonatal team be prepared for any need for quick intervention)

As to double effect, read my post #332
plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/

1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.

The act of showing graphic images of violence to young children is neither morally good nor indifferent.

1. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so.

There has been a singular lack of evidence presented that it is impossible to obtain the good effect (reducing abortions) without the bad effect (showing graphic images of mutilated corpses of babies to young children).

 

[KarenNC]

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

You might take a look at the following information in response to the same question from estesbob that I gave in post #229. From the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics:

pediatrics.aappublications.or…ull/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.

Since you evidently haven’t had an opportunity to follow the link:
*Research suggests that realism is an important contextual feature of media violence. Studies have shown that more realistic portrayals of violence may heighten levels of involvement and aggression,19–21 immediate fright reactions,22 fear of the world as a scary place,23,24 and desensitization,25,26 particularly in older, school-aged children, who are able to distinguish the real from the unreal on television. Given the inherent realistic nature of news violence and given other researchers’ observations that television news is becoming increasingly sensational and graphic,27,28 there is reason to assume that violence in television news has the same impact on children as violence portrayed in fictional television.

Thus far, a handful of studies have specifically investigated the harmful effects that violence portrayed in news broadcasts may have on children. Some of these studies investigated children’s reactions to specific events, such as the explosion of the Challenger,29 or children’s reactions to news coverage of the first Gulf War.30 These studies revealed that many children experienced fairly strong and enduring emotional reactions as a result of their exposure to these news contents. In addition, studies of children’s emotional reactions to news about the September 11th terrorist attacks showed that the majority of children experienced profound stress reactions, even if they were not geographically affected by the attacks, and that in some cases these disturbances could lead to posttraumatic stress disorders.31,32 Apart from these investigations, several recent studies have shown that the harmful effects of news content are not limited to major catastrophic incidents.7,9,33–36 In general, these studies indicated that many elementary school children sometimes experience fear in reaction to regular news, such as reports of crime, natural disasters, and “ordinary” plane or traffic accidents, and that 10% to 20% of the children described their feelings as intense to very intense.

Although all of the above-mentioned studies showed that violence in television news may affect a considerable proportion of the child audience and could lead to serious health effects for certain subgroups of children, their investigations were limited to the effect of violent news content on children’s direct frights and their fears of being victimized. It could be that reactions such as stress, frights and worries, and associated effects such as sleep disturbances or nightmares are the most prevailing negative effects of violent news consumption. However, other important effects that are usually associated only with violent entertainment content are conceivable as well.

First, short-term aggressive behavior, which is fostered by arousal processes and imitation of violence,21 could be encouraged by violent news portrayals, especially when news pictures show sensational images of weapons and actually occurring violence. In addition, frequent watching of news programs that overemphasize crime, terror, and war could enhance long-term observational learning of violent schemas or scripts. As has been found for fictional violence, news presentations that are skewed toward violence could encourage people to believe that the world is a hostile place.3,5 As a consequence, children could get the impression that violence is a justified means to protect oneself or to resolve conflict. Last, on the basis of the various studies that have demonstrated desensitization effects after repeated exposure to dramatized violence,25,37–39 frequent viewing of real-life violence in news programs could also make young viewers less sensitive to other people’s distress and more accepting of violent behavior.

Despite the evident importance of teaching children to become critical viewers of violence in entertainment programs, health care professionals and parents thus also should emphasize the potential negative effects of real violence portrayed in news programs. To understand fully such harmful news contents, however, we should adopt a broader conception of media violence than thus far has been used in the debate about fictional violence.*

cont.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I’d love to see some of those supporting showing these graphic pictures over on the thread about showing inappropriate touching media to children on the family thread.

I for one feel myself on different sides of a similar issue due to personal experiences.

I wonder how others would react?

 

[Philothea53]

I privately made a promise to myself to back out of this futile argument once I realized that Karen is in fact pro-abortion and only said she was not so she could get into this argument. It is a tactic of pro-aborts to make up these false worrys to make the pro-life side look bad. As long as YOUR side is killing babies, we will always be the better.

But, I am breaking my promise.

All this argument has been over the supposed damage done to young children who MIGHT see graphic abortion photos as they sit in a car passing such a display. This has been one big lie. Young children of the age Karen has alleged that have been or will be harmed rarely see past the tip of their nose. To think that they truly are looking outside and can look at, decipher and comprehend what it is they are seeing is balderdash! At driving speeds they probably would not recognize Barney if he was standing on a street corner. And for a young child to recognize a picture of the remains of a child who had been aborted as just that, balderdash again. Doesn’t matter if the child saw this on a flyer or a business card or a gigantic billboard - unless that child had been previously exposed to these images and TOLD what they were they would no more recognize or get upset about them than I would have known who the pit-bull-dog-fighting-football player was (and I can’t even remember his name) before he was all over the news.

You, Karen, are just a troublemaker. You are arguing for the sake of arguing. I don’t believe you are pro-life. (I still suspect you of being someone else from another forum. But, that is truly neither here nor there.) I am only sorry that you took up so much of everyone’s time but in the interim they made a lot of good points. You lose.

 

[KarenNC]

continued

usarpac.army.mil/SoldierFamilyWellBeing/Reintegration/Children%20and%20the%20News.pdf

This fact sheet is designed to bring together the most relevant research that has been conducted about the impact of news on children, in times of war and in times of relative peace.

joannecantor.com/montrealpap_fin.htm
The Psychological Effects of Media Violence on Children and Adolescents Presented at the Colloquium on Television and Violence in Society

*"a child’s level of cognitive development influences how he or she perceives and responds to media stimuli. My associates and I have conducted a program of research to explore developmental differences in media-induced fright reactions based on theories and findings in cognitive development.(23),(24) This research shows that as children mature cognitively, some media images and events become less likely to disturb them, whereas other things become potentially more upsetting.
As a first generalization, the importance of appearance decreases as a child’s age increases. Both experimental(25) and our survey(26)research supports the generalization that preschool children (approximately 3 to 5 years old) are more likely to be frightened by something that looks scary but is actually harmless (like E.T., the kindly but weird-looking extra-terrestrial) than by something that looks attractive but is actually harmful;

…Prior research suggests that preschoolers most likely responded to images of bloodied victims and expressions of emotional distress;
…
In conclusion, media violence has many unhealthy effects on children and adolescents. Even though violence has been and will continue to be a staple of our media environment, it is appropriate to speak out when especially problematic presentations are aired in contexts in which children are likely to see them and when inappropriate programming is actively marketed to vulnerable young people.*

joannecantor.com/iraqimages.html
Helping Children Cope with the Disturbing Images Coming Out of Iraq by same researcher as the previous, Joanne Cantor, Professor Emerita, University of Wisconsin - Madison
*Limit children’s exposure to TV - How TV communicates about these events is horrifying for children. Make interpersonal communication the main way they learn about what has happened and about the ongoing events that unfold as the world responds to these stories.

HOW DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS ARE AFFECTED:

     OUR YOUNGEST CHILDREN (Birth through 6 years): For this group, "seeing is believing" - vivid visual images and           startling, emotional sounds affect them the most. To them, whatever they see on television is real, and it is happening while they are watching. What will upset them the most are visual images of people suffering or being attacked or mistreated, and crying or screaming victims or witnesses. And if the images are replayed again and again, the events will seem to be happening again and again. Preschoolers will be less likely to be upset by a building collapse or by the commentary of announcers. They are unlikely to grasp the enormity of the issue. But gruesome images and horrified emotional expressions will unsettle them the most. The fearful reactions of their loved ones will also disturb them. They may be quite disturbed by visual images of men with hoods over their heads being tortured, or images of naked, hooded men being mocked by others.

ADVICE ON TV EXPOSURE:

      Limit exposure to TV - This means any channel that provides updates on the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism generally. Try to prevent your children from stumbling into something horrifying. Don't leave the TV on . . . Find a way to get your own updates without subjecting your children to the news.

ADVICE TO THE MEDIA:

     Television: Make exposure to the upsetting content predictable. If you must interrupt scheduled programming with breaking news, don't do it with sirens and screams and vivid visual images; give parents time to change the channel, mute the sound, or get the children out of the room. 

      Restrain your instinct to repeat and repeat those same sensational images -- none of us need to see them again. Realize that for young children, you are showing them what they will experience as yet another attack. Even non-news programming has at times repeated such disturbing images. 

      Newspapers : Keep your images of bloodied or abused victims and off the front (or back) page!  Young children are much more likely to see them on the outside, and readers can easily look inside if they want to see them.

 

[estesbob]

I privately made a promise to myself to back out of this futile argument once I realized that Karen is in fact pro-abortion and only said she was not so she could get into this argument. It is a tactic of pro-aborts to make up these false worrys to make the pro-life side look bad. As long as YOUR side is killing babies, we will always be the better.

It is kind of ironic to see people go ballistic over pictures showing what abortion does but don’t seem to care too much about the children the pictures show. I think this whole attack on the abortion pictures is just an attemptan attempt for pro-abortion people to try take the moral high ground. As you know there is no way. In the end they support killing children. No amount of graphic pictures or upset children even comes close to the horror they support. It’s a lot easier to post voluminous quotes from various websites and reports about the damage done to children by viewing violence than it is to explain the your child why you support what is depicted in those graphic pictures.

 

[estesbob]

KarenNC;2623142*:
*ADVICE TO THE MEDIA: *

*Television: Make exposure to the upsetting content predictable. If you must interrupt scheduled programming with breaking news, don’t do it with sirens and screams and vivid visual images; give parents time to change the channel, mute the sound, or get the children out of the room. *

*Restrain your instinct to repeat and repeat those same sensational images – none of us need to see them again. Realize that for young children, you are showing them what they will experience as yet another attack. Even non-news programming has at times repeated such disturbing images. *

*Newspapers : Keep your images of bloodied or abused victims and off the front (or back) page! Young children are much more likely to see them on the outside, and readers can easily look inside if they want to see them. *
**

The best way to keep your children from seeing these graphic images is to quit supporting the people that provide the dismembered children these pictures show. This is a classic case of wanting to kill the messenger.

So tell us Karen, if your child does see these pictures how are you going to explain to them why you support what the pictures show? Are you going to hand them a copy of a government report that says they shouldn’t be exposed tof these pictures or are you just going to tell them that these pictures depict the results of brave women exercising their constitutional choice to slaughter their children. You can assure them that do to a quirk in the law you are not allowed to exercise a choice to do the same to them. Perhaps that will make them feel better.

 

[KarenNC]

I privately made a promise to myself to back out of this futile argument once I realized that Karen is in fact pro-abortion and only said she was not so she could get into this argument. It is a tactic of pro-aborts to make up these false worrys to make the pro-life side look bad. As long as YOUR side is killing babies, we will always be the better.

And continued inaccurate ad hominem attacks based on no evidence are evidently a tactic of several different posters here.

If to say that, yes, I can see the reason for abortion, as horrific and traumatic a decision as it always is, in the case of something like an ectopic pregnancy or if the mother’s life is threatened and the child is not yet viable and that I would prefer to see it not be made indiscriminately illegal in every and all cases because of this classifies me as in some way “pro-abortion” so be it.

Young children of the age Karen has alleged that have been or will be harmed rarely see past the tip of their nose. To think that they truly are looking outside and can look at, decipher and comprehend what it is they are seeing is balderdash!

How old are your children? Have you had their vision checked? Would you like me to tell you about the age at which my child starting pointing out “horsey” and “cow” and “McDonalds” as we drove by? I would hazard a guess that it was around 2-3 years old. My daughter just turned 7 and has been engaging in very detailed conversations for many years now about tons of things she sees as we ride along in the car. Granted, we don’t have a dvd player in the car, which helps.

At driving speeds they probably would not recognize Barney if he was standing on a street corner.

Even if that were true (and I challenge you to drive a carload of preschoolers past someone dressed as Barney or Elmo or a clown on the street corner and see if they don’t react), that doesn’t address the truck stopped beside you at the light in traffic, the signs on the corner at the stoplight.

And for a young child to recognize a picture of the remains of a child who had been aborted as just that, balderdash again. Doesn’t matter if the child saw this on a flyer or a business card or a gigantic billboard - unless that child had been previously exposed to these images and TOLD what they were they would no more recognize or get upset about them than I would have known who the pit-bull-dog-fighting-football player was (and I can’t even remember his name) before he was all over the news.

You don’t think that young children can make out the shape of a baby’s hand, leg, head, etc covered in blood and come to the conclusion that this is a picture of a baby who has been badly hurt? Have you read some of the posts by some of the prolife advocates on this thread about children who do just that?

You, Karen, are just a troublemaker.

People who call others to task for inappropriate actions are often seen as such.

I still suspect you of being someone else from another forum. But, that is truly neither here nor there.

I have never posted to this forum under any other name. Which particular forum did you have in mind?

You lose.

Unfortunately, the only ones who “lose” are both the young children exposed to these images and any who are lost to abortion because these tactics have given someone a disgust for the prolife movement as a whole and dismissed the entire problem as extremist hyperbole.

 

[Philothea53]

It is kind of ironic to see people go ballistic over pictures showing what abortion does but don’t seem to care too much about the children the pictures show. I think this whole attack on the abortion pictures is just an attemptan attempt for pro-abortion people to try take the moral high ground. As you know there is no way. In the end they support killing children. No amount of graphic pictures or upset children even comes close to the horror they support. It’s a lot easier to post voluminous quotes from various websites and reports about the damage done to children by viewing violence than it is to explain the your child why you support what is depicted in those graphic pictures.

Yep, these pro-aborts masquerade as caring mommies while trying to undermine all the good the pro-life side is doing. Especially now. They know they are losing the battle. They have to put on different personas like satan does to try to infiltrate the ranks and cause us to question if what we are doing is right. I know where I stand. Those tactics won’t work with me.

 

[KarenNC]

The best way to keep your children from seeing these graphic images is to quit supporting the people that provide the dismembered children these pictures show. This is a classic case of wanting to kill the messenger.

So tell us Karen, if your child does see these pictures how are you going to explain to them why you support what the pictures show? Are you going to hand them a copy of a government report that says they shouldn’t be exposed tof these pictures or are you just going to tell them that these pictures depict the results of brave women exercising their constitutional choice to slaughter their children. You can assure them that do to a quirk in the law you are not allowed to exercise a choice to do the same to them. Perhaps that will make them feel better.

Thanks, estesbob, I can count on you to provide a timely example of exactly the type of ad hominem attack (with some extras thrown in for good measure) I was just discussing with Philothea.

 

[KarenNC]

Yep, these pro-aborts masquerade as caring mommies while trying to undermine all the good the pro-life side is doing. Especially now. They know they are losing the battle. They have to put on different personas like satan does to try to infiltrate the ranks and cause us to question if what we are doing is right. I know where I stand. Those tactics won’t work with me.

You know, there’s just not much one can say about such a post. It really speaks volumes for itself.

 

[seekerz]

If to say that, yes, I can see the reason for abortion, as horrific and traumatic a decision as it always is, in the case of something like an ectopic pregnancy or if the mother’s life is threatened and the child is not yet viable and that I would prefer to see it not be made indiscriminately illegal in every and all cases because of this classifies me as in some way “pro-abortion” so be it.

Karen, may I suggest something? Type into the Catholic Answers search box each of the phrases above e.g. “ectopic pregnancy”, which give you concern regarding making abortion illegal. When you’ve done that, you’ll find many threads; click on those in the Moral Theology forum and see what the Church actually teaches.

You may find it eye-opening. Truly, the Roman Catholic Church has been bestowed by God with wisdom beyond our comprehension (and often our appreciation).

 

[estesbob]

Thanks, estesbob, I can count on you to provide a timely example of exactly the type of ad hominem attack (with some extras thrown in for good measure) I was just discussing with Philothea.

And the children continue to die. And all you care about is making sure no one knows what really goes on in these clinics. Not ad hominem attack it’s a statement of fact.

1.2 million children a year old killed. When we state that again 1.2 million children a year killed. That is a specter that hangs over this whole thread as you continually attack people trying to end this abject evil. It’s got to stop. It’s not going to stop by quoting media reports on how violence in TV shows affection on children. I’ve yet to see a violent TV show cause a child to spontaneously dismember and drop in the garbage can. That’s the reality of what is going on in this country. You can minimize all you want but that is what’s happening.

 

[Philothea53]

Unfortunately, the only ones who “lose” are both the young children exposed to these images and any who are lost to abortion because these tactics have given someone a disgust for the prolife movement as a whole and dismissed the entire problem as extremist hyperbole.

This my dears, is what I believe is called a tell. The writing of a pro-abort. Calling those who are fighting with everything they have to stop the senseless, horrific slaughter of babies in the womb - EXTREMISTS. Never, never, never would anyone who cares about the lives of these tiny babies use the word to describe a fellow pro-lifer. You gave it away, Karen. Now give it up.

 

[estesbob]

This my dears, is what I believe is called a tell. The writing of a pro-abort. Calling those who are fighting with everything they have to stop the senseless, horrific slaughter of babies in the womb - EXTREMISTS. Never, never, never would anyone who cares about the lives of these tiny babies use the word to describe a fellow pro-lifer. You gave it away, Karen. Now give it up.

In the topsy-turvy world of our culture of death trying to stop the slaughter of children is considered extreme. Why we even have candidates run for the presidency who believe the taxpayers should pay to kill these children. And people actually vote for them. May God have mercy on his country.

 

[Philothea53]

Pledge of Re-Commitment

I thank God today for the gift of my life and for the lives of my brothers and sisters.

I know I am responsible for the unborn who cannot speak for themselves.

I know that the most serious tragedy of our day is the tragedy of abortion.

Today I commit myself never to be silent, never to be passive, never to be forgetful of the unborn.

I commit myself to be active in the pro-life movement and to never stop defending life until ALL my brothers and sisters are protected and our nation once again becomes a nation with liberty and justice, not just for some, but for ALL.

Amen

 

[KarenNC]

Karen, may I suggest something? Type into the Catholic Answers search box each of the phrases above e.g. “ectopic pregnancy”, which give you concern regarding making abortion illegal. When you’ve done that, you’ll find many threads; click on those in the Moral Theology forum and see what the Church actually teaches.

You may find it eye-opening. Truly, the Roman Catholic Church has been bestowed by God with wisdom beyond our comprehension (and often our appreciation).

Thanks, I have been a participant in at least one of those threads and understand what the Church teaches about what constitutes a direct abortion (illicit) and an “unintended consequence” (licit) in ectopic pregnancies. I don’t happen to agree with the reasoning given.

For instance, I see no value in advocating making it illegal to allow a doctor to end an ectopic pregnancy via chemical rather than surgical means (if the chemical means are an option), thereby avoiding the risk of surgery to the woman and giving a greater chance to preserve her future fertility, simply because the Church considers it somehow “more” of an abortion to use a chemical than the surgical removal of the fallopian tube including the child. Seems an illogical argument over semantics to me and actively choosing a method likely to do greater harm to the mother than other alternatives available (the harm of death to the child is a foregone conclusion regardless, including whether one acts or not).

But that is an aside.