Fr. Pavone on the use of graphic images of abortion

[mapleoak]

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

What is inaccurate? It is not an attack, it is a statement of truth.

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.

Case in point.

 

[KarenNC]

Somethings seem to have a need to be belabored. Once again, how many babies do you figure have been lost to abortion because there mother, upon seeing a sign, said: “So that’s what abortion is, I’m gonna go get me one.”

How many do you suppose are lost to abortion because someone decided to withdraw all their support, both physical and financial, from all prolife organizations, not just the ones with the signs, or never to support any of them in the first place because of disgust at these tactics? Because they decide to vote against anyone who labels themselves as prolife because they believe that all people who use that label support these tactics that the person finds heinous?

Obviously the billboards need to be seen by “somebody” in order to have some effect.

Unfortunately, the problem is that billboards are not just seen by “somebody” but by “everybody” indiscriminately.

A book is nothing but a paperweight unless it is read.

And a book is also a weapon when it is used to bash someone over the head. Not every book is appropriate or intended to be read by everyone. That is why we shelve them in different sections labeled “children” and " adult" in bookstores and public libraries. That is an example of “targeted” information.

 

[vern_humphrey]

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

Prove it!

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).

There has been a singular lack of evidence presented to show that showing such images has a bad effect. Such “bad” effects as have been cited as anecdotes are due to the child taking its cue from the parents’ reaction, not from the direct effect of the pictures.

 

[KarenNC]

What is inaccurate? It is not an attack, it is a statement of truth.

The post and claim (at least that particular one) was
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.

The fact that I believe there are specific limited circumstances in which what the Church terms a direct abortion might unfortunately actually be the least harmful action possible does not either support or deny the accuracy of the statement that it is inappropriate to show giant graphic color photographs of mutilated blood covered corpses of babies in places where young children are known to likely see them. It also neither supports or denies the statement that no substantial evidence has been shown that doing so is in fact superior in preventing abortions than any other method. Neither does whether I wear blue shoes, participate in monster truck rallies or like to grow Venus flytraps for fun and profit.

Perhaps it will help if I clarify what I mean by an ad hominem attack:

nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

*Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, “Ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A’s claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem
Bill: “I believe that abortion is morally wrong.”
Dave: “Of course you would say that, you’re a priest.”
Bill: “What about the arguments I gave to support my position?”
Dave: “Those don’t count. Like I said, you’re a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can’t believe what you say.” *

There are specific subcategories

*A **Circumstantial ad Hominem **is a fallacy because a person’s interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person’s interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person’s circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example: “Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false.” *

*Poisoning the Well: This sort of “reasoning” involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This “argument” has the following form:

Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of “reasoning” is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims. *

 

[KarenNC]

Originally Posted by KarenNC

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

I refer you back to posts #363 and #366 where I cited a fairly large body of research about the effects of images of real-life graphic violence to young children. These are studies, done by actual researchers, not solely anecdotes (and, as I remember, weren’t you the one defending anecdotes as sufficient and compelling evidence of the accuracy of your claim that these images do no harm and can actually be beneficial?).

 

[boppaid]

People who are actually involved in the pro-life movement realize that the CDC only records abortions are reported. Since there is no requirement to report abortions their figures are inadequate. Nobody, I mean nobody on either side of the issue uses the CDC statistics to determine the number of abortions in this country. The only accurate way to get a number is is to do a survey The last figures we have available are for 2003 where it was estimated the number of abortions was 1.3 million. .

Could you provide the source, then, for your numbers?

 

[iamrefreshed]

There have been over 375 posts on this thread. Have you read them? I suspect not or you wouldn’t have said this. Much time was spent trying to get Karen to understand what the Church teaches and why. She chooses to disagree. Repeatedly. Stubbornly. Extremely.

Actually, I’ve read them all with only occasional postings myself.

Back up just a little bit to post #378 and read where Karen -]says/-] er, repeats, "I…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. "

Your charity is commendable however we too tried that route.

The posts were flying so fast I only caught up to that one after I posted.

I still believe that she has been unfairly labeled by several on this board as Pro-Choice just because she disagrees with the use of the graphic images. I would ask those doing so to be more charitable. Name calling, besides being childish, doesn’t help anything.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Not sure which thread your talking about. What is the relevence of this?

The thread is “talking about touching” over on the Family board.

It may be relevant because it speaks about children having to watch a video to understand what is OK and not OK regarding touching. It is meant to teach children to recognize the signs of sexual abuse.

Many people do not want their children to have to view this material. I liken it to this debate because what a child sees, in both cases, is not under the control of the parent.

I am wondering what side many of the posters here would side with. I can only assume the “pro-graphic” here would have no problem with the videos.

I think looking at a parents rights to child viewership from different perspective might give us all insight.

For instance I feel I may be a bit of a hypocryte on my stances.

I don’t like the use of graphic abortion pictures but I feel the children should view the touching videos.

Just a thought.

 

[seekerz]

And with regard to Karen’s concern about ectopic pregnancies and situations where the mother’s life is truly endangered (which also endangers the baby’s life), she isn’t saying that abortion is a no-brainer. I don’t hear her saying that the baby isn’t a baby. Maybe more of a self-defense argument with the belief that the “opponent” was going to die regardless. This doesn’t make her 100% pro-abortion and a PP supporter.
What I read is it is perfectly acceptable to use chemical means to kill ones baby. If that is not pro-death, what is? What does 100% pro-abortion mean. Murder is okay sometimes?

I really think that to label someone proabortion because of disagreement with the use of chemical treatment vs surgery for ectopic pregnancy treatment is a real stretch.

Many good Catholics have had problems with ectopic treatment. Even theologians have disagreed over the years. I have read that decades ago, most theologians felt that the surgical treatment we are taught today is licit, was immoral and that it was felt the condition should not be treated until the tube had actually ruptured and the baby was dead.

Today it is generally agreed by theologians that it’s okay to remove the tube with the baby in it, even though that results in the baby’s death.

If the teaching on this has evolved over the years what’s so difficult accepting that some Catholics thinking on the matter is also evolving? That has nothing to do with being pro-life.

Ectopic pregnancy is a no-win position where the baby will die regardless of what is done and Catholics, even those defining our teachings, have historically disagreed on the matter. That the teaching is better defined today is the result of a continued search for the truth rather than blanket condemnation of those with dissenting views.

 

[Kelly]

Karen,
Since you are so intent on everyone else posting verifiable statistics proving the value of using graphic images to deter abortions, would you kindly show us some verifiable statistics that show the precise # of young children who have been traumatized by inadvertently viewing a truck driving down the highway, a billboard, or a sign depicting these images?

 

[mapleoak]

How many do you suppose are lost to abortion because someone decided to withdraw all their support, both physical and financial, from all prolife organizations, not just the ones with the signs, or never to support any of them in the first place because of disgust at these tactics? Because they decide to vote against anyone who labels themselves as prolife because they believe that all people who use that label support these tactics that the person finds heinous?

Do you have data other than ‘anecdotes’ supporting this?

Unfortunately, the problem is that billboards are not just seen by “somebody” but by “everybody” indiscriminately.

Everybody who can comprehend and understand what they are looking at.

Perhaps it will help if I clarify what I mean by an ad hominem attack:

nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Interesting. You must be right!
(that would be using ad-hominem in reverse )

 

[KarenNC]

Karen,
Since you are so intent on everyone else posting verifiable statistics proving the value of using graphic images to deter abortions, would you kindly show us some verifiable statistics that show the precise # of young children who have been traumatized by inadvertently viewing a truck driving down the highway, a billboard, or a sign depicting these images?

Vern, I have twice now provided multiple sources of research data on the effects of images of graphic real life violence on young children in the age ranges we are discussing (ages 2-7). They are pretty solid in the consensus that such exposure is not a good thing.

I have also repeatedly asked for one single solitary study that says that showing these images in venues where young children can access them is more effective at preventing abortions than showing these images in a way that it can reasonably be expected that the same children will not see them.

Where are your “verifiable statistics” that show the precise number of abortions prevented by women seeing these images in venues where they are accessible to young children vs. the precise number of abortions prevented by women seeing these images in venues where it can be reasonably expected that children can not see them?

It’s your turn, amigo.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, I have twice now provided multiple sources of research data on the effects of images of graphic real life violence on young children in the age ranges we are discussing (ages 2-7). They are pretty solid in the consensus that such exposure is not a good thing.

They are neither “solid” nor to the point. And you know why – because of the context.

I have also repeatedly asked for one single solitary study that says that showing these images in venues where young children can access them is more effective at preventing abortions than showing these images in a way that it can reasonably be expected that the same children will not see them.

Where are your “verifiable statistics” that show the precise number of abortions prevented by women seeing these images in venues where they are accessible to young children vs. the precise number of abortions prevented by women seeing these images in venues where it can be reasonably expected that children can not see them?

It’s your turn, amigo.

And I have repeatedly asked you what you do to save the unborn (other than complain about what other people do.) It’s your turn, amiga.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

They are neither “solid” nor to the point. And you know why – because of the context.

And I have repeatedly asked you what you do to save the unborn (other than complain about what other people do.) It’s your turn, amiga.

He who can does; he who can’t criticizes.

 

[KarenNC]

Do you have data other than ‘anecdotes’ supporting this?

Nope. Sure don’t. That would be because, so far, I have been unable to find any objective data whatsoever on the effectiveness or otherwise of the use of any given prolife strategy, much less the use of these graphic images of mutilated corpses of babies in venues where young children are knowngly exposed to them. This is despite repeated internet searches on my part and active repeated requests on multiple threads for such information from self-described “national prolife leaders” and long time prolife activists who might reasonably be expected to know if such existed.

Until such data exists, one can argue just as well for either possibility until the cows come home. My guess that it drives some people away is just as valid as your guess that it it is better at preventing abortions than other methods.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Nope. Sure don’t. That would be because, so far, I have been unable to find any objective data whatsoever on the effectiveness or otherwise of the use of any given prolife strategy, much less the use of these graphic images of mutilated corpses of babies in venues where young children are knowngly exposed to them. This is despite repeated internet searches on my part and active repeated requests on multiple threads for such information from self-described “national prolife leaders” and long time prolife activists who might reasonably be expected to know if such existed.

Until such data exists, one can argue just as well for either possibility until the cows come home. My guess that it drives some people away is just as valid as your guess that it it is better at preventing abortions than other methods.

Here’s a good example of the “objective data” you provided. It
“discusses the issue of the graphic depiction of real life violence on television news and the exposure of young children to it.”

Now a person who didn’t know the difference between cognitive learning and affective learning tells us that this study is applicable to the issue under discussion.

 

[KarenNC]

They are neither “solid” nor to the point. And you know why – because of the context.

And what about the context is different?

 

[vern_humphrey]

And what about the context is different?

discusses the issue of the graphic depiction of real life violence **on television news **and the exposure of young children to it.

 

[KarenNC]

Now a person who didn’t know the difference between cognitive learning and affective learning tells us that this study is applicable to the issue under discussion.

Perhaps your point would be better made if you laid out for us in detail the application of affective learning theory to this issue, including which particular strategies are required by it and why.

Also, it would be helpful if you would point out the requirement for knowingly exposing ever-increasing numbers of young children to these images of graphic and brutal violence on other children (the strategies have escalated from cards to signs at clinics to signs on street corners to billboards to tractor trailer trucks parked at large public gatherings to flying airplanes towing these images over cities, perhaps farther) in order to allow any affective learning to take place in adults that abortion is bad.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Perhaps your point would be better made if you laid out for us in detail the application of affective learning theory to this issue, including which particular strategies are required by it and why.

I hate to break it to you, but you can’t get a Master’s Degree in Education on these forums – and that’s what you’re asking for.

Also, it would be helpful if you would point out the requirement for knowingly exposing ever-increasing numbers of young children to these images of graphic and brutal violence on other children (the strategies have escalated from cards to signs at clinics to signs on street corners to billboards to tractor trailer trucks parked at large public gatherings to flying airplanes towing these images over cities, perhaps farther) in order to allow any affective learning to take place in adults that abortion is bad.

How about you pointing out the requirement for people who don’t work to save children attacking people who do?