Fr. Pavone on the use of graphic images of abortion

[Ani_Ibi]

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.

You have not demonstrated that the issue fails the proportionality test. Therefore you have to keep going down the list.

In any case, you completely omitted the first steps which were to define the object of the act and to define the proximal and remote intentions of the act. So you never specified what it is that is 'failing the proportionality test.

seekerz:

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.

Since your posts demonstrate a really serious lack of understanding on how to apply PDE, how far do you think your OPINION of PDE goes? Do you not think your opinion of PDE is a cop-out to justify not using the tool designed for solving problems of double effect?

Hint: oh yeeeeeeeaaaah. :yup:

seekerz:

It’s not the first issue with which I see this happening either.

Relevance?

seekerz:

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.

This may or may not be true. As usual you have not bothered to provide reason and reference to back up your OPINION. In any case, ‘can’ does not equate to ‘is’. You have not demonstrated that we are making Church doctrines justify anything we want to do.

seekerz:

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

Nope, it helps me to remember my central points. That’s why I use it.

 

[Philothea53]

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.

You say this after asking: “How many mothers has he heard from saying they are glad their small kids got to see those pics?”

Unique concept indeed.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

seekerz:

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.

Why not wrap your head around charity rather than the slithering innuendo that Fr Pavone’s claims are untruthful? Particularly in the absence of – once again – any evidence from you.

seekerz:

You have presented anecdotal evidence that it actually works in the fight against abortion.

Equivocation. Fr Pavone’s tracking system is not anecdotal evidence.

seekerz:

Now you declare my opinion stupid because I advise that it be used.

It’s your lack of any support for your OPINIONS which is the downfall of your posts.

seekerz:

When people opposed to indiscriminate use of these graphics posted their concerns about effects on little children, they were asked for “peer-reviewed studies”.

When people opposed to the graphics were asked to apply the PDE, they flatly refused to do so. Two made incomplete gestures toward PDE which did not cut the mustard.

seekerz:

You, on the other hand, use the example of one person, without presenting figures of any sort.

Misrepresentation. Fr Pavone is speaking for a very large team of people.

seekerz:

Assuming that what you are representing about his experience is accurate, are we expected to generalize those results to the whole population?

Strawman. We’ve already corrected you on this several times.

seekerz:

My limited study of statistics suggests that this approach might be rather unscientific.

You’re either part of the solution or you’re part of the problem. Demonstrate to us that you are raising funds and organizing scientists to study the relative effectiveness of different marketing approaches.

Also, I must question whether some of you are even bothering to discuss. It seems to me that you are merely posting your unsupported OPINIONS over and over and over. I have posted a variety of materials to which – so far – only Teflon and Philothea have had the courtesy to reply.

 

[seekerz]

You say this after asking: “How many mothers has he heard from saying they are glad their small kids got to see those pics?”

Unique concept indeed.

It wasn’t a rhetorical question, I’m still waiting for an answer ( I have this thing about facts and I know you do too).

 

[seekerz]

Why not wrap your head around charity rather than the slithering innuendo that Fr Pavone’s claims are untruthful? Particularly in the absence of – once again – any evidence from you. .

How uncharitable to suggest that I was claiming Fr Pavone’s claims were untruthful. Your interpretation of posts leaves me dumbfounded. All I was saying is that just because someone doesn’t say something doesn’t mean it never happened. He could have plenty of valid reasons for not disclosing every communication sent to him. Besides, does she have his authority to even make that claim? Does she know everything he has ever said with regard to this method of fighting abortion?

To get back to PDE:

The proportionality test states that there must be sufficient reason to allow the evil effect to take place. At the risk of sounding repetitious, here is the reason I gave to show why indiscriminate use of graphic abortion pictures fails the test:

I believe it fails the proportionality test. There is no justification for allowing children’s feelings to be hurt because for one thing there are other ways to fight abortion and for another there has been no good evidence presented to show that the act (showing the pics) produces the good effect (saving lives).

I will qualify that by elaborating on what evidence I consider ‘good’. Since an evil effect is involved here, the evidence must be of the sound statistical kind; not anecdotal. It must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the act produces the good effect and that this cannot be otherwise produced.

Since one of the conditions is not met, there seems no sense in discussing the others because all conditions have to be met to satisfy the PDE.

 

[Philothea53]

It wasn’t a rhetorical question, I’m still waiting for an answer ( I have this thing about facts and I know you do too).

Your desire for an answer to such a stupid question will be ignored.

However, you might check out these links from the Priests for Life website:

Order graphic image signs from www.facethetruthamerica.com %between%

Click here] to go to a website where you can order signs and 3x5 cards showing graphic images.

Click here] to get reduced price “choice” signs from the Center for Bioethical Reform.

Maybe it’s time for you to stop making such ridiculous statements and asking questions that are illogical and have no answer and become part of the solution.

Father Pavone, as the founder of Priests for Life and a member of the Center for Bioethical Reform, has made it his life’s work AS A MAN OF GOD to stop the senseless slaughter of babies for many years now. He is noble, honest, and well-respected. If you can not see that he knows what needs to be done, then I cannot think anything other than that you really don’t want to see.

Have you checked out any of the testimonies at this link? priestsforlife.org/articles/graphicimages.html

especially this one

priestsforlife.org/articles/shouldweuse.htm

that speaks very directly to whether use of the photos should be restricted.

You really can find the answers to all of your questions at this site. This isn’t anecdotal stuff. It isn’t opinion or supposition. This isn’t based on emotion (although highly emotional.) This isn’t a website he chose to put up overnight but one that is from years of ongoing work to educate the public with arguments against the lies of the abortion industry and with showing the truth of abortion through graphic images along with testimonies of their effectiveness not just for the women actually seeking abortion but also in the halls of Congress and at the voting booth. The general public has received an education they would not have gotten was it not for Fr. Pavone and those he works with. I think if you spend some time there doing some reading/viewing you too might receive an education.

Remember, the bottom line of this discussion is abortion - the purposeful, deliberate act of taking the life of an unborn child. Spend a few moments really looking at the pictures Fr. Pavone has posted. Wrap your head around what it is you are seeing before answering back to this post. Can you argue with anything you’ve read after really coming to terms with that?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

seekerz:

How uncharitable to suggest that I was claiming Fr Pavone’s claims were untruthful. Your interpretation of posts leaves me dumbfounded.

It is not uncharitable to hold you to account for what you said. This is what you said:

seekerz:

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.

For Fr Pavone to say he doesn’t get complaints when he gets them would be to question the truth of his portrayal of the evidence. Be as dumbfounded as you like.

seekerz:

All I was saying is that just because someone doesn’t say something doesn’t mean it never happened.

What you are doing is questioning the evidence without – once again – having any evidence of your own to do so. Moreover, you are questioning the truthfulness of Fr Pavone’s portrayal of the evidence.

seekerz:

He could have plenty of valid reasons for not disclosing every communication sent to him.

He is a priest. What valid reason could he have for not accurately portraying the evidence which his team collected?

seekerz:

Besides, does she have his authority to even make that claim? Does she know everything he has ever said with regard to this method of fighting abortion?

You are posing gratuitous and superfluous requirements for evidence. She offered evidence. That evidence suffices.

seekerz:

To get back to PDE:

I have informed you before more than once. All this stuff from you about proportionality is useless until you:

• define the act
• define the object of the act
• define the remote intention
• define the proximal intention

You have done none of this. I will concede that applying the PDE rigorously is difficult. It takes some work.

seekerz:

The proportionality test states that there must be sufficient reason to allow the evil effect to take place.

Quote the exact wording from the PDE link I gave you please.

seekerz:

At the risk of sounding repetitious

Oh you sound repetitious alright. Your argument so far has been tautology, tautology, tautology.

 

[KarenNC]

Have you checked out any of the testimonies at this link? priestsforlife.org/articles/graphicimages.html

Actually I read every testimonial at priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/graphicspraise.htm – all 27 pages of them.

The vast majority of the posts were in response to the website, not to the kind of indiscriminate exposure we are arguing against. One mentions emailing them to another woman and one mentions showing the pictures to her adult sister. One may or may not have received the images through direct mail as she spoke of returning them with her donation. One mentioned having seen the pictures at a prolife march.

Note that no-one has objected anywhere to using these images in those ways (save for the panel truck).

One post that mentions panel trucks (which, IIRC, was from someone who was already prolife). It mentions “making people upset” but does not mention anyone that they know was positively affected by the truck.

On another page of testimonials there is one mother who saw the trucks parked outside her 12 year old daughter’s middle school and was in favor of it. I personally do not favor this, but it is well outside of the age range I am discussing as inappropriately targeted.

There is no clear indication as to the circumstances in which the remaining posters saw the images. There is no reason to assume that they had to have seen them in areas or ways where preschoolers could also have seen them rather than in the other, more targeted ways.

The strongest argument these testimonials make is for the effectiveness of using these photos on the website.

The youngest child that a mother mentions showing these images to is 10 yeears old. Many of them, however, were from teens or parents who showed them to teens. There was one poster who specifically mentioned sending her 4 year old out of the room, and one who planned to show the images to her 15 year old daughter and to teach her 4 year old son “later.” One poster planned to recommend the site to teens with their parents’ permission. Another states “these pictures need to be in front of the eyes of every American (adults).”

There is one mention of a woman who mentions showing them to her teenage daughters who had seen the photos “when they were little” with no context of age or circumstances. One 15 year old mentions having shown them to her nieces who were 7,6 and 3 but no mention of parental permission.

This isn’t anecdotal stuff.

Testimonials are precisely “anecdotal stuff.” If he has some hard data on the effectiveness of showing these photos indiscriminately versus in the targeted manner such as direct mail, his website, through retreats, books, homilies, marches, directly in front of abortion clinics aimed at the women entering, etc, I was unable to find it. I would be happy to look at any such you could provide.

The general public has received an education they would not have gotten was it not for Fr. Pavone and those he works with.

What I haven’t seen is evidence that that education was possible only through or even primarily through the indiscriminate practices we are arguing against. I find it telling that his full page ad in the NY Times that is mentioned does not contain these photos, nor do the TV commercials.

Spend a few moments really looking at the pictures Fr. Pavone has posted. Wrap your head around what it is you are seeing before answering back to this post. Can you argue with anything you’ve read after really coming to terms with that?

I have looked at the pictures, as evidenced by the numerous times I have linked back to them and to others. Yes, I can and will continue to argue with using methods to display them that I believe are harmful.

 

[KarenNC]

Ani Ibi, Philothea, bmmckinney, estesbob, what are the ages of your children?

What is the age of Father Pavone’s children?

 

[Philothea53]

Should We Use Graphic Images?

Rev. Frank A. Pavone
National Director, Priests For Life

Should graphic photos of babies who have been killed by abortion be used by pro-lifers who demonstrate on public sidewalks?

Even among those who oppose abortion, answers to this question vary. The dispute was recently brought to my attention again by a news article describing the concern of residents of a certain area that the graphic photos used by local pro-lifers disturbed the children.

I have demonstrated against abortion on the public sidewalks of almost every major city in America. I have used graphic images and have watched their effect. I am convinced they should be used, and here are some of the reasons.

1. The word abortion has lost practically all its meaning. Not even the most vivid description, in words alone, can adequately convey the horror of this act of violence. Abortion is sugar-coated by rhetoric which hides its gruesome nature. The procedure is never shown in the media. Too many people remain either in ignorance or denial about it, and hence too few are moved to do something to stop it. Graphic images are needed. A picture is worth a thousand words – and in this battle, it can be worth many lives as well.
2. Graphic images of abortion have saved lives. One example is a letter I have from Violet Sherringford of New Jersey, who went to an abortion facility and found pro-life protesters there. “The posters they displayed, though very graphic, did succeed in bringing me back to reality and in conveying the horrible mutilation and dismemberment inflicted on the unborn child… I decided to have the baby. It was the best decision I ever will make.”
3. We use graphic images to save lives from other kinds of violence - I’ve seen graphic drawing by first and second graders accompanied by the words “Drugs Kill”." I’ve seen smashed cars put on public display with the sign, “Drunk Driving Kills.” The LA Times 7/8/95 reported an effort at Jefferson High School to stop street violence. Freshmen were shown slide after slide of victims blown apart by bullets. The anti-war movement in America was given momentum in the early '70’s by a famous photo of a napalmed girl. Efforts to save the starving have been spurred on by images of malnourished children. The examples can go on and on.
4. The fact that the use of such images is disturbing does not mean such use is wrong. The free-speech rights guaranteed under the First Amendment apply even to speech which is disturbing, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld (see The Right to Protest, ACLU: Gora et al .). Such disturbance is part of the price we pay for freedom. People might also be disturbed, annoyed, and upset by the blaring sirens of an ambulance rushing through the neighborhood. Yet the noise serves a purpose: People’s lives are at stake, and the ambulance must be given the right of way.
5. I too am concerned about little children who see graphic images. I am also concerned about the littler children those images depict. The key factor that will make the difference in how children react to seeing anything disturbing is the role of their parents, who are present in a loving and comforting way, answering their questions and calming their fears. But to say that the presence of children in a neighborhood forbids the use of graphic images leads to an absurd conclusion, for what neighborhoods have no children? Is free speech to be limited to adult-only communities? And even then, what is to be done for the adults who complain?

It seems to me, furthermore, that if we find it difficult to explain images of abortion to our children we will find it even more difficult to explain why we didn’t do more to stop abortion itself. The bottom line is that if graphic images of abortion are too terrible to look at, then the abortions themselves are too terrible to tolerate. We need to expose the injustice, and then direct our displeasure toward those allow the injustice to continue, not toward those who speak against it.

con’t

 

[Philothea53]

…con’t

Following is a letter on this same topic:

July 20, 1995

Dear Editor,

“There are no charts, no words, that can convey what these photographs can,” argued prosecutor Brian Kelberg in a regent dispute over whether photos of the slashed murder victims could be shown to O.J. Simpson’s jurors.

The defense had argued that the photos were too distressing and sickening, and should not be shown. Charts and diagrams were suggested as an alternative. But the judge allowed the photos.

Similar concern was raised in a Congressional Subcommittee hearing in June when diagrams of the partial-birth abortion procedure showed how scissors are placed in the child’s head prior to its exit from the birth canal. Some raised a complaint that it was inappropriate to show the brutal diagrams in the halls of Congress. (Never mind that the reality is allowed, just don’t show the drawings.) This incident in Congress reminded me of the scene in the movie Judgment at Nuremburg where the films of the Nazi atrocities were actually shown in Court. When the film ended and the lights came back on, the defense argued that it was not appropriate to show the films in court.

Social evils cannot be addressed unless they are faced. Denial gets us nowhere. “These photographs show what happened to these two people,” Mr. Kelberg correctly stated. It’s time more people saw the photos and films of what has happened to some 30 million babies by abortion. Anyone willing to defend abortion ought to be willing to see one, and those who fight abortion ought to be willing to expose it. Only then will enough people feel the appropriate sense of outrage needed to make the sacrifices necessary to end this injustice. Prudence must be used in all things, but prudence also involves enduring discomfort in order to root out evil. Just ask Violet, who wrote to a Catholic paper a few years ago, and said that on her way to get an abortion she saw graphic posters that brought her “back to reality.” She decided to have her baby. She said, “It was the best decision I will ever make.”

Sincerely,

Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director

 

[KarenNC]

Fr Pavone’s tracking system is not anecdotal evidence.

Could you provide a link to his “tracking system” and the results thereof? All I have been able to find so far are testimonials which are precisely and entirely anecdotal evidence.

When people opposed to the graphics were asked to apply the PDE, they flatly refused to do so. Two made incomplete gestures toward PDE which did not cut the mustard.

You are going to have to go through post #725 and #726 and tell me how this represents an “incomplete gesture” toward PDE and exactly how they “did not cut the mustard.”

You’re either part of the solution or you’re part of the problem. Demonstrate to us that you are raising funds and organizing scientists to study the relative effectiveness of different marketing approaches.

Sorry, this is merely a diversion. Either your methods are supportable in this manner on their own merits or they are not. What others are doing does not determine that.

Also, I must question whether some of you are even bothering to discuss. It seems to me that you are merely posting your unsupported OPINIONS over and over and over. I have posted a variety of materials to which – so far – only Teflon and Philothea have had the courtesy to reply.

You know, some people might categorize what appears to be a complete refusal to even acknowledge that someone has taken your posted material and replied to it point by point in detail as a “refusal to discuss.”

Exactly which posts of yours do you feel have been unjustly ignored?

 

[Philothea53]

Ani Ibi, Philothea, bmmckinney, estesbob, what are the ages of your children?

What is the age of Father Pavone’s children?

I have step-daughters that are 36 and 37, they have daughters that are 21, 18, 10 and 7 and I have sons that are 28, 26, and 23.

If you do some math you’ll see that the 21 year old was born (to the oldest step-daughter when she was just 15 years old. It took an education to keep her from aborting.

As to Father Pavone - his children are all ages. The flock he shepherds, those he loves and cares for, come from all age groups. That’s why we call him Father.

 

[Philothea53]

You know, some people might categorize what appears to be a complete refusal to even acknowledge that someone has taken your posted material and replied to it point by point in detail as a “refusal to discuss.”

Maybe at some point one might consider that this someone wants to beat a dead horse (sorry for the sick analogy.) You want to pick posts apart - go for it. You’ve not been able to show that your assertions of long-term (or even short-term) psychological damage to any children is provable. Everything you’ve said has been opinion. I think you are arguing because you are stubborn and don’t want to admit it because you’ve gone so far and now your pride is in the way. At least, I would prefer to think it is pride rather than that you are truly pro-abortion and using this as an angle.

Oh, yeah, I asked what method you would have us use to get this information to the public that hasn’t already been tried. You never answered.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Father in Heaven,
We lift up Fr Pavone to You
that You may continue to guide him
and give him strength.
Let his voice be Your Voice
and may the truth he speaks
be not withheld from those who hunger for it:
the unborn who lie trustingly in their mother’s wombs,
women blessed with pregnancy,
fathers of the unborn,
families and friends of the unborn,
and all of us whose lives are enriched
by the existence of the souls of the unborn.
Give us the sense and sensibility
to never turn our eyes away
from this slaughter of innocents.
Bless the eyes which see.
In the Name of Your Son Jesus Christ
Who was sacrificed
so that we may be saved.
Amen.

 

[KarenNC]

…con’t

Following is a letter on this same topic:

July 20, 1995

Dear Editor,

“There are no charts, no words, that can convey what these photographs can,” argued prosecutor Brian Kelberg in a regent dispute over whether photos of the slashed murder victims could be shown to O.J. Simpson’s jurors.

Who has objected to showing photos to adult jurors? In exactly which other venues that were actually readily available to preschoolers were these photos shown? A jury room is pretty clearly an example of a venue in which one has the reasonable expectation that young children will not be present accidentally.

Similar concern was raised in a Congressional Subcommittee hearing in June … Some raised a complaint that it was inappropriate to show the brutal diagrams in the halls of Congress.

Not a lot of preschoolers regularly taking part in Congressional Subcommittees. Can’t speak absolutely for the halls of Congress (if by that the actual hallways are meant), but I would think it reasonable to conclude that the number of preschoolers likely to be there would be small and that it would be entirely possible to put up a sign as in a museum that graphic images are ahead. This would constitute a reasonable effort in my book.

This incident in Congress reminded me of the scene in the movie Judgment at Nuremburg where the films of the Nazi atrocities were actually shown in Court. When the film ended and the lights came back on, the defense argued that it was not appropriate to show the films in court.

Again, don’t recall that there were lots of preschoolers present at the Nuremburg trials, either.

Anyone willing to defend abortion ought to be willing to see one,

I haven’t exactly heard that there were tons of preschoolers out protesting or carrying signs on either side of the issue unless their parents have specifically brought them there.

Only then will enough people feel the appropriate sense of outrage needed to make the sacrifices necessary to end this injustice.

I continue to await the evidence that shows that it is indeed both necessary and unavoidable to sacrifice the innocence of our young children to “end this injustice.”

Prudence must be used in all things, but prudence also involves enduring discomfort in order to root out evil.

prudence
1 : the ability to govern and discipline oneself by the use of reason
2 : sagacity or shrewdness in the management of affairs
3 : skill and good judgment in the use of resources
4 : caution or circumspection as to danger or risk

We are precisely asking that you use good judgement in your use of resources and caution and circumspection as to the risk of exposing these images to young children, and that you govern and discipline yourself in such by the use of reason based on actual evidence, not just testimonials.

Just ask Violet, who wrote to a Catholic paper a few years ago, and said that on her way to get an abortion she saw graphic posters that brought her “back to reality.” She decided to have her baby. She said, “It was the best decision I will ever make.”

Exactly where did she (an adult, btw) see these images? The previous post tells us
*“Violet Sherringford of New Jersey, who went to an abortion facility and found pro-life protesters there. *”

 

[KarenNC]

I have step-daughters that are 36 and 37, they have daughters that are 21, 18, 10 and 7 and I have sons that are 28, 26, and 23.

If you do some math you’ll see that the 21 year old was born (to the oldest step-daughter when she was just 15 years old. It took an education to keep her from aborting.

Fair enough.

At what ages did you find it prudent to show your children and grandchildren these photos of mutilated corpses of babies?

 

[seekerz]

It is not uncharitable to hold you to account for what you said. This is what you said:

For Fr Pavone to say he doesn’t get complaints when he gets them would be to question the truth of his portrayal of the evidence. Be as dumbfounded as you like.
.

You’re just being facetious now. Nobody, not Philothea53 and not me, ever wrote that Fr Pavone says he doesn’t get complaints. She said:

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

Far be it from me to question the integrity of a priest. I’m a Catholic - I know better. I also know there are members of the clergy who do not agree with the indiscriminate use of graphic photos of abortion. I respect those on both sides of the issue.

 

[Philothea53]

From Fr. Pavone’s article at post # 747.

1. I too am concerned about little children who see graphic images. I am also concerned about the littler children those images depict. The key factor that will make the difference in how children react to seeing anything disturbing is the role of their parents, who are present in a loving and comforting way, answering their questions and calming their fears. But to say that the presence of children in a neighborhood forbids the use of graphic images leads to an absurd conclusion, for what neighborhoods have no children? Is free speech to be limited to adult-only communities? And even then, what is to be done for the adults who complain?

It seems to me, furthermore, that if we find it difficult to explain images of abortion to our children we will find it even more difficult to explain why we didn’t do more to stop abortion itself. The bottom line is that if graphic images of abortion are too terrible to look at, then the abortions themselves are too terrible to tolerate. We need to expose the injustice, and then direct our displeasure toward those allow the injustice to continue, not toward those who speak against it.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Karen:

Ani Ibi, Philothea, bmmckinney, estesbob, what are the ages of your children?

I do not discuss my family with strangers over the internet. Moreover it is against the forum rules for you to request this information.

Banned topic 11. Solicitation of personal information (e.g., age, income, or location), beyond that freely offered by members through inclusion in their public profiles.

By the way, why haven’t you included our good buddy vern humphrey? What is he chopped liver these days?

Karen:

What is the age of Father Pavone’s children?

Guess what? You just got yourself some homework. Email the good father and ask him yourself. Let us know how he replies to you. We will be praying that his reply has some effect on your heart. May your eyes too be blessed.