Fr. Pavone on the use of graphic images of abortion

[Ani_Ibi]

seekerz:

To begin with, I was replying to bmmckinney when you first decided to respond to me.

It’s a public forum.

seekerz:

To address PDE: I believe it fails the proportionality test.

No no no. This doesn’t cut it. Define your object, your proximal and remote intents, and set out your arguments for each point. That is the way to do PDE.

 

[estesbob]

What’s it with the numbers? Abortion is terribly wrong; do greater numbers make it more wrong? If it was found that some condition e.g. malnutrition, that was killing more children worldwide, would we as Catholic Christians be obliged to ignore abortion in favor of fighting hunger? I think not.

It’s never about the numbers it’s about the requirement to love God and each other.

Offending people is wrong - that millions of babies are dying the world over doesn’t release me of my responsibility to treat others lovingly.

The numbers tell it all We have been told in this thread that even if these graphic pictures deter a women from having an abortion we should not show them if there’s a chance a young child will see them. I believe the greater good is served by showing the pictures.

 

[seekerz]

The numbers are greater than one.

No. The loss of one person is the loss of a whole world.

It’s not either/or. It’s both/and.

It’s always been about the numbers since God said “It is not good for the man to be alone.”

And how is making the conversation concerning abortion as comfortable as it can possibly be for the born a loving act?

No it isn’t. If it were, then you would have not have the right to free speech in your Constitution. And Jesus would not have said that He comes with a knife. He would not have said “I am the Bread of Life.” He would not have turned over the tables in the Temple.

Correct. The question is about what form that loving treatment takes.

Sure Jesus did not flinch from offending wrongdoers, but what wrong is an innocent child guilty of? Guess I should have been more clear and said “innocent children” rather than “people”.

By the way, what’s unloving about making the abortion discussion comfortable for kids? Every child is different - some just have to be told not to do something, others have to be threatened with punishment, still others need to have active preventive measures taken. Parents/other close adults are really the most appropriate ones to decide what works best for a particular child.

 

[KarenNC]

A friend of mine once said to me: “Ani, you are looking for one key. There isn’t one key. There are many. You have to find enough keys to move forward.”

Bingo. There is not only one way. Over and over and over you and others are saying “we must show these pictures in this manner because nothing else is effective.” (wait, repeating over and over and over—what was that about conceding an argument? )

This is not the only tool in the box. What is being requested is that one use a bit of discrimination and discretion in choosing the most appropriate tool. As the saying goes, “when you are only willing to use a hammer, all problems look like nails.”

It just isn’t real to them. And it is up to folks in the trenches to make it real.

What is your basis for saying that it “isn’t real” to the rest of us on this thread?

I am serious when I say mount those room-size posters in the Museum of Modern Art and see the tidal waves of moral outrage sweep across America!

Absolutely. Go right ahead. I applaud your efforts. That is an example of an appropriate venue and a way of using these images such that parents of preschoolers can have a reasonable expectation of knowing that such are coming up. Bravo!

 

[KarenNC]

I’m sure someone would volunteer for the use of their 4D ultrasounds for this purpose. My wife and I would; we’ve got one coming up in about 9 weeks.

There are any number of places that one could obtain stock photos to use, if there were any trouble getting folks to donate the ultrasounds. There are countless sources already for photos of living babies at various stages of development. I doubt that any of the pictures that are currently being used on these posters were of the protesters own aborted children, either.

I haven’t been able to view them—couldn’t find anything at the original link. When people say “graphic images”, that could mean gory or non-gory.

Here is an example of what I mean when I say “graphic color photographs of bloody mutilated corpses of babies.”

abortionno.org/Resources/pictures.html

These are the images that they are putting on the sides of trucks parked at sporting events, in front of churches without permission, in neighborhoods and apartment complexes and towing behind airplanes (warning, by graphic I mean incredibly violent and gory–be aware of who else is in the room)

abortionno.org/RCC/trucks_highway03.html
abortionno.org/RCC/trucks_highway04.html
abortionno.org/RCC/truck_signs.html
abortionno.org/RCC/planes/plane_photos.html (in particular number 7)

The use of these images in this manner is what I am objecting to.

There is no necessity to show such images to children. I have no objection outside of effectiveness to showing them to adults.

Agreed 100%.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

seekerz:

Sure Jesus did not flinch from offending wrongdoers, but what wrong is an innocent child guilty of?

Strawman. I did not say that an innocent child is guilty of any wrong.

seekerz:

Guess I should have been more clear and said “innocent children” rather than “people”.

It wouldn’t have made any difference. Because my main thrust has been about PDE. I have not said that it can never be disturbing for children to see these images. I have said and – Vern has also said this – that the deep damage happens when parents withhold reassurance and guidance in order for the children to strengthen themselves from this experience. Particularly when the parents give in into emotionalism themselves.

seekerz:

By the way, what’s unloving about making the abortion discussion comfortable for kids?

I think giving children reassurance and guidance allows children to experience uncomfortable emotions in a safe and growth-fostering environment. That is entirely different from attempting to hide the truth from them. Because they get wind of the truth anyway. The just don’t have the benefit of adult experience to contextualize it.

seekerz:

Every child is different - some just have to be told not to do something, others have to be threatened with punishment, still others need to have active preventive measures taken.

Yes.

seekerz:

Parents/other close adults are really the most appropriate ones to decide what works best for a particular child.

Yes. And if this is consistently held in the family thus building up trust in the parent and if the parent has been building up faith in the child’s own power to figure things out and contextualize and learn, then the experience of a happenstance encounter with a room-sized poster will not be the end of the world.

 

[seekerz]

As far as offending innocent children, my statement has to be taken in the context of your response, not dealt with in a vacuum as you seem to have done. I won’t bother repeating myself.

Incidentally, did you miss my objections to the application of PDE as regards this issue? (post 713).

 

[KarenNC]

My apologies, Ani Ibi. It appears you did indeed provide links in your original post on this. I am afraid your habit of frequently providing multi-hued posts meant that I took these for just more special effects rather than links.

I remain unclear as to why Ascenion Health’s website is better than the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for this information (which quotes the New Catholic Encyclopedia on this subject), plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/ but as you will.

Principle of Double Effect:

For the act in question to be licit, all Five Tests for Double Effect must be met.

From your referenced site:
"The object of an act is that which the agent chooses to do, that is, the specific behavior that one chooses to engage, not simply as a means but also as a directly intended end. "

The act in question is the showing of graphic images of bloody mutilated corpses of babies as a means to prevent abortions in venues where one can be reasonably aware that preschoolers will be exposed to them (ie used indiscriminately without any evidence of reasonable attempts at targeting a specific audience). I don’t think there is much question that anyone who puts these images on the sides of trucks and behind airplanes is intending anything other than indiscriminate distribution.

1. The object of the act must not be intrinsically contradictory to one’s fundamental commitment to God and neighbor (including oneself), that is, it must be a good action judged by its moral object (in other words, the action must not be intrinsically evil

The New Catholic Encyclopedia instead phrases this as “the act must be morally good or at least indifferent.” Frankly, I do not view exposing young children to graphic images of mutilated corpses of babies to be either morally good or indifferent.

1. The direct intention of the agent must be to achieve the beneficial effects and to avoid the foreseen harmful effects as far as possible

Fails right here for the first time. There is no effort made to avoid foreseen harmful effects at all, much less take reasonable measures to do so.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states this as:
“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.”

, that is, one must only indirectly intend the harm;

"An indirect intention is a circumstantial intention that the agent would not consider as the immediately desired result of an action, but as an **inevitable and unavoidable **consequence of choosing the means to the desired result. Thus, an indirectly intended bad consequence would be a foreseen and merely tolerated effect of the action but not the ultimate reason for performing the action. The undesirable effect is in a certain sense intended, since one still chooses the means, i.e., performs the action, but it is only indirectly intended since it would have been avoided if possible. "

There is no evidence that there is actually any effort at all to avoid this result, despite the fact that there are many additional paths to attempting to reduce the number of abortions.

1. The foreseen beneficial effects must not be achieved by means of the foreseen harmful effects, when no other means of achieving those effects are available;

Again, it has been pointed out time and again that there are indeed other means available to prevent abortions, including a more discriminating use of these very images. The response has been that this method is either the only one that works or that it is the most effective. I have seen no evidence to support either response. The action fails this test as well in absence of actual evidence that there is indeed no other effective means.

I have offered multiple studies, etc from researchers that delineate the harmful effects of visual images of real life violence on children in this age range. These have been dismissed because they were not about these specific images on these specific signs.

My sources aside, there have been just as many stories and opinions offered from those who believe that the effects are harmful and inappropriate as you and others have offered that they are not harmful or are actively beneficial and are appropriate. If your stories are adequate in your opinion to show that there is no harm, why are their stories not adequate to show that there is indeed harm?

In the presence of equally weighted arguments that an act is or is not harmful, it would seem to me that this part of the principle of double effect puts the onus on the person who is performing the action to show that there are no other possible means, ones which are agreed to not be harmful, to achieve the desired end and to show that you have indeed made a good faith effort to avoid means believed to be harmful.

continued

 

[KarenNC]

continued from above

1. The foreseen beneficial effects must be equal to or greater than the foreseen harmful effects (the proportionate judgment);
2. The beneficial effects must follow from the action at least as immediately as do the harmful effects.

In many of the examples given by its supporters, the intent of showing these pictures in this manner is not solely or even mainly to stop a specific imminent abortion. It is to educate the public in the hope of gaining prolife supporters.

There are two categories of intention: proximate intention and indirect (remote or circumstantial) intention. It is the proximate intention which counts.

It is not only the proximate intention which counts. See above.

 

[Philothea53]

Again, it has been pointed out time and again that there are indeed other means available to prevent abortions, including a more discriminating use of these very images. The response has been that this method is either the only one that works or that it is the most effective. I have seen no evidence to support either response. The action fails this test as well in absence of actual evidence that there is indeed no other effective means.

Okay, Karen, just like one political party has been whining about ending the war and bringing home the troops without any plan on how to accomplish this, you have been saying that we have not given you any “evidence that there is indeed no other effective means.” Since you seem to know so much more about it than any of us after 34+ years and almost 50 million babies dead, what effective means do you propose, that we haven’t already tried, to educate the masses, to show the lie of ‘choice’ and to bring an end to this genocide?

 

[sprout]

what effective means do you propose, that we haven’t already tried, to educate the masses, to show the lie of ‘choice’ and to bring an end to this genocide?

I posted this awhile back here

in addition, I know of several groups that tour the country with these displays “on college campuses” at concerts and other such “adult” venues that specifically target the adults most likely to consider abortion. I would think that “targeted” audience is “most” effective rather than a “random” audience.

Basically you are arguing for “random” marketing and making the ridiculous claim that random is most effective.

Targeted audience is what’s used in marketing. Why? because it’s most effective.

In addition, the “random” use of these images is directly causing fallback onto the Prolife community and makes the job of sidewalk counselors more difficult in reaching out to women as we are more & more viewed by them as “extremists” who are not really concerned about children. This is a direct result of the “random” and “indiscriminate” displays of these violent, graphic images that unnecessarily target young children.

 

[Philothea53]

I posted this awhile back here

in addition, I know of several groups that tour the country with these displays “on college campuses” at concerts and other such “adult” venues that specifically target the adults most likely to consider abortion. I would think that “targeted” audience is “most” effective rather than a “random” audience.

Basically you are arguing for “random” marketing and making the ridiculous claim that random is most effective.

Targeted audience is what’s used in marketing. Why? because it’s most effective.

In addition, the “random” use of these images is directly causing fallback onto the Prolife community and makes the job of sidewalk counselors more difficult in reaching out to women as we are more & more viewed by them as “extremists” who are not really concerned about children. This is a direct result of the “random” and “indiscriminate” displays of these violent, graphic images that unnecessarily target young children.

Sprout, I think some of the things you have said here are ridiculous. You don’t know with a surety that* any *of the claims you have made are true. You’ve used a lot of strong words and quotes as if they give credence to your claims. They are still nothing more than unverifiable claims. Father Frank Pavone, who dedicates his every waking hour to the pro-life cause has testified to the phone calls, emails and letters he has received from women who have changed their minds about killing their unborn child as a direct result of seeing these pictures. I trust what Father Pavone says is true and accurate. His statements are based on facts not opinions.

 

[seekerz]

Sprout, I think some of the things you have said here are ridiculous. You don’t know with a surety that* any *of the claims you have made are true. You’ve used a lot of strong words and quotes as if they give credence to your claims. They are still nothing more than unverifiable claims. Father Frank Pavone, who dedicates his every waking hour to the pro-life cause has testified to the phone calls, emails and letters he has received from women who have changed their minds about killing their unborn child as a direct result of seeing these pictures. I trust what Father Pavone says is true and accurate. His statements are based on facts not opinions.

But you are just proving the point Sprout is making. Fr Pavone hears from women who changed their minds about abortion after seeing these pictures, hence showing these pictures to women is effective. That’s effective targeted advertising.

How many mothers has he heard from saying they are glad their small kids got to see those pics? I trust you’ll find out and let us know, since you’re all about facts.

 

[sprout]

Sprout, I think some of the things you have said here are ridiculous. You don’t know with a surety that* any *of the claims you have made are true. You’ve used a lot of strong words and quotes as if they give credence to your claims. They are still nothing more than unverifiable claims. Father Frank Pavone, who dedicates his every waking hour to the pro-life cause has testified to the phone calls, emails and letters he has received from women who have changed their minds about killing their unborn child as a direct result of seeing these pictures. I trust what Father Pavone says is true and accurate. His statements are based on facts not opinions.

Likewise:thumbsup:

Fr. Pavone also puts a warning on his website when visitors to his website view these photos. As far as I have seen NONE of those women who have changed their minds did so after seeing a truck in traffic, a billboard, or a fly over banner. More than likely they did so after seeing these photos on Fr. Pavone’s website, or in a venue that allowed them to “choose” to see them.

I can say is from my own experience working with women and their reactions when walking into a PP clinic when they see these posters vs. their reactions when these posters aren’t around.

These ARE my opinions. That’s what a forum is all about. People posting their opinions.

Do you have anything to offer besides YOUR opinion?

 

[sprout]

OOOOPS!

after stating several times in this thread that even Fr. Pavone posts a warning on the graphic nature of these images I have discovered that is not always the case.

the warning on his website is here a video of body parts of aborted babies. The warning states:

**WARNING
The film you are about to see
has graphic images that
may be inappropriate for young viewers

**

yet his links to photos of aborted babies does not contain any warning.

IMHO they both should not only contain a warning, but as some websites have done, require you to state that you are over a certain age before allowing you to continue and view the images.

 

[Philothea53]

But you are just proving the point Sprout is making. Fr Pavone hears from women who changed their minds about abortion after seeing these pictures, hence showing these pictures to women is effective. That’s effective targeted advertising.

How many mothers has he heard from saying they are glad their small kids got to see those pics? I trust you’ll find out and let us know, since you’re all about facts.

While my first thought was that your statement was really, well, stupid, you actually helped prove my point because Father Pavone also does not say he hears from any mothers who are complaining about their children being psychologically scarred for life from seeing the pictures. And since you are all about supposition and unproven claims I’m sure we’ll hear more from you.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

sprout:

Basically you are arguing for “random” marketing and making the ridiculous claim that random is most effective.

I have never claimed that random marketing is the most effective. In fact, in this respect, I can speak for others as well: that there are many forms of marketing. Room-size posters of aborted babies is only one form.

What we have been saying is that different forums of marketing get to different kinds of people. I have specifically said that there is NOT ONE KEY to solving the plague of abortion and that people should use whatever form of marketing is available to them and comfortable to them.

Making things up about our point of view does not help your case, sprout.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

seekerz:

As far as offending innocent children, my statement has to be taken in the context of your response, not dealt with in a vacuum as you seem to have done.

Easy to say with nothing to back it up.

seekerz:

I won’t bother repeating myself.

Good. Then you’re done with the tautologies?

seekerz:

Incidentally, did you miss my objections to the application of PDE as regards this issue? (post 713)

Did you miss my replies to your objections? I see you have yet to meet my replies other than simply unilaterally and arbitrarily refusing to apply PDE, when PDE is the applicable solution to the problem of any act which has a double effect. Displaying room-size posters of aborted babies is an ACT which has a DOUBLE EFFECT.

As I have explained numerous times before. I have given the link to the PDE three times now on this thread. I have even quoted the PDE. There have been two incomplete uses of the PDE on this thread so far. Yours and Karen’s. Incomplete does not cut it. The object of the act must be defined. The remote and proximal intents of the act must be defined. All five points must be discussed and assessed.

So far many folks have been big on opinion even tautologizing their opinion over 700 posts now as though repetition will eventually make what they are claiming true. There has been little reason and little reference. And that is the only kind of opinion which persuades or at least enlarges perspectives.

 

[seekerz]

PDE can only be applied when** all** conditions are met. There’s no need for me to delve further when this issue fails the proportionality test.

With all respect, I see use of PDE here as a cop-out to justify what some people have already decided they want to do. It’s not the first issue with which I see this happening either.

The truest thing I’ve ever heard a Protestant preacher say is that people can make the Bible say anything they want it to say; the same is true of Church doctrines - we can make them justify anything we want to do.

By the way,doesn’t all that red hurt your eye?

 

[seekerz]

While my first thought was that your statement was really, well, stupid, you actually helped prove my point because Father Pavone also does not say he hears from any mothers who are complaining about their children being psychologically scarred for life from seeing the pictures. And since you are all about supposition and unproven claims I’m sure we’ll hear more from you.

Because he doesn’t say he get complaints it proves he doesn’t get them? I need a moment to wrap my head around this unique concept.

What supposition and claims did I make in my previous reply to you? None. Targeted advertising is a well known strategy. You have presented anecdotal evidence that it actually works in the fight against abortion. Now you declare my opinion stupid because I advise that it be used.

When people opposed to indiscriminate use of these graphics posted their concerns about effects on little children, they were asked for “peer-reviewed studies”. You, on the other hand, use the example of one person, without presenting figures of any sort. Assuming that what you are representing about his experience is accurate, are we expected to generalize those results to the whole population? My limited study of statistics suggests that this approach might be rather unscientific.