Georgia Cops Impound Anti-Abortion Billboard Truck, Jail Driver

[KarenNC]

They should be. We are working in several Schools doing that exact thing, and trying to expand it to more. The kids have responded very well to it. Pro-life groups have grown and people have become more commited after seeing the images!

Could you clarify? It sounds as if you are saying that you do go into schools (public, private or parochial?) and show these photographs of bloody dismembered corpses of babies to kindergartners and preschoolers as part of your educational efforts without first securing the permission of the children’s parents for them to participate. Is this indeed accurate?

If it is, could you point me to an example of the curricula that you use that details the ways in which the use these photos of blood covered dismembered corpses of babies for children under the age of 7 is advocated or describe the ways in which you use them? Has the reaction of the parents to such a tactic been positive in your experience?

 

[Delphinus85]

Excuse me for asking, but shouldn’t our commitment to any good be based on Christ? Shouldn’t gazing on the crucifix be sufficient motivation to love what is good and fight what is evil?

i agree, the idea that you are handing out pictures of bloody dead babies to kindergarteners only convinces me not to send my kids to private school…Please tell me you at least snd home permission slips to the parents so they are away that you are showing kids gruesome pictures…

maybe if you were giving these to adult formation classes, and they were aware of what they were going to see…but good lord children???

 

[manualman]

Interesting point. Let us say the van had scenes of gruesome murders and autopsy photos blown up to post size for the purpose of gaining support for the death penalty for all murderers.

If the only argument against the death penalty were something along the lines of “human beings don’t really commit unspeakable crimes. That only happens in fictional horror movies and crime TV shows.” If that were the only argument against it and our society were largely against the DP on that basis alone, then in fact it MIGHT be warranted to use such images to confront a self-deceived society with the truth they have suppressed.

But that ISN’T the basis of antiDP arguments and nobody to my knowledge seriously denies man’s capacity for horrific crime, so your analogy falls rather short.

All this talk about showing kids pictures in school is a smokescreen. School children can’t vote and they aren’t the ones driving abortion policy in America. They aren’t the ones who embrace and disseminate the myth that abortion is about the removal of a blob of cells. The general adult public are the ones doing that and falling for it.

This truck didn’t get vandalized for pulling up in a schoolyard. It was in a place of heavy traffic by the general public and the goal for being there was to expose adults who vote to the reality of abortion behind the propaganda. Some children may also have been negatively affected by seeing the pictures. Read up on the principle of “double effect” if you think that rises to the level of preventing action to dispell the pro-abortion propaganda that predominates the perceptions on the issue in our culture.

I have a 6, 4 and 4 month old myself. I hope they don’t have to see such things in the age of innocence either, but if they ARE exposed to it by people primarily seeking to spread the truth on such an issue shrouded in lies, I’ll accept that as a price worth it in the scheme of things.

 

[buffalo]

We can show our kids how babies are born, show them condoms, how to practice “safe” sex, let them watch sex without responsibility on TV and movies. we can treat them as little adults - but we cannot show them abortion?

 

[pnewton]

If the only argument against the death penalty were something along the lines of “human beings don’t really commit unspeakable crimes. That only happens in fictional horror movies and crime TV shows.” If that were the only argument against it and our society were largely against the DP on that basis alone, then in fact it MIGHT be warranted to use such images to confront a self-deceived society with the truth they have suppressed.

But that ISN’T the basis of antiDP arguments and nobody to my knowledge seriously denies man’s capacity for horrific crime, so your analogy falls rather short.

In your opinion it falls short. I do not believe that the general public does not know that abortion makes bloody mess. Perhaps they are not confronted with the shocking reality, but then few have seen real murder. But in any case, a law can not discriminate. So, if you think the analogy falls short, how would you write a law to permit one thing and deny the other? I asked this earlier. I challenged someone to try and word a law that would protect against other forms of vulgarity, yet permit these types of images, as long as the purpose is noble.

Again, any takers?

 

[pnewton]

Read up on the principle of “double effect” if you think that rises to the level of preventing action to dispell the pro-abortion propaganda that predominates the perceptions on the issue in our culture.

I think you have a good point here. I have tried to think how the law of double effect might be applied and had been unable to verbalize it. I will think about this.

 

[TMC]

I think you have a good point here. I have tried to think how the law of double effect might be applied and had been unable to verbalize it. I will think about this.

This whole argument is a double effect argument. The problem with double effect analysis is that the user gets to first select the starting point, and then weigh the variables based on very subjective criteria so that it is pretty easy to make it come out the way you want. If you do it as objectively as possible with an open mind its a useful tool, but that’s rarely how people use it.

There are four steps:

1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect.

Here the act is exposing gruesome photos to the public. The bad effect is traumatizing children and adults. The good effect is convincing people that arbortion is wrong. My thoughts on application:

1. The act is probably indifferent, although some may say its bad. If the act is bad you are done, you can’t do it.
2. The agent (the truck driver) may not be willing the bad effect, but he is allowing it. He can allow it and pass this stage, but if he is willing it, you’re done, he can’t do it. If the agent believes that only through the bad effect (disgusting and traumatizing people) will the good effect result, then he is certainly willing it and it fails this stage. The bad effect must be a collateral result of the act, it can not the cause of the good effect. I think the good effect here does flow from the bad effect.
3. Whether the good effect flows immediately from the act is open to argument. If you think it is just a nudge that does not accomplish the goal on its own, then I think you cannot do it. It doesn’t seem direct to me, but others may differ.
4. Whether the good effect is sufficiently desirable depends on what you believe about the efficacy of the good effect. Here is where the subjective weighing gets hairy. Does convincing one person that abortion is wrong out weigh the other harms? What if that person does not vote or have a reasonable chance of getting involved in abortion one way or the other?

So, although I understand why some may weigh things differently, in my opinion this method fails the double effect test for three reasons: 1) the good effect probably flows through the bad effect, 2) the good effect is not sufficiently direct, and 3) there is significant question whether in practice the cost of the bad effect will outweigh the good effect.

Note that if you recast the good effect as preventing abortions instead of as convincing people, you get a better result at the weighing stage. I think you fail at stage 3, though, because it is not a direct effect.

 

[Newbie2]

Yup! They should understand what is at stake. It is amazing what they can watch on TV and through the media and computer.

This is a real life issue and important to their generation.

If they don’t like it let them close their eyes.

If they don’t like nasty rap music, have them cover their ears.

It’s not appropriate for some kids.

Just because it’s truth and reality doesn’t mean they’re ready for it.

But ya know, more publicity may get out about this than originally planned…who knows, more than if the truck hadn’t been impounded?

 

[estesbob]

This whole argument is a double effect argument. The problem with double effect analysis is that the user gets to first select the starting point, and then weigh the variables based on very subjective criteria so that it is pretty easy to make it come out the way you want. If you do it as objectively as possible with an open mind its a useful tool, but that’s rarely how people use it.

There are four steps:

1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect.

Here the act is exposing gruesome photos to the public. The bad effect is traumatizing children and adults. The good effect is convincing people that arbortion is wrong. My thoughts on application:

1. The act is probably indifferent, although some may say its bad. If the act is bad you are done, you can’t do it.
2. The agent (the truck driver) may not be willing the bad effect, but he is allowing it. He can allow it and pass this stage, but if he is willing it, you’re done, he can’t do it. If the agent believes that only through the bad effect (disgusting and traumatizing people) will the good effect result, then he is certainly willing it and it fails this stage. The bad effect must be a collateral result of the act, it can not the cause of the good effect. I think the good effect here does flow from the bad effect.
3. Whether the good effect flows immediately from the act is open to argument. If you think it is just a nudge that does not accomplish the goal on its own, then I think you cannot do it. It doesn’t seem direct to me, but others may differ.
4. Whether the good effect is sufficiently desirable depends on what you believe about the efficacy of the good effect. Here is where the subjective weighing gets hairy. Does convincing one person that abortion is wrong out weigh the other harms? What if that person does not vote or have a reasonable chance of getting involved in abortion one way or the other?

So, although I understand why some may weigh things differently, in my opinion this method fails the double effect test for three reasons: 1) the good effect probably flows through the bad effect, 2) the good effect is not sufficiently direct, and 3) there is significant question whether in practice the cost of the bad effect will outweigh the good effect.

Note that if you recast the good effect as preventing abortions instead of as convincing people, you get a better result at the weighing stage. I think you fail at stage 3, though, because it is not a direct effect.

There is no evidencethat these pictures traumatized people let alone children. Accordingly according there is no double effect to worry about

 

[pnewton]

There is no evidencethat these pictures traumatized people let alone children. Accordingly according there is no double effect to worry about

There is likewise no evidence that he did any good.

 

[estesbob]

There is no evidencethat these pictures traumatized people let alone children. Accordingly according there is no double effect to worry about

Then they are morally neutral and there should be no objection to people using them

 

[Newbie2]

Even if they’re offended by them? How about if a girl is sitting on the fence about an abortion and gets PO’d at those who displayed the posters or whatever and has an abortion just to spite them.

Possible? Probable? Maybe not, but girls considering an abortion ain’t thinking right in the first place.

 

[pnewton]

Then they are morally neutral and there should be no objection to people using them

No. The conclusion is that the law of double effect can not be used as a justification. There are still other factors to consider. I do not think this is a moral issue anyway. The man was not sinful, nor is objecting to him.

 

[estesbob]

No. The conclusion is that the law of double effect can not be used as a justification. There are still other factors to consider. I do not think this is a moral issue anyway. The man was not sinful, nor is objecting to him.

The priciple of double effect has no application to this situation .

 

[Elric]

There is no evidencethat these pictures traumatized people let alone children. Accordingly according there is no double effect to worry about

So people actually saying that they were distressed by such images or that their children were doesnt count as evidence?

 

[KarenNC]

If the only argument against the death penalty were something along the lines of “human beings don’t really commit unspeakable crimes. That only happens in fictional horror movies and crime TV shows.” If that were the only argument against it and our society were largely against the DP on that basis alone, then in fact it MIGHT be warranted to use such images to confront a self-deceived society with the truth they have suppressed.

I have yet to meet anyone who is not fully aware that an abortion means that there is an end to the life of a baby.

All this talk about showing kids pictures in school is a smokescreen. School children can’t vote and they aren’t the ones driving abortion policy in America. They aren’t the ones who embrace and disseminate the myth that abortion is about the removal of a blob of cells. The general adult public are the ones doing that and falling for it.

Then I see no reason to not target that adult public in a way that does not also target young children. What people are saying here is in fact that it is beneficial to show these photos to children.

This truck didn’t get vandalized for pulling up in a schoolyard.

I don’t see any evidence from the newspaper reports that the truck was “vandalized” to start with.

I have a 6, 4 and 4 month old myself. I hope they don’t have to see such things in the age of innocence either, but if they ARE exposed to it by people primarily seeking to spread the truth on such an issue shrouded in lies, I’ll accept that as a price worth it in the scheme of things.

And that is perfectly within your rights and your control. You have every opportunity to show these photos to your children and to make the determination that such exposure is okay for them. I am not willing to delegate that decision to you in the case of my child.

 

[estesbob]

So people actually saying that they were distressed by such images or that their children were doesnt count as evidence?

If we go that standard then we can ban every picture shown in public in the ocountry.

 

[KarenNC]

We can show our kids how babies are born, show them condoms, how to practice “safe” sex, let them watch sex without responsibility on TV and movies. we can treat them as little adults - but we cannot show them abortion?

You can certainly let your children under the age of 7 watch sex without responsibility on TV and movies and instruct them in condom use if you so desire. You can even show them abortion photos and videos, they are certainly widely available. I don’t happen to know very many parents who think that would be the wisest decision. I think you are woefully misguided if you treat them as little adults.

What you are missing here is that all of those things you mention involve some choice or action on the part of the parent. They have a choice of whether or not to allow the child to watch that sort of thing or buy tickets to that kind of movie (I do not do so) or whether their child participates in sex education classes that show condom usage in preschool (and I have never heard of any that do).

In this case, it is the people on the street corner who have decided that they get to choose how my child is raised and to what my child is exposed based on their own opinions. I do not cede the right to raise my child to TV executives, movie makers, public educators or to you simply because you choose to stand on a street corner.

Yes, my child knows where babies come from and has seen photos of normal fetal development since the time she was 4, at the latest. She is well aware that babies are babies before they are born. She knows that it is bad to hurt others, including babies. What she does not need to see are mutilated blood covered baby corpses when she is years away from puberty, much less the sort of activity that leads one to seek an abortion.

 

[KarenNC]

If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so.

For me it fails right here. There are other means that can be reasonably used to protest abortion in the specific and select situations where large numbers of young children can be reasonably expected to be around and where their parents do not have a reasonable opportunity to avoid the exposure to a single specific form of protest if they so desire.

 

[Elric]

If we go that standard then we can ban every picture shown in public in the ocountry.

Are you saying that people who say that they were distressed by such images doesnt count as evidence that people can/will be distressed by them?

You raised the point, Im just trying to find out what counts as evidence and I dont think that suggesting that every picture displayed in public is a graphic image helps to resolve this point.