Fr. Pavone on the use of graphic images of abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Caveman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is interesting that we had many of the same people who want to restrict free speech where abortion pictures who are concerned in that thread wanted to restrict free speech about homosexual behavior. In one case they want to protect their children from the idea abortion is wrong in the other they want to protect their child from the idea that homosexuality is wrong. Free speech loses in both cases.
Factual accuracy is the one that is threatened in both cases.

In what way is asking folks to read the actual text of a bill that they are protesting and show in which ways it says what they claim it says “restricting free speech”?

It is the side that is claiming that the bill actually restricts free speech that is in error, and I pointed out that error. They are claiming restriction when there is none, only restriction on harmful actions, so, yes, I guess I can see the connection to this thread.
 
Factual accuracy is the one that is threatened in both cases.

In what way is asking folks to read the actual text of a bill that they are protesting and show in which ways it says what they claim it says “restricting free speech”?

It is the side that is claiming that the bill actually restricts free speech that is in error, and I pointed out that error. They are claiming restriction when there is none, only restriction on harmful actions, so, yes, I guess I can see the connection to this thread.
As both threads show people can always come up with rationalazations as to why speech they dont like should be banned.
 
As both threads show people can always come up with rationalazations as to why speech they dont like should be banned.
Where in this thread has anyone called for a ban on the use of these images rather than discretion and discrimination in the targeting of the audience according to established American societal norms of conduct toward young children?
 
Where in this thread has anyone called for a ban on the use of these images rather than discretion and discrimination in the targeting of the audience according to established American societal norms of conduct toward young children?
Who determines what discretion and discmination is? Unless it is the people showing the pictures then you are restrciting free speech.
 
Who determines what discretion and discmination is? Unless it is the people showing the pictures then you are restrciting free speech.
Society as a whole, sometimes through relevant authorities, determines what behavior meets the standards of common human decency, not individuals or special interest groups.

In the case of Christians, the Church has the function of setting standards of decency.
 
Society as a whole, sometimes through relevant authorities, determines what behavior meets the standards of common human decency, not individuals or special interest groups.

In the case of Christians, the Church has the function of setting standards of decency.
\

So those who want to protect human life are “a special interest groups” You know I have noticed an undercurrent of didain for those involved in the pro-life ministry from many on this thread.

If you suceed in taking away my right to free speech does that mean I can do it to you also?

There is no right to not be offended in this country. Thier is no right to have you child protected form negative images in this country. And I thank God for that.
 
\

So those who want to protect human life are “a special interest groups” You know I have noticed an undercurrent of didain for those involved in the pro-life ministry from many on this thread.

If you suceed in taking away my right to free speech does that mean I can do it to you also?

There is no right to not be offended in this country. Thier is no right to have you child protected form negative images in this country. And I thank God for that.
I repeat, the right to free speech cannot be unhinged from the Christian responsibility to exhibit decency in all forms of speech.

By the way, sorry if you are offended by my use of the term “special interest groups”. Among those I would include for example groups involved in promoting the rights of disabled people, or groups promoting stricter laws against child molesters. If the term is not politically correct in application to pro-life groups, again, I apologise.
 
So those who want to protect human life are “a special interest groups”
Yes, that describes you precisely:
encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861711410

*spe·cial-in·ter·est group (plural spe·cial-in·ter·est groups) or spe·cial in·ter·est (plural spe·cial in·ter·ests)

Definition:

group trying to influence government policy: a group seeking to influence government policy in favor of an interest or issue*
You know I have noticed an undercurrent of didain for those involved in the pro-life ministry from many on this thread.
Really? I recall many posting against this activity who are themselves “involved in the pro-life ministry.” Are they therefore “disdaining” themselves?
If you suceed in taking away my right to free speech does that mean I can do it to you also?
Freedom of speech is not absolute. You certainly have an equal freedom to raise objections to behaviors which you see are ethically and morally inappropriate and are detrimental to children.
There is no right to not be offended in this country. Thier is no right to have you child protected form negative images in this country. And I thank God for that.
There is also no right to display any material you desire in any manner you desire in any location you desire to any audience you desire at any time you desire simply because you desire to do so.
 
Who determines what discretion and discmination is? Unless it is the people showing the pictures then you are restrciting free speech.
Are you then arguing that we should allow pornographers to determine an appropriate level of “discretion and discrimination” for their products lest their free speech be restricted? That advertisers who put forth fraudulent claims about their products, products which could kill or maim, are the best determiners of whether those claims are appropriate? That those who choose to deface public property with graffiti are the most reasonable arbiters of whether such shows appropriate discretion? That any teacher in a public school should be allowed to determine for him or herself which topics are appropriate to present to his students and in which way?

That Robert Mapplethorpe should have been able to display his image of the crucifix in urine, including on the street outside of a Catholic Church just before Mass, if he desired just because he had freedom of speech and that no one, including the members of the church, should have the right to speak out against such?

That anyone at any time with any view should be allowed to state that view in any way he deems fit to any audience he deems fit?

Freedom of speech is not an absolute. That is evident in every strand of our society.
 
Are you then arguing that we should allow pornographers to determine an appropriate level of “discretion and discrimination” for their products lest their free speech be restricted? That advertisers who put forth fraudulent claims about their products, products which could kill or maim, are the best determiners of whether those claims are appropriate? That those who choose to deface public property with graffiti are the most reasonable arbiters of whether such shows appropriate discretion? That any teacher in a public school should be allowed to determine for him or herself which topics are appropriate to present to his students and in which way?

That Robert Mapplethorpe should have been able to display his image of the crucifix in urine, including on the street outside of a Catholic Church just before Mass, if he desired just because he had freedom of speech and that no one, including the members of the church, should have the right to speak out against such?

That anyone at any time with any view should be allowed to state that view in any way he deems fit to any audience he deems fit?

Freedom of speech is not an absolute. That is evident in every strand of our society.
I rest my case-those protecting life are akin to pornographers. As has been evident all along those opposing these pictures really dont want the message out regardless of how it is presented
 
I repeat, the right to free speech cannot be unhinged from the Christian responsibility to exhibit decency in all forms of speech.

By the way, sorry if you are offended by my use of the term “special interest groups”. Among those I would include for example groups involved in promoting the rights of disabled people, or groups promoting stricter laws against child molesters. If the term is not politically correct in application to pro-life groups, again, I apologise.
II will be the first to admit I am hypersensitive where abotion is concerned and most would probably refer to us as a “special interest group”. My hyper-sensitivity comes first hand-counseling young women who are contemplating an abotion or men who have been directly involved in an abortion. i say we stop it by any non-violent means possible. If thats means some children (or adults) get offended by these pictures it is a very small price to pay.
 
I rest my case-those protecting life are akin to pornographers.
No, actually most pornographers seem able to understand that there are places in which it is inappropriate to display their images and audiences to which it is inappropriate to display them.

Most of those in the prolife movement also, thankfully, seem able to comprehend this.
 
No, actually most pornographers seem able to understand that there are places in which it is inappropriate to display their images and audiences to which it is inappropriate to display them.

Most of those in the prolife movement also, thankfully, seem able to comprehend this.
Do they? And you base this on your personal expereince? How many years have you been involved in the movement? Do you counsel/ OR do you just sit on the sidelines telling people how oit should be done?
 
II will be the first to admit I am hypersensitive where abotion is concerned and most would probably refer to us as a “special interest group”. My hyper-sensitivity comes first hand-counseling young women who are contemplating an abotion or men who have been directly involved in an abortion. i say we stop it by any non-violent means possible. If thats means some children (or adults) get offended by these pictures it is a very small price to pay.
Violence can take many forms, do the definition of “non-violent” varies.
 
A Case For The Use of Graphic Pictures by Jill Stanek

[Note: Jill Stanek is the nurse who exposed the practice of “live-birth abortion” at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois.]

Emmett Till was a 14-year-old black kid from Chicago. In the summer of 1955, Emmett convinced his mom to let him visit relatives in Mississippi.

Although Mrs. Till put Emmett on the train with a warning that things were different for blacks in the South, he had no idea just how different things were until he was beaten and murdered.

His crime? Whistling at and talking to a white girl.
On August 24, while hanging out with his cousins, Emmett was caught in a dare. He had told the other youngsters a white teenager in a picture he carried was his girlfriend back in Chicago. They dared him to go into a small grocery store in Money, Mississippi, owned by the Bryant family and say hello to the white woman working there. Emmett went in, bought some gum with a couple of pennies, and then said, “Bye, Baby” to Carolyn Bryant, the storeowner’s wife.(source: www.bluejeansplace.com/EmmettTillMurderSite.html)This juvenile prank led to a nightmare come to life. Three days later, two of Bryant’s relatives pulled Emmett from his uncle’s home, stripped him naked, beat him beyond recognition, shot him in the head, and dumped his body into the Tallahatchie River.

I don’t know if I would have had the wherewithal to do what Emmett’s mother did upon receiving her boy in his casket back in Chicago, but her understanding of the situation and ensuing actions helped ignite a movement and change history: Mrs. Till insisted on an open casket and encouraged Jet magazine to publish pictures of her slain, disfigured son.
She said, “After the body arrived I knew I had to look and see and make sure it was Emmett. That was when I decided that I wanted the whole world to see what I had seen. There was no way I could describe what was in that box. No way. And I just wanted the world to see.” (source: www.panopt.com/photogra/withers/fulewtill05.html) Some 50,000 people viewed Emmett’s mutilated body over the course of three days. And Jet magazine ran the pictures (www.panopt.com/photogra/withers/fulewtill05.html), which, as history unfolded, were later credited with initiating the modern-day Civil Rights movement.
*John H. Johnson, publisher of Ebony and Jet magazines, recalls… “There were people on the staff who were squeamish about the photographs. I had reservations, too, but I decided finally that if it happened it was our responsibility to print it and let the world experience man’s inhumanity to man.” Colbert I. King, today a columnist for The Washington Post, still remembers the photo he saw in Jet as a youngster. He wrote the following earlier this year: “We got the chance to see what he looked like with his skull crushed in, a bullet in his head, an eye gouged out, and his decomposed body finally freed from the barbed wire they had wrapped around his frame and the 100-pound cotton gin exhaust fan they had wired to his neck to keep him down on the bottom of the Tallahatchie….” "The issue [of *Jet], which went out on sale on September 15, 1955,’ recalled Johnson, “sold out immediately and did as much as any other event to traumatize Black America and prepare the way for the Freedom Movement of the sixties.” (source: ibid.)
 
continued…

I didn’t know Emmett’s story the first time I decided to hold a graphic picture of an aborted baby at a pro-life picket some three years ago.

I had become involved in the Illinois pro-life movement by my experience at Christ Hospital, and although I welcomed anyone’s help, I was a tad squeamish when Joe Scheidler and Pro-Life Action League came to picket with their graphic signs.

But during one particular picket, while I was quietly holding my nongraphic sign next to Joe holding his “Baby Malachi” graphic sign, I began to dwell on that little aborted baby’s picture.

I decided he looked a little older than the aborted baby I had held. I noted his dark hair and beautiful little round head, even though half his face was torn off, and his bodyless head was being held by forceps. I imagined how his hair should have smelled like baby lotion.

Suddenly, Baby Malachi became a real baby to me. And I began to feel ashamed that I was embarrassed about his one and only baby picture, grotesque as it was. I thought, what difference will Baby Malachi’s life and death make if I don’t honor him by showing the world what was done to him?

You can guess that I went over to the pile of signs then and there and picked up my own “Baby Malachi” sign. Ever since, I have purposefully held a graphic aborted baby sign at any picket I’ve attended.

It is indisputable that it was the pictures of Emmett Till’s murdered, mutilated body, and not just his story on its own merit, that sparked another movement not so long ago to stop others like Emmett from being treated as nonpersons.

Did you look at Emmett’s picture? If so, with whom did you become angry, the picture-taker or the people who did that to Emmett?

Who would have been happiest had Emmett Till’s pictures not been made public?

priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/stanekgraphics.htm

jillstanek.net/

Live Birth Abortions - The Testimony of Jill Stanek

priestsforlife.org/testimony/jillstanektestimony.htm
 
Did you look at Emmett’s picture? If so, with whom did you become angry, the picture-taker or the people who did that to Emmett?

Who would have been happiest had Emmett Till’s pictures not been made public?

priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/stanekgraphics.htm

jillstanek.net/

Live Birth Abortions - The Testimony of Jill Stanek

priestsforlife.org/testimony/jillstanektestimony.htm
Thanks you for you service to the cause. I had forotten about Emmit Till but it is a perfect example how supposedly indiscriminate display of picutres can have a profound effect on people.
 
Some 50,000 people viewed Emmett’s mutilated body over the course of three days. And Jet magazine ran the pictures (www.panopt.com/photogra/withers/fulewtill05.html), which, as history unfolded, were later credited with initiating the modern-day Civil Rights movement.
Any evidence that his body or pictures of his corpse were paraded in front of people’s homes, up and down highways and at public events? That any preschool children were at the viewing without the permission and express participation of their parents? That Jet magazine published these specific pictures of his disfigured corpse on the front cover? Or did they rather put them inside the magazine where they were accessible to anyone who wanted to see them or to show them to another, but not accessible to preschoolers walking by a coffeetable or a magazine rack?

If they were not shown on the sides of tractor trailer trucks and on the cover of every publication (and I mean the ones of his corpse, not just his picture when he was living), then by the standards of some on this thread there is no possible way they could have had any impact whatsoever.
 
Are you suggesting I need to show my child pictures of dismembered babies to teach Him that God is love or Jesus Christ is Lord?

If I teach a 5yr old that from the very moment of God began creating him in my womb, He has known and loved him, why would that not be sufficient pro-life education?

Tell me, what’s more important than teaching my child to know God (and in so doing teaching him to respect life)? Does even God have to take a back seat to the gory-picture campaign?!
Bingo! you nailed it!👍

To them it’s ALL about their works.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top