Fr. Pavone on the use of graphic images of abortion

[PLAL]

Well people are not going to stop showing graphic pictures of abortion. If you really want the graphic pictures to end, then you really need to get involved in the Pro-Life Movement so we can put an end to legalized abortion!

Showing graphic pictures of abortion may not be for you. Leave that work to those who want to do it. But there are other things you can do like…

1. Get Project Gabriel started in your Parish.
2. Start a Catholic Crisis Pregnancy Center in your community.
3. Fast & Pray for the end of abortion. This is the most important!

4.Start 24-Hour Perpetual Adoration in your Parish if you don’t already have it. Sign up for at least an hour each week for Eucharistic Adoration in your Parish. Pray for the end of abortion!

1. Pray at the Abortuary nearest to you.
2. Have Abstinence-Only Education Speakers to speak at your schools (like Jason Evert, Christopher West, Fr. Thomas Loya).
3. Promote and Vote for Pro-Life Candidates.
4. Start a Youth For Life Group.
5. If you have a large family, go to the park with all the kids & have fun with them. Others will witness the value of being open to life.

These are a few of the many things you can do to help the Pro-Life Movement! There are many others. I just listed a few.

If you are not already involved in Pro-Life, then your already half dead.

 

[estesbob]

Bingo! you nailed it!

To them it’s ALL about their works.

Sure-we’re all in it for the money and the esteem…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

…Showing graphic pictures of abortion may not be for you. Leave that work to those who want to do it. But there are other things you can do like…

It’s great to see some practical suggestions which offer a wide variety of choice in how people can help save lives.

 

[sprout]

QUOTE=PLAL;2672723

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?

We are created to know and love God. The *difference a human beings life makes *can not be reduced to how it is “useful” to us no matter how noble our cause. Read John Paul II’s book “Love & Responsibility”.

Outspoken ProLife Bishop Fred Henry states:
****“GAP in its usage of pictures of aborted children violates their human dignity, denies human remains the respect that inherently must be accorded them and reduces them to things, albeit, for an arguably good reason. The end, however, does not justify the means.” ****

Even so, the issue of debate on this thread is the “indiscriminate” use of these images. I repeat “no one here is asking that all uses of the images stop or be banned”.

Those of us who are opposed are opposed to the random, indiscriminate, haphazard, careless, thoughtless practice of placing these large trucks with mutilated bodies in neighborhoods, events, traffic, such places where young children will unecessarily be exposed. Flying banners with these images over beaches, parks, roadways. Large graphic posters on the sides of roads shown to passers-by indiscriminately where children could be unexpectedly, and unecessarily exposed.

Some of us actually work in Prolife activism and have encountered backlash and negative consequences as a result of these posters, in the form of women going into a clinic are not even willing to look at us let alone talk to us when these posters are on display. Running past them and us into to the clinic.

By your own account

*“The issue [of Jet]…**did as much as ***any other event to **traumatize **Black America and prepare the way for the Freedom Movement of the sixties.”

as much as, meaning equal to and not more than.

So since a magazine issue with photos of the mutilated corpse of a black man most likely inside the magazine did “as much as” any other event to prepare the way for the Freedom Movement then it is clearly not necessary to traumatize or expose young children with images of aborted, mutilated bodies on the sides of trucks.

A little discretion, that’s all I ask.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Ani Ibi:

If you say that it is sufficient then why are you making such a fuss over other people exercising their right of free speech to display posters of aborted babies?

seekerz:

Because it is sufficient. Young childen do not need to be taught that some mothers abort their babies and*** they do not need*** to see pictures of mutilated babies.

Circular reasoning. Strawman.

The question which you have ignored over page after page after page of this thread is on what basis do you propose to limit the right of free speech of people who hold a point of view different from your own?

You have not answered this question. You have ignored this question. You have even tried misrepresenting our point of view to claim that our focus has been on other questions. Answer the question on free speech please. At least have the courtesy to do that. Thank you.

seekerz:

As for infringing your right to free speech, that right cannot be unhinged from the Christian responsibilty to exhibit common decency in all forms of speech.

You say this yet you refuse to settle the matter by applying the Principle of Double Effect. Are we supposed to simply believe you because it is you speaking?

What is the right of free speech? What is the Christian responsibility? Where does each fall in the application of PDE?

seekerz:

And yes, I do worship the Christian God. Is there any other?!

If you worship a Christian God then why do you claim that He is taking a back seat in the pro-life campaign? You do not see people praying before each campaign? You do not see priests and ministers attending the campaigns?

Perhaps you do not see them for the same reason you do not see what we post or what we link to: you just don’t look.

Oh! I know what it is now! Maybe you didn’t know that Fr Pavone promotes the use of posters depicting aborted babies. Or maybe you didn’t know Fr Pavone has prepared educational materials for parents to prepare themselves to prepare their children. Or maybe you did know all this but didn’t know that Fr Pavone is a Catholic priest.

Gosh, I should think it would be fairly simple to find all this out simply by reading what other people post or link to. Is that too much too ask?

By the way, have you figured out the social contract in which you are participant yet?

 

[seekerz]

Well people are not going to stop showing graphic pictures of abortion.

I’m not asking them to, just requesting some respect for the young children who may see them. That includes not towing large banners over family-oriented events. What is so unreasonable about asking Christians to be reasonable?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

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.

Are you hoping these wild generalizations will stick? Society as a whole has ruled – or have you forgotten that little thing called the constitution? Christian teaching has also ruled. Perhaps your point would benefit from some reference and specificity. Wanna try that for a change?

 

[seekerz]

Circular reasoning. Strawman.

The question which you have ignored over page after page after page of this thread is on what basis do you propose to limit the right of free speech of people who hold a point of view different from your own?

You have not answered this question. You have ignored this question. You have even tried misrepresenting our point of view to claim that our focus has been on other questions. Answer the question on free speech please. At least have the courtesy to do that. Thank you.

You say this yet you refuse to settle the matter by applying the Principle of Double Effect. Are we supposed to simply believe you because it is you speaking?

What is the right of free speech? What is the Christian responsibility? Where does each fall in the application of PDE?

If you worship a Christian God then why do you claim that He is taking a back seat in the pro-life campaign? You do not see people praying before each campaign? You do not see priests and ministers attending the campaigns?

Perhaps you do not see them for the same reason you do not see what we post or what we link to: you just don’t look.

Oh! I know what it is now! Maybe you didn’t know that Fr Pavone promotes the use of posters depicting aborted babies. Or maybe you didn’t know Fr Pavone has prepared educational materials for parents to prepare themselves to prepare their children. Or maybe you did know all this but didn’t know that Fr Pavone is a Catholic priest.

Gosh, I should think it would be fairly simple to find all this out simply by reading what other people post or link to. Is that too much too ask?

By the way, have you figured out the social contract in which you are participant yet?

What is your definition of a Strawman argument?

Please do not misquote me. I never claimed this:

If you worship a Christian God then why do you claim that He is taking a back seat in the pro-life campaign?

What I did was ask…kind of like a rhetorical question…?:banghead:

 

[Ani_Ibi]

seekerz:

I repeat, the right to free speech cannot be unhinged from the Christian responsibility to exhibit decency in all forms of speech.

Since you have defined neither and failed to apply the PDE, then how does REPEATING yourself benefit your claim? Hint: it doesn’t.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

seekerz:

What is your definition of a Strawman argument?

The same as the definition for strawman which you can find on the internet. I believe I posted a link earlier.

seekerz:

Please do not misquote me. I never claimed this: What I did was ask…kind of like a rhetorical question…?

If your question was rhetorical, then it was a statement, and therefore it was a claim.

btw, it is not necessary to quote the entire post of someone to reply to only one point. Doing so makes it really difficult for others to follow the thread. I have asked you numerous times to go to the technical help forum and ask the experts there how to use the quote tags.

I have even given you links to that forum. But ONCE AGAIN you refuse to do anything we ask you to do while placing demands on us about what you want us to do. Your latest ‘exercise’ on the other thread being a case in point.

 

[seekerz]

Are you hoping these wild generalizations will stick? Society as a whole has ruled – or have you forgotten that little thing called the constitution? Christian teaching has also ruled. Perhaps your point would benefit from some reference and specificity. Wanna try that for a change?

So now the constitution sets standards of decency? Tell me, does it spell out the TV ratings system too or your child’s school’s dress code?

 

[seekerz]

If your question was rhetorical, then it was a statement, and therefore it was a claim.

Which you put an entirely different spin on than the actual meaning if taken in context.

Does the sentence-by-sentence dissection of a poster’s contribution indicate a difficulty/unwillingness to take the whole statement in context or does it indicate an inability to deal with the whole truth?

So there’s no mistaking - I am asking.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

seekerz:

So now the constitution sets standards of decency?

What does the constitution say? Want to take a stab at that?

seekerz:

Tell me, does it spell out the TV ratings system too or your child’s school’s dress code?

I dunno. I am assuming that it’s your constitution. Does it spell all this out? Does asking the question ‘does the constitution spell all this out’ relate IN ANY WAY to the question I have asked you? Hint: no.

Or are you dodging again because you are at a loss to justify why you wish to limit the free speech of others rather than learn ways you can prepare yourself to prepare your child to deal with some unpleasant realities of life? Hint: ya thenk?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

seekerz:

Which you put an entirely different spin on than the actual meaning if taken in context.

I note that you do not set out what spin you claim I am imputing to your rhetorical question. From where I stand there was no need to put any spin on your rhetorical question. A rhetorical question is a statement. Therefore it is a claim. It is not a request for information. Let the record speak for itself.

seekerz:

Does the sentence-by-sentence dissection of a poster’s contribution indicate a difficulty/unwillingness to take the whole statement in context or does it indicate an inability to deal with the whole truth?

What you say is there for other posters to discuss. Analyzing what you say is fair comment. I note that you do not offer any substantive refutation of our analyses. Instead you seek to undermine our point of view by attacking the act of analyses itself. Good luck on that score!

seekerz:

So there’s no mistaking - I am asking.

But you have already stated that your question is RHETORICAL. Therefore you are not asking, but stating.

 

[seekerz]

If we can get back to the original topic, I’m not sure I understand why it is my previously mentioned method of preparing 5yr olds to respect life, is somehow deficient.

How can teaching about God and respect for life, without the need for gory graphics be, as you termed it above, circular reasoning?

 

[estesbob]

I beleive this thread is about to be shutdown. So lets keep in mind one thing-

Over 130,000 children have been killed since this thread began. If even one of them could have been saved by a graphic abotion picture that offended a child(or even 1,000 children) it would be worth it.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

seekerz:

If we can get back to the original topic, I’m not sure I understand why it is my previously mentioned method of preparing 5yr olds to respect life, is somehow deficient.

We have already given you explanations a multitude of times.

seekerz:

How can teaching about God and respect for life, without the need for gory graphics be, as you termed it above, circular reasoning?

Look at the form of your statement. Look up the material that I linked days ago on logical errors. Do the math.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

…Over 130,000 children have been killed since this thread began. If even one of them could have been saved by a graphic abotion picture that offended a child(or even 1,000 children) it would be worth it.

And in fact there have been examples of women deciding against abortion after seeing the poster images haven’t there, e-bob?

 

[seekerz]

We have already given you explanations a multitude of times.

No you haven’t. This was your reply to my post explaining what I felt was adequate pro-life education for a 5yr old.

You seemed to read into my preparation ‘technique’ an openness to the use of graphic photos for young kids. Nowhere did I imply that; I’ve spent days arguing against it. So your response has left me baffled.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seekerz
How can teaching about God and respect for life, without the need for gory graphics be, as you termed it above, circular reasoning?

Look at the form of your statement. Look up the material that I linked days ago on logical errors. Do the math.

Why do you term my statement above as circular logic. I’d like your opinion - no links to material; your words, your explanation if you can, please.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I am reminded of when I was working a project in England. There were a series of rapes, and women (and men) were pretty voiciferous about it in the Letters to the Editor in the local papers. The police responded by telling women that pepper-spray is illegal, but suggested they use perfume spray instead.

In other words, “We know you have to do something. But we don’t want you to do anything that works!”