Fr. Pavone on the use of graphic images of abortion

[vern_humphrey]

Sometimes when people throw out stuff like this, Karen, then rather than explain themselves they present mockery instead. This usually means they don’t even really understand what they’ve put forth.

And sometimes people claim they want to learn, and then reject all attempts to teach them.

 

[mapleoak]

you are well aware that you are doing harm to young children by the “indiscriminate” use of the violent, graphic posters since you’ve been told in this forum by parents of young children, by studies that have been cited, and by many child advocates.

Ah, someone actually has a study available on the harm caused to children from the display of graphic billboards and bumper stickers. Would you be so kind as to share them with us.
Also you have been told in this forum by parents of young children, and by many child advocates, including advocates of children that have not had the privelege of being born yet, that children are not harmed by them. As vernhumphry has pointed out on numerous occasions, it is the parents reaction to them.

In addition to that you further make the claim: you are stating that you are willing to harm “traumatize” one child for every child saved. Or at the very least that you could care less if you harm or “traumatize” one child for every child saved.

No you paraphrased what I said. Go back and read it again.

You neither know for certain the extent to which a child would be harmed, nor the extent to which an unborn child would be saved by the “indiscriminate” use of graphic images.

And you know for ‘certain’?

 

[mapleoak]

Has anyone applied the Principle of Double Effect yet?

Many of us have been waiting.

 

[vern_humphrey]

And you know for ‘certain’?

There’s a double standard here – some people’s surmises are as valid (and often more valid) than other people’s documented and peer-reviewed on point studies.

 

[sprout]

Ah, someone actually has a study available on the harm caused to children from the display of graphic billboards and bumper stickers. Would you be so kind as to share them with us.
Also you have been told in this forum by parents of young children, and by many child advocates, including advocates of children that have not had the privelege of being born yet, that children are not harmed by them. As vernhumphry has pointed out on numerous occasions, it is the parents reaction to them.

No you paraphrased what I said. Go back and read it again.

And you know for ‘certain’?

Charity does not require a study, which you would all most likely reject anyway, to accept that parents of young children are offended by the “indiscriminate” use graphic images of violence, that advocates of children are offended by the indiscriminate use of violent graphic images, because of their concern for protecting the innocence of their children.

Bottom line, you are arguing for the “indiscriminate” use of violent graphic images at the expense of the innocence of young children, and I am arguing for “discriminate” use of violent graphic images.

I have quoted Bishop Henry, the Michigan Right to Life, and my own experiences in sidewalk counseling for why I believe it’s best to use these images in a disriminating way. Discriminating use of these images would be a form of “controlled” venues i.e. displays on college campuses, concerts, etc. where there is little or no chance that young children will be exposed unnecessarily and unexpectedly.

I, personally, would not participate in a sidewalk counseling where large graphic signs are publically on display as I feel they would completely undermine my efforts to establish trust and credibility with the women I am attempting to counsel and I am not alone in that.

In my diocese, all of the Prolife events I attend require “no graphic images” which is as it should be.

If I had a young child in my company and came upon one of these trucks in traffic I would immediately call the Highway Patrol and report them. If I were driving downtown and there were a group of people holding up large enough posters for the violent graphic images to be easily viewed by a child I would call the Police and report them. And I’m a ProLIfe Activist.

I don’t think the Principle of Double Effect applies here, since you are all well aware of the possibility of harm, but stubbornly refuse to even consider using “discrimination” in favor of “indiscrimination”.

 

[proudnifi]

Many of us have been waiting.

Doesn’t the Principle of Double Effect also require that there are no other alternatives?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Charity does not require a study,

Charity may not. But Sprout and his argument do.

which you would all most likely reject anyway, to accept that parents of young children are offended by the “indiscriminate” use graphic images of violence, that advocates of children are offended by the indiscriminate use of violent graphic images, because of their concern for protecting the innocence of their children.

Nice try but no cigar.

Saying "people may be offended is a far cry from proving children are harmed.

Bottom line, you are arguing for the “indiscriminate” use of violent graphic images at the expense of the innocence of young children, and I am arguing for “discriminate” use of violent graphic images.

False. “Indiscriminate” and “violent” are your words.

I don’t think the Principle of Double Effect applies here, since you are all well aware of the possibility of harm, but stubbornly refuse to even consider using “discrimination” in favor of “indiscrimination”.

The Principle of Double Effect doesn’t begin to apply, because you are unable to demonstrate that showing pictures is morally wrong.

 

[sprout]

Actually not – if harm occurs it is due to the parents’ reaction, not to the child’s reaction.

The cited studies are not on point – a study of TV news broadcasts can’t be stretched to cover this case. And frankly, you can find “studies” that say anything – what do **peer-reviewed **studies on this point say?

If there is harm, and if it is caused by showing the pictures (and not the parents’ reaction to them), the harm is clearly small, an unintended consequence of an act that is not inherently wrong (to say that it is, you’d have to claim all signs are wrong and harmful) and the good done is great.

But you haven’t shown there is harm.

Actually, quite a few people have shown there is harm. You just discount their opinion. You obviously don’t consider a parent’s reaction to the unexpected and uncontrolled display of violent graphic images to their children as valid harm done.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Actually, quite a few people have shown there is harm. You just discount their opinion.

Thank you for that – in all the hullabaloo about “studies,” what we have is just opinion.

And some people have informed opinions, based on working with these images, and others have opinions hased on . . . ?

You obviously don’t consider a parent’s reaction to the unexpected and uncontrolled display of violent graphic images to their children as valid harm done.

Not harm done by the images. If parents harm their children, they will harm them, images or no images. If it wasn’t the pictures, it would be something else.

 

[sprout]

Charity may not. But Sprout and his argument do.

Nice try but no cigar.

Saying "people may be offended is a far cry from proving children are harmed.

False. “Indiscriminate” and “violent” are your words.

The Principle of Double Effect doesn’t begin to apply, because you are unable to demonstrate that showing pictures is morally wrong.

Words have meaning. Indiscriminate means:

indiscriminate

1 a: not marked by careful distinction : deficient in discrimination and **discernment **
b: haphazard, random

it is very adolescent behavior to refuse to exercise discrimination.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Words have meaning. Indiscriminate means:

indiscriminate

1 a: not marked by careful distinction : deficient in discrimination and **discernment **
b: haphazard, random

And you haven’t shown that the display of these pictures is indiscriminate.

it is very adolescent behavior to refuse to exercise discrimination.

Tell that to the man in the mirror.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

sprout:

Actually, quite a few people have shown there is harm.

That’s not the point.

 

[vern_humphrey]

That’s not the point.

Actually, apparently the harm is out failure

to accept that parents of young children are offended by the “indiscriminate” use graphic images of violence, that advocates of children are offended by the indiscriminate use of violent graphic images, because of their concern for protecting the innocence of their children.

Heaven forfend that we should offend anybody by showing what abortion really is.

 

[estesbob]

You are actually saying here that you are willing to do harm so that good may come.

The ends do not justify the means.

Those displaying the pictures have no intention whatsoever of harming anyone. If someone is disturbed then the principle of double effect would apply If if we really want to buy in to the almost always false the “ends never justify the means” argument than we cannot even talk about abortion in public even in the most benign way lest we take a chance that a woman who was have an abortion might take offense.

I’m always amazed how concerned people are over someone who “might” be offended but do not show the same concern for the 1.2 million children a year who are butchered.

 

[estesbob]

Words have meaning. Indiscriminate means:

indiscriminate

1 a: not marked by careful distinction : deficient in discrimination and **discernment **
b: haphazard, random

it is very adolescent behavior to refuse to exercise discrimination.

“Indiscriminate” as i indiscriminate killing of our children.?

It is very adolescent to minimize the indiscriminate killing of 1.2 million children a year.

 

[sprout]

And you haven’t shown that the display of these pictures is indiscriminate.

I don’t see anyone in this forum arguing that these violent graphic images shouldn’t be used AT ALL. They are saying that they are opposed to the “indiscriminate” use of these images. Even Fr. Pavone’s website has a warning before viewing these images, even though it is a website and can be assumed the person viewing the website is doing so in the privacy of their own home.

Discriminating use of these images would be a form of “controlled” venues i.e. displays on college campuses, concerts, etc. where there is little or no chance that young children will be exposed unnecessarily and unexpectedly**.

I don’t think that’s too much to ask and I would think that any mature, rational, charitable person could see the logic in exercising proper discernment.

 

[sprout]

“Indiscriminate” as i indiscriminate killing of our children.?

It is very adolescent to minimize the indiscriminate killing of 1.2 million children a year.

I’m always amazed how concerned people are over someone who “might” be offended but do not show the same concern for the 1.2 million children a year who are butchered.

please go back and read my previous posts on my prolife activism before you so callously and offhandedly accuse me of minimizing the indiscriminate killing of children.

Just because the enemy is “indiscriminate” does not mean we have to stoop to their level and do likewise.

You owe me an apology, and until I receive an apology I will not address you again.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I don’t see anyone in this forum arguing that these violent graphic images shouldn’t be used AT ALL. They are saying that they are opposed to the “indiscriminate” use of these images. Even Fr. Pavone’s website has a warning before viewing these images, even though it is a website and can be assumed the person viewing the website is doing so in the privacy of their own home.

So we can move on to something else – because their use isn’t “indiscriminate.”

I don’t think that’s too much to ask and I would think that any mature, rational, charitable person could see the logic in exercising proper discernment.

I would hope they would, yes – and not go around attacking people who are working against abortion because they object to their tactics.

 

[sprout]

So we can move on to something else – because their use isn’t “indiscriminate.”

I would hope they would, yes – and not go around attacking people who are working against abortion because they object to their tactics.

You and Estes are the only the ones doing the “attacking” in both these threads. See previous!

So I gather that you agree that you are using proper discernment and discriminating and do not support or condone showing these images where they can “indiscriminately” and unexpectedly be viewed by young children such as on trucks in traffic, billboards, and along roadways.

 

[vern_humphrey]

please go back and read my previous posts on my prolife activism before you so callously and offhandedly accuse me of minimizing the indiscriminate killing of children.

Just because the enemy is “indiscriminate” does not mean we have to stoop to their level and do likewise.

Whoa! You say showing a picture of an aborted child is morally equivallent to killing that child?!?!

You owe me an apology, and until I receive an apology I will not address you again.

And for drawing moral equivallency between pictures and actual killing, you owe him an apology.