Fr. Pavone on the use of graphic images of abortion

[Philothea53]

You really haven’t established that showing young children large graphic posters of the mutilated bodies of babies without their parents consent or will, is doing anything to “help” anyone but your own ego.

How is any of this about ego?

 

[sprout]

How about this one instead.

Four year old:
“Why did the mommy not want her baby?”

Caring parent:
“Oh, I’m sure she did, honey. But maybe she didn’t have any money to buy food for her baby(or didn’t think she could be a good mommy or she was sick and she didn’t have someone to help her take care of her baby).”

Four year old:
“How come, Mommy?”

Caring parent:
I don’t know, honey, but I sure am glad that I have you. You are the most important person in the world to me. I love you! (again big hug and raspberry kisses ilicit giggles and four year old is on to four year old things.)

So, you see, abortion is what that child may have seen but you instead turn it into a lesson that some people have less and set your child up for future lessons in caring for the less fortunate. You set him up for future lessons on what can be done to ensure that mothers can’t say that because they don’t have ______ they have to kill their child. You reassure him that even with everything else that goes on in the world you are there and love him. No mention of abortion. Parenting 101

This conversation in response to a giant sized poster image of a dismembered, bloody, mutilated, body of child???

You’re actually suggesting we tell a 4 year child who has just seen a giant sized poster image of a dismembered, bloody, mutilated, body of child that his/her Mommy did this to him/her because “she didn’t have any money to buy food for her baby(or didn’t think she could be a good mommy or she was sick and she didn’t have someone to help her take care of her baby).”

Pilothea, can you see anything wrong with this scenario? Don’t you think perhaps that by telling a child this after seeing the dead remains of a murdered child that, perhaps (I’m trying to be gentle here) he/she might be tormented with thoughts that if Mommy

didn’t have any money to buy food
didn’t think she could be a good mommy
was sick
or didn’t have help

then they, too, might meet the same fate?

even if they didn’t feel they would meet the same fate, what would such a message say to their self-esteem?

And you call this Parenting 101?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Young children don’t need to know what abortion is. When they are mature enough ( a matter for parents to decide), then it’s appropriate.

So, if that is true, then why are you making such a big fuss about children seeing images on posters and busdrivers talking to them?

And what evidence to you have for what you say? Oh I forgot. None.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

seekerz:

Let me cut through the repetitious stuff

Oh happy dance: we can expect some new information from you then?

seekerz:

According to my interpretation of Philothea53’s description of some abortion pics, they look like what comes out of the suction machine and not like a baby. My comment is, in that case, what’s the point of showing such photos?

Because it is part of the story. Normally people see more than one poster. They see babies killed at various stages of their development. They see babies looking like babies and then they see bloodied babies and then they see mutilated babies. It is a human story; a tragedy. Also there are folks there who can talk to passersby.

I am wondering if you would demonstrate some courtesy and answer some of my questions.

 

[Philothea53]

Sorry, but it is a physical impossibility for a baby to pass through a suction machine. Baby parts do and afterwards they often don’t look like much more than tissue. So my question still is why show tissue to those who believe they would be aborting tissue?

If a formed baby is shown, it likely has been aborted in some other way rather than being suctioned out, in which case it should be clear to anyone above the age of 5 (or perhaps younger) that they are seeing head-torso-limbs of a human being.

From PriestsforLife:
Suction Curettage Abortion

A common first trimester abortion procedure is the suction and curettage method. The abortionist begins by dilating the mom’s cervix until it is large enough to allow a cannula to be inserted into her uterus. The cannula is a hollow plastic tube that is connected to a vacuum-type pump by a flexible hose. The abortionist runs the tip of the cannula along the surface of the uterus causing the baby to be dislodged and sucked into the tube - either whole or in pieces. Amniotic fluid and the placenta are likewise suctioned through the tube and, together with the other body parts, end up in a collection jar. Any remaining parts are scraped out of the uterus with a surgical instrument called a curette. Following that, another pass is made through the mom’s uterus with the suction machine to help insure that none of the baby’s body parts have been left behind. The contents of the collection jar are examined to assure that all fetal parts and an adequate amount of tissue commensurate with gestational age are present.

Here is a medical diagram of a Suction and Curettage procedure performed on a 9-week old baby.
priestsforlife.org/resources/medical/suctionweb.jpg

Here is a picture of a baby aborted by use of suction priestsforlife.org/resources/photosbyage/weeks32.html

Here are body parts of babies aborted by use of suction
priestsforlife.org/resources/photosbyage/weeks50.html

priestsforlife.org/resources/photosbyage/weeks53.html

These babies are very much recognizable as babies, not blobs of tissue. Don’t buy into the lie.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

sprout:

You really haven’t established that showing young children large graphic posters of the mutilated bodies of babies without their parents consent or will, is doing anything to “help” anyone but your own ego.

Oh but we have. Numerous times. You have responded to nothing we have posted in the way of evidence. Neither have you deigned to bestir yourself to post evidence for any of your seemingly numberless identical tautologies.

Have you found out what social contract is yet?

 

[Philothea53]

This conversation in response to a giant sized poster image of a dismembered, bloody, mutilated, body of child???

You’re actually suggesting we tell a 4 year child who has just seen a giant sized poster image of a dismembered, bloody, mutilated, body of child that his/her Mommy did this to him/her because “she didn’t have any money to buy food for her baby(or didn’t think she could be a good mommy or she was sick and she didn’t have someone to help her take care of her baby).”

Pilothea, can you see anything wrong with this scenario? Don’t you think perhaps that by telling a child this after seeing the dead remains of a murdered child that, perhaps (I’m trying to be gentle here) he/she might be tormented with thoughts that if Mommy

didn’t have any money to buy food
didn’t think she could be a good mommy
was sick
or didn’t have help

then they, too, might meet the same fate?

even if they didn’t feel they would meet the same fate, what would such a message say to their self-esteem.

And you call this Parenting 101? D

Sure I see plenty wrong but it’s with your debating techniques.

Forum 101: Click on the arrow next to my name and follow it back to the post I was responding to. You can even click on the arrow next to that posters name and see where the conversation originated. Maybe then you can more fairly protray what I was writing about.

For the other posters who might read this post that has been so badly taken out of context, I was responding to a quote that Vern used early that someone else had made up with a ridiculous idiotic scenario

Once again, you are forcing me to have a conversation with my four year old about something that she does not have the experience or knowledge to comprehend.

“Why did the mommy not want her baby?”

“Because she was gang-raped, honey.”

“What’s gang-rape?”

So, you see, abortion is that act that you are portraying, but I am left with trying to explain all the actions that preceed the abortion.
Unless you want to make it easy for me and post gang-rape pictures.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

sprout:

…You’re actually suggesting we tell a 4 year child who has just seen a giant sized poster image of a dismembered, bloody, mutilated, body of child that his/her Mommy did this to him/her because “she didn’t have any money to buy food for her baby(or didn’t think she could be a good mommy or she was sick and she didn’t have someone to help her take care of her baby).”

You take issue with this response? Then what is YOUR ALTERNATIVE? How would you prepare your child to understand abortion? I’ve given you links so that you are not high and dry. What would you do? Rather than criticizing everyone else, the ball’s in your court.

PS: we are 78 posts away from killing the thread.

 

[sprout]

Oh but we have. Numerous times. You have responded to nothing we have posted in the way of evidence. Neither have you deigned to bestir yourself to post evidence for any of your seemingly numberless identical tautologies.

Have you found out what social contract is yet?

Oh, please, I must have missed the “evidence” of which you speak that proves that "showing young children large graphic posters of the mutilated bodies of babies without their parents consent or will, is an “effective” means of stopping abortion. Can you link me to the post/posts?

I did read the social contract stuff that’s been posted here. I agree with Seekerz & Karen. In any event, none of your “social contract” stuff is “evidence” that showing young children large graphic posters of the mutilated bodies of babies without their parents consent or will, is indeed moral or “effective” in stopping abortion.

I wouldn’t call posting the statistics on Catholic women who abort, women who have been taught the horrors of abortion, a “lack of evidence” let alone “numberless identical tautologies”.

 

[seekerz]

From PriestsforLife:
Suction Curettage Abortion

Here is a medical diagram of a Suction and Curettage procedure performed on a 9-week old baby.
priestsforlife.org/resources/medical/suctionweb.jpg

Here is a picture of a baby aborted by use of suction priestsforlife.org/resources/photosbyage/weeks32.html

Here are body parts of babies aborted by use of suction
priestsforlife.org/resources/photosbyage/weeks50.html

priestsforlife.org/resources/photosbyage/weeks53.html

These babies are very much recognizable as babies, not blobs of tissue. Don’t buy into the lie.

I’m not buying into any lie. My abhorrence of abortion lies not in what babies look like but in the fact that only God has the authority over life and death. I do not base my beliefs on emotions.

I have to say that these are clearly recognizable to anyone as babies not just tissue - so, my apologies there.

But how can you say children would not recognize them as babies? Those tiny fingers on the coin are clearly human and would bring a chorus of who’s and why’s from any 5yr old I know.

You have even further convinced me that young children should not be exposed to these photos. I closed the windows as soon as I heard little footsteps approaching.

 

[seekerz]

You take issue with this response? Then what is YOUR ALTERNATIVE? How would you prepare your child to understand abortion? I’ve given you links so that you are not high and dry. What would you do? Rather than criticizing everyone else, the ball’s in your court.

PS: we are 78 posts away from killing the thread.

You know what I take issue with in that response? Teaching the child the excuses that people offer to justify taking the life of a baby.

And yes, it would be scary to a 5yr old to think that poverty or illness could cause a mother to not want her child. He might be terrified if Dad ever lost his job or Mom ever got hospitalised.

 

[Philothea53]

I’m not buying into any lie. My abhorrence of abortion lies not in what babies look like but in the fact that only God has the authority over life and death. I do not base my beliefs on emotions.

I have to say that these are clearly recognizable to anyone as babies not just tissue - so, my apologies there.

But how can you say children would not recognize them as babies? Those tiny fingers on the coin are clearly human and would bring a chorus of who’s and why’s from any 5yr old I know.

You have even further convinced me that young children should not be exposed to these photos. I closed the windows as soon as I heard little footsteps approaching.

YOU SAID:

Sorry, but it is a physical impossibility for a baby to pass through a suction machine. Baby parts do and afterwards they often don’t look like much more than tissue. So my question still is why show tissue to those who believe they would be aborting tissue?

If a formed baby is shown, it likely has been aborted in some other way rather than being suctioned out, in which case it should be clear to anyone above the age of 5 (or perhaps younger) that they are seeing head-torso-limbs of a human being.

My statement to not buy into the lie was in direct response to what I have quoted you as saying above. The way you answered sounded very pro-choice lie.

Now in your latest post you say:

My abhorrence of abortion lies not in what babies look like but in the fact that only God has the authority over life and death.

Do you realize you jump all over the map with your reasons and you switch gears in the middle of discussions? It is so hard to have a conversation with you.

I will admit I used some of the more recognizable-as-babies photos to prove my point that that babies killed by suction abortion can be recognized as such but I still firmly believe that youngsters would not be able to independently identify these pictures on the sides of actual truth trucks as those of babies.

operationrescue.org/photos/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=16580

operationrescue.org/photos/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=16584&g2_GALLERYSID=162d45d98f06f48e6ad57b67a96acd7a

operationrescue.org/photos/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=16593

Hopefully after seeing the pictures on the truth trucks, adults and even teens, especially those who are sexually active, would go to the website and see the “rest of the story” as it where.

 

[KarenNC]

Wow, you guys have been busy. I take a bit to go to church and a homeschool association meeting and pages have gone by. I am obviously not going to be able to respond to all the messages, but want to go back and answer what I can, which means I may be combining answers to several posts from an individual poster.

Planned Parenthood sprang from the Birth Control Movement which sprang from the heart of Margaret Sanger. Margaret Sanger was not promoting the choice of African Americans for ‘justice and liberty for all.’

She was promoting the choice of herself and those of her ilk to live in a country depopulated of African Americans – at least insofar as African Americans chose not to be slaves hidden in the kitchen and in the shed at the end of the master’s field.

Supporting evidence for this statement?

To fully understand what I am saying, you will have had to have read the section of PDE on proximal and remote intention of the object of the act. So why haven’t you? And yes I can tell that you haven’t, because your posts do not refer to any part of PDE in any specific cogent way.

I remain curious as to why you have totally ignored my point by point discussion of the application of PDE to this topic. I even used your preferred source rather than the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the New Catholic Encyclopedia.

It was in posts #725 and 726. As to my answer to your stance on proximate and indirect intentions, I will reiterate it here:

ascensionhealth.org/ethics/public/issues/intention.asp

In some cases, it is necessary to distinguish between what one directly intends and what is indirectly intended in the performance of a particular action. Such cases arise when a particular action has two inseparable consequences. A direct intention is that which the agent would choose as the desired object of the action, which also constitutes the essential or proximate intention of the act. 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.** This understanding of direct and indirect intent is an essential element of the principle of double effect.*

You and others have failed to show a) any evidence that you would indeed have chosen to avoid this particular means or b) any evidence that it is impossible to avoid it and still achieve the goal of reducing the number of abortions.

Because you have and continue to deliberately choose a means that is not proven to be unavoidable, and plenty of evidence (including the ever popular “testimonial”) has been presented that there are harmful effects from this particular means (as well as plenty of testimonials provided from your side that these photos reach women in other ways and do prevent abortions), I contend that working to achieve the goal of preventing abortion through the means of indiscriminate showing of graphic photographs of dismembered and bloody corpses of babies in ways that any reasonable person can foresee they will be accessible to young children fails the test of the principle of double effect.

Age appropriate education is about the method used to impart information according to the child’s method of finding things out.

Bingo. The method of showing graphic bloody photographs of mutilated babies is not an age appropriate method for presenting information to preschoolers any more than using giant photographs of a child with her head crushed flat under a tire, eyeballs hanging by the optic nerves, blood and brains spattered all over is an age appropriate method of teaching a child about road safety.

It is not OUR duty to educate YOUR children.

Then why in the world do you keep insisting on attempting to do so?

It is not necessary to teach children the details of reproduction before they learn that abortion is a bad thing. The basis for teaching about abortion is not the reproductive system, but the dignity and worth of every human person…

In exactly what way does a tractor trailer sized photograph of bloody baby parts teach “the dignity and worth of every human person?”

 

[sprout]

Sure I see plenty wrong but it’s with your debating techniques.

Forum 101: Click on the arrow next to my name and follow it back to the post I was responding to. You can even click on the arrow next to that posters name and see where the conversation originated. Maybe then you can more fairly protray what I was writing about.

For the other posters who might read this post that has been so badly taken out of context, I was responding to a quote that Vern used early that someone else had made up with a ridiculous idiotic scenario

Pilothea, PLEASE, try to stay on topic here. We are discussing showing gory, bloody, mutilated bodies of children killed in abortion to young children.

When the child asks** in response to seeing these bloody, gory, mutilated bodies** as your response to vern indicates:

“Why did the mommy not want her baby?”

“Because she was gang-raped, honey.”

“What’s gang-rape?”

So, you see, abortion is that act that you are portraying, but I am left with trying to explain all the actions that preceed the abortion.
Unless you want to make it easy for me and post gang-rape pictures.

Gang rape was only this previous posters answer to the question the child asked “Why did the mommy not want her baby”?

It shows how difficult and at a loss parents are to answer these questions in a way that will protect and guide rather than frighten and prematurely compromise a child’s innocence.

This difficulty is compounded exponentially when it is unexpected and on the spot i.e. driving in traffic and encountering one of these trucks, driving to school or the market, going to the beach or park, places where it wouldn’t be expected to view mutiliated body parts of children.

I would think that a reasonable person who really wanted to “effectively” teach young children about abortion in a way that’s age appropriate so they could understand would respect that the parents, since they know their child best, to determine the time and place AT THEIR OWN DISCRETION when they are prepared to do so.

It’s really a matter of random vs. targeted, haphazard vs. careful planning, discrimination vs. indiscrimination, prudence vs. carelessness.

 

[KarenNC]

And here is what they could get if you don’t prepare yourselves to prepare your children:

Abortion lessons for schoolchildren

First, let us acknowledge the fact that this article refers to suggestions for sex education in England, not America and comes from an entertainment guide to London. I have been discussing the social contract in American society and the action of abortion protesters in America. If you want to discuss a social contract you have to stay within one society. I cannot reasonably discuss with you actions of Americans based on the social contract of Chinese society, for instance.

I find no evidence in the information from the Independent Advisory Group on Teenage Pregnancy’s website on the Personal Social and Health Education guidelines that primary school education includes anything other than puberty, names of body parts, relating to others, being a good citizen, asking for help if needed and how babies are conceived and born
dfes.gov.uk/teenagepregnancy/dsp_showDoc.cfm?FileName=Sex%20and%20Relationship%20Guidance%2Epdf (see pp. 21 and 22 of the pdf). Abortion is mentioned on page 18, and is encouraged to involve parents and ways for children to discuss this with their parents, as well as being open to being able to talk about moral and personal dilemmas about it.

Also, the quote from Dr. Sheffield was from a response to the original article, not part of the original article as implied by your quote, nor was Dr. Sheffield either the author of or a contributer to the article.

Your methods should meet the standards of reason, reference, and the social contract.

Yes, yours should.

 

[sprout]

You take issue with this response? Then what is YOUR ALTERNATIVE? How would you prepare your child to understand abortion? I’ve given you links so that you are not high and dry. What would you do? Rather than criticizing everyone else, the ball’s in your court.

PS: we are 78 posts away from killing the thread.

I read your links. Fr. Pavone’s article didn’t even discuss what when, or where to tell your young child.

The other article was on aborion/sex ed being taught in schools.

As part of my involvment with a Pregnancy Center I took a course on Abstinence training. This course made it a point to stress “age appropriateness” and contrasted their “age appropriate” method with the kind of “inappropriate” material being taught to children as young as 6 in kindergartens by the Kinsey influenced public school system.

One of the consistent complaints from the religious, prolife community and mostly parents of school age children with regards to public sex ed is that the public school district’s sex education programs are too explicit, represents the minority view among parents, and information about sex should only be taught at home where parents can impart their own values to their children.

The same can be said for those of us who oppose the indiscrimate, explicit, showing of young children these graphic images of aborted children and for the same reasons.

 

[Philothea53]

Pilothea, PLEASE, try to stay on topic here. We are discussing showing gory, bloody, mutilated bodies of children killed in abortion to young children.

When the child asks** in response to seeing these bloody, gory, mutilated bodies** as your response to vern indicates:

If you saw that this was a response to seeing bloody, gory, mutilated bodies then you have better eyes than I. It wasn’t in Vern’s post and he provided no link to such a statement. And are you saying that speaking of gang rape would have been a proper response? Where is the argument?

Gang rape was only this previous posters answer to the question the child asked “Why did the mommy not want her baby”?

And the stupidity of answering a child in that way is exactly what I addressed in my response.

I was very much on topic. I replied to the post as written. I did not add in what I assumed the poster was saying. That doesn’t negate my answer nor the rest of my responses along this line about how to respond to children when they have seen these pictures. I can not help it if you pick and choose which posts to read and cut and paste the parts you specifically wish to reply to without knowing how the ‘thread’ evolved.

Forum 101 con’t: If you leave and return you can read the posts you missed before responding. If you choose not to then recognize you could be jumping into the middle of something that you might not fully understand or or you may take it out of context.

 

[sprout]

QUOTE=Philothea53;2669261]If you saw that this was a response to seeing bloody, gory, mutilated bodies then you have better eyes than I. It wasn’t in Vern’s post and he provided no link to such a statement.

I’ll take this real slow and easy Pilothea53

why is the child in vern’s scenario asking the question “Why did the mommy not want her baby?”

Seems like if it was a question out of the blue it would be worded something more along the lines of “Why don’t mommies want their babies?” but that aside…

It is because the child has seen something. It can only be safely assumed the child is asking in response to the TOPIC OF THIS DISCUSSION “the use of graphic images of abortion” since THAT IS what we are discussing in this thread "the use of graphic images of abortion. It’s not a matter of having better eyes. It’s a matter of staying on topic, which btw: can be clearly viewed in the “title” line of the thread if you’re unable to stay focused on the discussion at hand.

So is it your contention that you were not offering an explanation to a child who has just seen “graphic images of abortion”? A child who just “out of the blue” somewhere out of left field asked “Why did **the mommy **not want her baby”?

Because, IMHO either way your response to the child is inappropriate and potentially damaging. Seekerz makes a really good point, too, it’s the lack of trust in God, it’s the offense against God that is the crime.

 

[Philothea53]

I’ll take this real slow and easy Pilothea53

why is the child in vern’s scenario asking the question “Why did the mommy not want her baby?”

Seems like if it was a question out of the blue it would be worded something more along the lines of “Why don’t mommies want their babies?” but that aside…

It is because the child has seen something. It can only be safely assumed the child is asking in response to the TOPIC OF THIS DISCUSSION “the use of graphic images of abortion” since THAT IS what we are discussing in this thread "the use of graphic images of abortion. It’s not a matter of having better eyes. It’s a matter of staying on topic, which btw: can be clearly viewed in the “title” line of the thread if you’re unable to stay focused on the discussion at hand.

So is it your contention that you were not offering an explanation to a child who has just seen “graphic images of abortion”? A child who just “out of the blue” somewhere out of left field asked “Why did **the mommy **not want her baby”?

Because, IMHO either way your response to the child is inappropriate and potentially damaging. Seekerz makes a really good point, too, it’s the lack of trust in God, it’s the offense against God that is the crime.

Sprout, in post 915 I think it was, you had occasion, actually unmitigated gall, to accuse someone of ego being their motivation in this -]argument/-] debate. I guess it takes one to know one?

FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD -------
just ask the ~50 million babies who have been murdered while you’ve been flaunting your ego.

 

[KarenNC]

I guess I see things differently for in the first place I was a stay-at-home Mom except for a few very short forays into the ‘working’ world for extra Christmas money or whatever so I didn’t have to worry much about anyone other than me teaching my kids what I wanted them to learn at an early age

I have also been a stay at home mom since the birth of my daughter, including continuing to stay at home to homeschool her.

In the second place, although Karen seems to question my knowledge of children (after raising five and now working in an elementary school),

I have questioned your assertion that children ages 2-7 can’t see anything or recognize anything beyond the ends of their noses, would not recognize anything that they passed by while riding in a car and that preschoolers would be unable to see anything out of schoolbus windows, certainly. The additional information that you work in an elementary school leaves me further confused as to how you could make such statements, I admit.

I just can’t get what the problem is. No one is going into your home or your child’s school with these pictures and holding your child captive.

Actually they are indeed parking these trucks outside homes and in the parking lots of apartment complexes.

Think this family (and their neighbors) are not held captive by the trucks?
operationrescue.org/photos/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=1669

Let’s look at where one site says “we go”
truthtruck.com/where_we_go.php
*We’ve been everywhere and done everything (Well, almost!). We’ve been to hundreds of cities, large and small, all across America

We go to the busy downtown areas … to the big shopping malls … to the crowded beaches … to sporting events … we get in city parades - wherever there are lots of people - we’re there!

We’ve been to the Super Bowl … the Olympics in Salt Lake City … the Democratic Convention … the St. Patrick’s Day Parade … Mardi Gras in New Orleans … the Daytona 500 in Florida … to the biggest abortion clinics in the country … even to the big Planned Parenthood fundraisers!

You name it, we’ve done it, or will do it.*

You have choices and you have recourse.

That is precisely what we are asking for----the option to make choices. These indiscriminate campaigns remove that option.

You can bet your bottom dollar ain’t nobody gonna tell my kids things that are wrong/improper/differ from my values. Not as preschoolers, not even as high schoolers. On the few times something did come up, I reassured my child then MADE DARN SURE IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.

Absolutely. What do you think I have been working to do since I joined this thread?

Unless a child has received an education in what a baby looks like after going through the suction machine in an abortionist’s office, a 2 - 7 year old could not even identify the image on most of these truth trucks or banners as a baby.

Let’s take a look at the Center for Bioethical Reform’s choice of plane banner shall we? abortionno.org/RCC/plane_banners.html

or some of the trucks from Operation Rescue
operationrescue.org/photos/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=2947
operationrescue.org/photos/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=2626

parked in a neighborhood accompanied by singing Christmas carols to attract the neighbors’ attention
operationrescue.org/photos/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=2370

operationrescue.org/photos/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=370 (note that the side of the truck has a live baby just to help point out the message in case anyone didn’t recognize the picture on the back)

missionariestopreborn.com/midatlanticphotos/Two_truth_trucks_traveled_with_us_all_along_the_way.jpg

truthtruck.com/the_vision.php (again, with the comparison developmental photo, so no mistake can be made)

If your children between the ages of 2-7 could not identify these as human, then I reiterate that they need or needed their vision checked.