Fr. Pavone on the use of graphic images of abortion

[vern_humphrey]

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

That from the man who implies moral equivalency between showing pictures and aborting children.

 

[sprout]

That from the man who implies moral equivalency between showing pictures and aborting children.

I am doing no such thing. Again, how dare you accuse me of such when I know you have read my previous posts on my prolife activism.

I’m not going to give you a chance to apologize. I’m going to hide your nasty posts from my view and will not communicate with you on these forums again.

Buh=Bye!

 

[Nino]

It is being claimed in this and other threads that exposure of young children (preschool to early elementary ages) to graphic images of dead and mutilated babies is not only okay, but actively to be desired. In fact, if a parent is even to suggest that their child would not benefit from seeing such images, they are accused of actively depriving them of something crucial and beneficial.

If this is indeed the best possible way to inform young children about the sanctity of life, certainly Catholic groups, being prolife, would want to give their children the best possible and most effective form of education in their own schools, superior even to the one that they are more than willing to give to other children by showing these images on the public streets. They have the perfect opportunity to not only expose the children to these images as early as possible, but to have in-depth discussions from a specifically Catholic viewpoint so that there is no question that the message is received in exactly the way that these groups claim is the most effective. I would expect to see pro-life Catholics actively demanding such a curriculum in their own schools for their own children, beginning at minimum in kindergarten, because, of course, the earlier the better.

In googling “Catholic pro-life curriculum schools,” I have found the following cpforlife.org/id105.htm, a pro-life curriculum designed by the Catholic organization Knights for Life (which was mentioned on another thread). Their purpose statement includes (my emphasis):

"Being honest about the root causes of this tragic situation we are in is critical if we hope to affect a substantial change. … The sad reality is that the duration of the abortion holocaust is prolonged by Catholics who vote for pro-abortion candidates.
This can only end with a new generation of Catholics fully educated on the sanctity of Life before birth. Ignorance sustained by denial is crippling this nations response to the holocaust of abortion. …Part of our problem stems from the truism “out of sight-out of mind”. "

They offer a pro-life curriculum designed for Catholic schools from pre-K through 12th grade. It is on the website in its entirety. Note that the first mention of even the word “abortion” comes in 6th grade. That is, when the children are 11-12, not when they are 5.

This curriculum is also suggested by the Christian Patriots for Life for use in other Christian schools cpforlife.org/. They refer to it as “comprehensive” and say "Few would argue that it is much harder to change the minds of adults than it is to properly form the minds of children, especially in matters of morality. Only by finally addressing this problem and moving to correct it can we begin to change our culture and our laws. "

I also find the Diocese of London’s pro-life education program designed to begin at 5th grade. rcec.london.on.ca/2007-2/school_prolife.htm Interestingly, the course description doesn’t mention discussion of abortion at all.

Here’s one from the Catholic Schools Office of the Diocese of Erie:
eriercd.org/pdf/schools/religcurr.pdf. Abortion is not mentioned until the 8th grade.

Discussions of abortion, much less graphic images of such are evidently not considered appropriate as part of a specific and comprehensive pro-life religious Christian education until 5th grade or later.

What this tells me is that while some pro-life Catholics and other Christians are willing to impose such education on very young children (preschool and early elementary) whose families happen to drive by or otherwise encounter their graphic signs and materials, they are not willing or interested in providing exactly that same information to their own children in their own schools at the same ages.

If there are Catholic schools who are indeed including discussions of the specifics of abortion, either including graphic images of mutilated dead babies or not, at the kindergarten level, I would be interested in seeing how they do so.

 

[proudnifi]

That from the man who implies moral equivalency between showing pictures and aborting children.

He intended no such thing and that’s clear to any rational reader of this thread.

Secondarily, aren’t people obligated to speak up when they believe objectionable tactics are used? For instance, one might want a war to be won, not be a soldier oneself, and yet still be obligated to speak up against torture being used to obtain information for the purpose of winning the war. I’m not equating torture with showing pictures - follow the point here - I’m saying that we have to speak up against objectionable tactics regardless of the user’s intent. The indiscriminate use of graphic abortion pics are in question, clearly some people think it’s ok, but some reasonable, Catholic people think it’s not.

 

[Nino]

…to make sense in one way then to quote Tom Jefferson re: doesnt matter who or what you believe in …is non-sensical…he wrote a small booklet outlining the works of Jesus with His ‘miracles’…as in so many things about Tom…owning slaves and writing the bit about all men 'being born egual’etc…lets be careful on whom we quote…I went up to my school board last year objecting to them placing a quote by Carl Jung…of all people.on top of a monthly page in their school calendar!.I instructed the so-called ‘phd doctor’ who is the superintendent…that when a young person sees a quote from someone in the school calendar they feel all of what this person believes in is acceptable etc.and of course good ole Carl was into the Aryan Christ nonsense ie Nazi code…Nino

 

[vern_humphrey]

I am doing no such thing. Again, how dare you accuse me of such when I know you have read my previous posts on my prolife activism.

Estes said:

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.

Sprout replied:

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

I’m not going to give you a chance to apologize. I’m going to hide your nasty posts from my view and will not communicate with you on these forums again.

Buh=Bye!

What a beautiful example of Christian charity.

 

[vern_humphrey]

He intended no such thing and that’s clear to any rational reader of this thread.

Estes said:

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.

Sprout replied:

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

Secondarily, aren’t people obligated to speak up when they believe objectionable tactics are used?

Oh, absolutely! We have a positive obligation to be holier-than-thou, to attack people who are working to end abortion, and to raise every possible argument against them.

 

[Mag_Uidhir]

I’m saying that we have to speak up against objectionable tactics regardless of the user’s intent. The indiscriminate** use of graphic abortion pics are in question,** clearly some people think it’s ok, but some reasonable, Catholic people think it’s not.

Yes your right, all those murdered babies and a bunch or organized pixels in full colour are equal ?

I’m afraid I don’t agree, I post up picture postcard type pics here in my home town, in bus stations, in hospitals.

I know someone in Liverpool England was arrested for doing it and jailed.

And the abortionist murders are hailed as doing society a service, how sad, how sick, how many of them are in jail ?

 

[estesbob]

He intended no such thing and that’s clear to any rational reader of this thread.

Secondarily, aren’t people obligated to speak up when they believe objectionable tactics are used? For instance, one might want a war to be won, not be a soldier oneself, and yet still be obligated to speak up against torture being used to obtain information for the purpose of winning the war. I’m not equating torture with showing pictures - follow the point here - I’m saying that we have to speak up against objectionable tactics regardless of the user’s intent. The indiscriminate use of graphic abortion pics are in question, clearly some people think it’s ok, but some reasonable, Catholic people think it’s not.

We speaking up about the socially objectionable tactic of killing children. For the life of me I cannot understand why so many people in this thread are more upset that someone might see the picture a dead baby then there are of the fact that baby is dead the first place

 

[proudnifi]

Yes your right, all those murdered babies and a bunch or organized pixels in full colour are equal ?

What in the name of God (respectful use fully intended) are you missing? NO ONE here has ever equated the use of pictures with abortion. NO ONE. I flat out wrote that such a suggestion was NOT intended by another poster - and I certainly NEVER suggested that.

Don’t make things up. It’s not nice.

 

[seekerz]

For the life of me I cannot understand why so many people in this thread are more upset that someone might see the picture a dead baby then there are of the fact that baby is dead the first place

You can’t understand it but you need to respect that it is so. You can’t tell people what they should be offended by.

We don’t need any studies to prove that some people find these graphics offensive: multiple posters have said it right here in plain English.

If you or anyone else chooses to indiscriminately show these graphics, it will be with the full knowledge that some viewers will be offended. If that doesn’t matter to you, fine.

Just don’t come to this forum complaining when undesirable groups in our society target our children with their own offensive graphic ads!

 

[vern_humphrey]

What in the name of God (respectful use fully intended) are you missing? NO ONE here has ever equated the use of pictures with abortion. NO ONE.

Here’s the original exchange:
Estes said:

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.

And Sprout replied:

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

I flat out wrote that such a suggestion was NOT intended by another poster - and I certainly NEVER suggested that.

No one said you did – but as you can see from the above, someone did.

Don’t make things up. It’s not nice.

You might want to take your own advice there.

 

[proudnifi]

We speaking up about the socially objectionable tactic of killing children. For the life of me I cannot understand why so many people in this thread are more upset that someone might see the picture a dead baby then there are of the fact that baby is dead the first place

No one said that the indiscriminate use of the pictures is worse than abortion or that the indiscriminate use of pictures is worse than actual abortions.

The thread topic isn’t “is abortion good?” or “is abortion better or worse than using graphic images?”. It’s on the use of graphic images of abortion. You don’t need to convince us that abortion is bad - really, really bad. We agree. But that doesn’t mean that every possible way to fight it is ok.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No one said that the indiscriminate use of the pictures is worse than abortion or that the indiscriminate use of pictures is worse than actual abortions.

No, they just drew moral equivalency. One poster said:

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.

and another replied:

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

The thread topic isn’t “is abortion good?” or “is abortion better or worse than using graphic images?”. It’s on the use of graphic images of abortion. You don’t need to convince us that abortion is bad - really, really bad. We agree. But that doesn’t mean that every possible way to fight it is ok.

Nor does it mean using pictures is wrong. And it certainly doesn’t justify the vituperation poured on those who choose to use them.

 

[proudnifi]

Vern -

Check out #466 which includes a quote from one of my posts. #466 says: “Yes your right, all those murdered babies and a bunch or organized pixels in full colour are equal ?”

So, “someone” (poster for #466) is most certainly making it look like I equated the two.

I never equated the two and I don’t appreciate anyone making it look like I did.

So, my request to not make up stuff stands. I didn’t make up post #466 - so I don’t appreciate your suggestion that I make stuff up either.

Clearly, this thread has become useless.

 

[estesbob]

No one said that the indiscriminate use of the pictures is worse than abortion or that the indiscriminate use of pictures is worse than actual abortions.

The thread topic isn’t “is abortion good?” or “is abortion better or worse than using graphic images?”. It’s on the use of graphic images of abortion. You don’t need to convince us that abortion is bad - really, really bad. We agree. But that doesn’t mean that every possible way to fight it is ok.

Not bad enough to show people what it really entails?

As I have pointed out many times I have seen in this thread more anger towards people showing graphic pictures of abortion victims than I have seen anger directed towards those people who have caused what the images show. Let me suggest you fight abortion the way you want to and I’ll continue to fight it every way I can as I have for the last 25 years . I am amazed at the amount of venom directed at those on the front lines trying to stop this abject evil

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern -

Check out #466 which includes a quote from one of my posts. #466 says: “Yes your right, all those murdered babies and a bunch or organized pixels in full colour are equal ?”

So, “someone” (poster for #466) is most certainly making it look like I equated the two.

I never equated the two and I don’t appreciate anyone making it look like I did.

And when did I do that?

But someone did draw a moral equivalency between abortion And I have documented it.

So, my request to not make up stuff stands. I didn’t make up post #466 - so I don’t appreciate your suggestion that I make stuff up either.

I thought you were the one who came up with that line?

Clearly, this thread has become useless.

Indeed it has. People who oppose showing pictures of aborted babies could have said things like, “Well, I don’t do that – but we each have our own calling.”

But they didn’t – they poured vituperation on those who disagreed with them.

 

[proudnifi]

This will be my last post on this thread. It’s pointless now.

I can’t go along with:

"People who oppose showing pictures of aborted babies could have said things like, “Well, I don’t do that – but we each have our own calling.”

Because if one thinks it’s wrong to show those photos indiscriminately, one should speak up. When anti-abortion activists kill abortionists I won’t say “Well, I wouldn’t do that - but we each have our own calling.” Not saying that showing pics is as bad as murder, but that I think using them indisriminately is wrong. So, I must speak up. It’s wrong to just shrug and say “well, I would do it differently”.

I don’t agree with name-calling - I think most people using the pics indiscriminately are trying to do good. But I don’t agree with the tactic and think it should be stopped. The thread was for our thoughts on the use of the pics. I’m in the “it depends” group.

Cheers.

 

[seekerz]

Clearly, this thread has become useless.

You don’t understand proudnifi, there’s an unwritten rule on this forum that all opinions on anti-abortion tactics must be uniform and there must be no dissent. Any differing opinion is branded an attack even while the poster with the opinion undergoes concerted personal attacks.

It’s a pity because the idea of a forum is exchange of differing views, otherwise it’s kind of like talking to one’s self - not much fun .

 

[sprout]

What in the name of God (respectful use fully intended) are you missing? NO ONE here has ever equated the use of pictures with abortion. NO ONE. I flat out wrote that such a suggestion was NOT intended by another poster - and I certainly NEVER suggested that.

Don’t make things up. It’s not nice.

Thank You!

Since I was the one who posted the following:

Originally Posted by sprout:

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

then estesbob comes in and says:

Originally Posted by estesbob:
“Indiscriminate” as i indiscriminate killing of our children.?

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

clearly, it’s estesbob who falsely equates the two. It’s called “mischaracterization” or a “strawman” argument. It’s a logical fallacy. Perhaps not intended, but a fallacy nonetheless.

Basically a strawman is defined as:

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of “reasoning” has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

I agree with you. This thread has digressed to such a point that it’s become utterly useless other than that I’ve placed estesbob and vern on my “ignore” list.