Huge Abortion Photos to be Flown Today Over University of Notre Dame to Stop the Abortion Cover-Up

[cathgal]

I’d argue we have credibility to lose, but that’s apparently just me. It’s not pro-life to send an aborted fetus in a jar to President Clinton, as Randall Terry did. It’s not pro-life to abuse images of aborted children, as many do. It does not defend the dignity of the human persons whom abortion kills. We are called to **bury **and to **reverence **the bodies of the dead.

I thought we were discussing images

Why not? As Pope John Paul II taught us, the human person is never to be turned into an object for use. As people who are pro-life (and Catholic!), and who therefore profess to hold the dignity of the human person and the value of human life as the root of all moral goods and above every other possible value, the question of whether or not these images are objectifying should be at the core of our consciences. If using them in this way is objectifying of those children who are depicted in them, then we cannot morally employ them in our efforts, however noble our efforts may be.

are you suggesting no images then? if not, what images are you objecting?

The city of South Bend is not full to the brim of “a bunch of pro-abortion people”. BABIES do live here–BABIES who drive around town with their parents and grandparents and who have not even been presented with the issue.

city? I thought it’s the ND campus

if babies happen to see it, at least they tell the truth of what they see to the blind adults; if not, they’d have no idea

 

[tm30]

I think that in some ways the debate on this thread is getting away from the particular issue at ND.

As I said in my previous posts, I do not altogether oppose the use of images of aborted children when witnessing about abortion to those who support it. But I think that there are very many differences between talking to someone who is pro-abortion, or teaching a child what abortion is, and using these images in that discussion VS plastering trucks and airplanes with dismembered, bloody children. In one circumstance it is acceptable; in the other, there is something not quite right, something objectifying about the way in which the images are presented and used.

A great many men and women have had their hearts and minds changed by seeing what abortion is or what it does, but I’ll have to say that all of the stories of conversion on this issue which I have read seem to involve seeing abortion first-hand, or being presented with the photos in a personal environment where someone is there to guide, explain, etc. Again, in my experience, in-your-face tactics where these pictures are plastered on trucks and trailed in the skies just don’t work on their intended audiences. They are perceived as radical and are often ignored. Students on campus do not perceive them as an invitation to discussion about the issue (from which conversion might come!) but as an even more radical display that makes them right in ignoring the pro-life point of view. However wrong they are in thinking this, I think we must be honest in understanding that this is their effect–the opposite of what is intended!

Also, an image of a dismembered child is not at all like images of the Crucifixion or displaying incorrupt saints. Christ on the cross and saints’ bodies whom death has not defiled give glory to God, His goodness and His grace. Images of murdered children witness to our horribly fallen world and to human evil.

I agree with you on this. Graphic images ultimately repulse and cause the intended viewer to tune out, then become resentful not that this is really occurring, but that someone offended their senses with it. At which point their anger is turned not on the message, but on the messenger. And that’s completely counter-productive since it robs the messenger of his or her credibility, thereby neutering the message.

Christ on the cross was foreshadowed by the raising of the serpent on the staff by Moses. i.e., its purpose is to heal. Graphic photos of abortions are not designed to heal, but to shock. So, there may be some people who respond favorably, but a lot more who will respond negatively. Believe me, I’ve had enough discussions with people who are pro-choice, have seen the photos, and remain completely disconnected from the human carnage taking place. It’s almost other-worldly how those who are in the clutch of Satan can simply shrug or turn away without another thought about it.

So far as the Holocaust goes - I don’t know too many people who need to see the graphic images to know that genocide is evil. I can’t imagine there are many people who could be so callous as to think genocide is okay, but suddenly changed their mind after seeing pictures of Treblinka. In the same way, I don’t think there are many people in favor of abortion on demand who would care about graphic pictures. And ultimately, those in the wishy-washy middle will end up turned off.

 

[Rach620]

I thought we were discussing images

Randall Terry, major proponent of graphic images who sponsors a group that protests using them daily at the gates to ND, sent a fetus in a jar to Clinton in the 90s. I haven’t heard him say recently that this was a bad idea, so my guess is that he sees these two ‘graphic,’ jarring actions as on the same level.

are you suggesting no images then? if not, what images are you objecting?

I’m objecting to images dragged by airplanes and images on the sides of trucks. As I said in a previous post on this thread, I don’t oppose every use of graphic images–I firmly believe that they need to be used in the context of a discussion or debate of the issue with another adult.

From my PP:

As I said in my previous posts, I do not altogether oppose the use of images of aborted children when witnessing about abortion to those who support it. But I think that there are very many differences between talking to someone who is pro-abortion, or teaching a child what abortion is, and using these images in that discussion VS plastering trucks and airplanes with dismembered, bloody children. In one circumstance it is acceptable; in the other, there is something not quite right, something objectifying about the way in which the images are presented and used.

A great many men and women have had their hearts and minds changed by seeing what abortion is or what it does, but I’ll have to say that all of the stories of conversion on this issue which I have read seem to involve seeing abortion first-hand, or being presented with the photos in a personal environment where someone is there to guide, explain, etc. Again, in my experience, in-your-face tactics where these pictures are plastered on trucks and trailed in the skies just don’t work on their intended audiences. They are perceived as radical and are often ignored. Students on campus do not perceive them as an invitation to discussion about the issue (from which conversion might come!) but as an even more radical display that makes them right in ignoring the pro-life point of view. However wrong they are in thinking this, I think we must be honest in understanding that this is their effect–the opposite of what is intended!

city? I thought it’s the ND campus

Notre Dame’s campus is in a suburb of the city of South Bend. The trucks with images are on the streets of South Bend–NOT on Notre Dame’s campus. The airplane can be seen in virtually every place in South Bend, miles from campus. I don’t live on campus at Notre Dame (I’m a recent alum, working in South Bend), and if I go outside my apartment right now, I can see it.

I would say that the majority of those who see these unfortunate images are NOT affiliated with the University in any way. They just happen to live in the same city.

if babies happen to see it, at least they tell the truth of what they see to the blind adults; if not, they’d have no idea

You’d want your 3 year old child to see a picture of a violently dismembered baby on the side of a truck, while driving them to preschool? That is the best context to bring up the abortion discussion, and the best age?

 

[peacefulwarrior]

I’ll give my congratulations to whoever came up with the great timing for the showing the pictures. They have great shock value, but it can be lessened by other means, especially when the timing is bad. A while back there were also a lot of those pictures on my university campus. While they did make my heart skip a beat, I completely forgot about them, when I sat down to study for a Finals a few minutes later. The geniuses, decided to show those picture three days before finals week started. (Most people were too tired, or on to much caffeine, energy drinks, or whatever else in an attempt to study to even notice what was going on!) Sure a few people complained, but most probably didn’t notice it. Its amazing how when you have to solve complex chemical formulas, everything else doesn’t seem to matter much, or whatever else is quickly forgotten. Okay in case anybody here decides to start up a protest in another campus, (PICK YOUR TIMMING Wisely) if you want it to have a great effect. (It does work, keep on doing a good job)

 

[tm30]

I also agree that WWII pictures of the holocaust helped to show the evils of the Nazis. The same was true of the baby seals who were clubbed to death. That was put on television and children could see it.

What - the sheer numbers of dead alone weren’t proof enough? Were the revisionist historians in the process of re-casting the Nazis as a bunch of mis-understood, benevolent freedom fighters before the Holocaust images were published?

If someone can’t already ascertain that taking life is evil in itself, how do graphic presentations reach their reasoning faculties? Take a walk around CAF and you’ll find a lot of pro-choice Catholics who admit that abortion is murder, but should be safe and rare, anyhow.

Remember what happens when you try to pull up the chaff…

 

[cathgal]

I agree with you on this. Graphic images ultimately repulse and cause the intended viewer to tune out, then become resentful not that this is really occurring, but that someone offended their senses with it. At which point their anger is turned not on the message, but on the messenger. And that’s completely counter-productive since it robs the messenger of his or her credibility, thereby neutering the message.

Christ on the cross was foreshadowed by the raising of the serpent on the staff by Moses. i.e., its purpose is to heal. Graphic photos of abortions are not designed to heal, but to shock. So, there may be some people who respond favorably, but a lot more who will respond negatively. Believe me, I’ve had enough discussions with people who are pro-choice, have seen the photos, and remain completely disconnected from the human carnage taking place. It’s almost other-worldly how those who are in the clutch of Satan can simply shrug or turn away without another thought about it.

So far as the Holocaust goes - I don’t know too many people who need to see the graphic images to know that genocide is evil. I can’t imagine there are many people who could be so callous as to think genocide is okay, but suddenly changed their mind after seeing pictures of Treblinka. In the same way, I don’t think there are many people in favor of abortion on demand who would care about graphic pictures. And ultimately, those in the wishy-washy middle will end up turned off.

everyone responds differently, so let not ban images for the sake of a few

then there are some who don’t give a heck of is said, however charitably …

 

[KathleenElsie]

When the pro-“choice” people start admitting out loud that it is an actual baby that is being aborted then maybe the images won’t be necessary to show the truth. As long as the young ignorant woman is told it is only a mass of “cells” and the actual truth is not shown then the pictures are necessary. I had someone tell me that they thought the “drawings” they saw were fake and not actually what was inside their body. The photos told the true story graphic and not sugar coated.

 

[sedonaman]

With these sorts of displays, I’d always thought it was those who support abortion, don’t think it ends human life, etc.

You mean like Nurse Shafer?

I’m guessing you’re about to tell me that pro-lifers are also the intended audience, particularly those who “don’t take abortion seriously enough”?

No, I’m about to tell you that I think you’re against the pictures precisely because they are effective.

 

[cathgal]

Randall Terry, major proponent of graphic images who sponsors a group that protests using them daily at the gates to ND, sent a fetus in a jar to Clinton in the 90s. I haven’t heard him say recently that this was a bad idea, so my guess is that he sees these two ‘graphic,’ jarring actions as on the same level.

do you know if this tactic ever work on anyone? Don’t know if it’s good or bad, but it might work on someone…

I’m objecting to images dragged by airplanes and images on the sides of trucks. As I said in a previous post on this thread, I don’t oppose every use of graphic images–I firmly believe that they need to be used in the context of a discussion or debate of the issue with another adult.

Only if they’re willing to sit down w/ you.

The rest will go about their day to day biz and have not a care in the world what happens to the unborn…

Notre Dame’s campus is in a suburb of the city of South Bend. The trucks with images are on the streets of South Bend–NOT on Notre Dame’s campus. The airplane can be seen in virtually every place in South Bend, miles from campus. I don’t live on campus at Notre Dame (I’m a recent alum, working in South Bend), and if I go outside my apartment right now, I can see it.

I would say that the majority of those who see these unfortunate images are NOT affiliated with the University in any way. They just happen to live in the same city.

You’d want your 3 year old child to see a picture of a violently dismembered baby on the side of a truck, while driving them to preschool? That is the best context to bring up the abortion discussion, and the best age?

I wouldn’t mind my 3 year old see it. I’d be curious what the child thinks or not think, and I’d teach him/her about it if he/she correctly interprets it. Is it the best age…don’t know. Just have to find out.

 

[cathgal]

What - the sheer numbers of dead alone weren’t proof enough? Were the revisionist historians in the process of re-casting the Nazis as a bunch of mis-understood, benevolent freedom fighters before the Holocaust images were published?

Dead? how
Did they die peacfully, w/ nice outfit on their bodies; did they have a nice burial or just a bunch of naked bodies one on top of another in a ditch; were some of them fat, slim, skinny, or were they all skeletal? We see dead people all the time at funerals.

If someone can’t already ascertain that taking life is evil in itself, how do graphic presentations reach their reasoning faculties? Take a walk around CAF and you’ll find a lot of pro-choice Catholics who admit that abortion is murder, but should be safe and rare, anyhow.

The unborn? they’re not human like us are they, at least physically. Just a blob we were told. The mothers. They’re humans…like the rest of us. They should have a choice to rid the blobs in their bodies. Those blobs can’t talk anyways.
…

 

[KathleenElsie]

I wouldn’t mind my 3 year old see it. I’d be curious what the child thinks or not think, and I’d teach him/her about it if he/she correctly interprets it. Is it the best age…don’t know. Just have to find out.

When my grandchildren saw those pictures(yes they saw them bigger then life and as gorey as they get) the 9 year old said “Now I know why you don’t like abortion” with tears in his eyes. The 8 year old asked “how could anyone do that to a baby like my sister” and the 3 year old asked “who broke the babies and why”. You see kids get it. Why can’t adults get it?

 

[Rach620]

You mean like Nurse Shafer?

No, I’m about to tell you that I think you’re against the pictures precisely because they are effective.

do you know if this tactic ever work on anyone? Don’t know if it’s good or bad, but it might work on someone…

Whether or not the tactic of sending an aborted baby in a jar to Clinton “worked” on him or on anyone is beside the point. An aborted child should be buried, not used as a pawn in some radical ploy to be “in-your-face” on the abortion issue to a political candidate. Since Clinton is still pro-choice, and still an idiot on most life-related issues (did anyone else see his blunders on the embryonic stem cell issue recently?), obviously the more radical forms of protest haven’t really gotten to him.

Only if they’re willing to sit down w/ you.

The rest will go about their day to day biz and have not a care in the world what happens to the unborn…

There are pro-life displays that can be unavoidably set up that do not include images of aborted children. How do you feel about a cemetery for the innocents? Or simple statements such as “Abortion hurts women,” etc.?

I wouldn’t mind my 3 year old see it. I’d be curious what the child thinks or not think, and I’d teach him/her about it if he/she correctly interprets it. Is it the best age…don’t know. Just have to find out.

I would say that as in every educational issue, it is up to individual parents how they want to breach this topic with their children. You might say that you don’t mind if your child sees it, but there are plenty of parents out there who do, and whose children are deeply upset by these pictures of human brutality that their young minds are unable to comprehend.

 

[sedonaman]

…

An aborted child should be buried, not used as a pawn in some radical ploy to be “in-your-face” on the abortion issue to a political candidate.
…

And just exactly who do you propose to bury aborted babies? About 15 or so years ago, there was an anti-abortion group that tried to obtain the bodies of aborted babies and provide them with a decent burial as you describe. Guess what. The abortion industry stopped them cold. Why? Because allowing such burials to take place acknowledged their status as human beings and thus expose abortion for the lie that it is.

Ergo, we need the only thing the courts have left us with: the pictures.

 

[cathgal]

Whether or not the tactic of sending an aborted baby in a jar to Clinton “worked” on him or on anyone is beside the point. An aborted child should be buried, not used as a pawn in some radical ploy to be “in-your-face” on the abortion issue to a political candidate. Since Clinton is still pro-choice, and still an idiot on most life-related issues (did anyone else see his blunders on the embryonic stem cell issue recently?), obviously the more radical forms of protest haven’t really gotten to him.

The baby would be buried…after showing how brutally he was murdered.

There are pro-life displays that can be unavoidably set up that do not include images of aborted children. How do you feel about a cemetery for the innocents? Or simple statements such as “Abortion hurts women,” etc.?

How ???
…and then you would have to convince them to sit down and talk…

This thought would disappear from their mind by the end of the day. The thought probably wouldn’t last that long. Who’d have time to dwell on it.

I would say that as in every educational issue, it is up to individual parents how they want to breach this topic with their children. You might say that you don’t mind if your child sees it, but there are plenty of parents out there who do, and whose children are deeply upset by these pictures of human brutality that their young minds are unable to comprehend.

Either that or we’d just have to continue fighting an endless endless endless battle and no winning in sight.

 

[takers]

Nobody seems to feel sorry for the additional babies who will die because 0bama was elected instead of McCain.

Can either of you two tell me how you would feel if you were a baby saved by these pictures?

Can either of you two tell me why it seems that only evil has free speech rights and that truth must be silent because it is inconvenient?

I sense a feeling of despair in your two posts, i.e., X number of babies are going to be aborted no matter what we do. This is wrong because we will just give up trying, and then no minds will be changed, nothing will get accomplished.

I haven’t visited this thread for a while so that’s why I haven’t responded. I wasn’t ignoring you or anything.

Simply stated, I don’t believe that flying posters of aborted babies will save anyone. I don’t believe that showing graphic images or horrific events (not just abortion) helps to deter that event. Instead I feel that it’s similar to those that look at a car accident as you drive by. You’re curious to see if there’s blood, guts, and gore but your life won’t be changed by what you see. Since I feel this way I don’t see it as truth being denied free speech. I see it as not being an appropriate weapon to fight abortion. It doesn’t matter if it’s a graduation, a demonstration on a college campus, or flyers outside of an abortion clinich - I don’t agree with showing pictures of aborted babies. In a way, I guess I feel that it’s exploiting the aborted baby in a way that they shouldn’t be used.

 

[aggiecatholic05]

You’re curious to see if there’s blood, guts, and gore but your life won’t be changed by what you see.

i take it you were never a EMT or such. trust me enough gore can turn people off of any behavior. while it doesnt have to be the first try, this country has shown words dont work to end abortion.

 

[sedonaman]

…
Since I feel this way I don’t see it as truth being denied free speech. …

I am glad the courts didn’t agree with you.

… while it doesn’t have to be the first try, this country has shown words don’t work to end abortion.

Right! We have become a visual society. Ergo, we need the pictures.

 

[Rach620]

Can we all agree that the money being spent…

• on keeping the airplane in the skies 3-6 hours per day;
• keeping the trucks on the streets
• financing billboards on I-80/90
  etc. etc.

would all be put to better use in endeavors that concretely build the culture of life?

Say, by donating it to the Women’s Care Center, a pro-life crisis pregnancy center founded in the 1980s by Notre Dame faculty or to another worthy pro-life organization whose work actually affects women and children most ‘at risk’ for abortion, such as Maggie’s Place?

Is this too much to ask?

 

[sedonaman]

…

Is this too much to ask?

“They also serve who stand and watch.”

 

[reggieM]

Can we all agree that the money being spent…

• on keeping the airplane in the skies 3-6 hours per day;
• keeping the trucks on the streets
• financing billboards on I-80/90
  etc. etc.

would all be put to better use in endeavors that concretely build the culture of life?

Say, by donating it to the Women’s Care Center, a pro-life crisis pregnancy center founded in the 1980s by Notre Dame faculty or to another worthy pro-life organization whose work actually affects women and children most ‘at risk’ for abortion, such as Maggie’s Place?

Is this too much to ask?

We use explicit images of aborted children in our city when we protest against Planned Parenthood on the sidewalks. We have successfully helped several young persons by turning them away from abortion at the very last minute. The signs shocked them into the reality of what they were going to do.

Some children are alive today because of those signs. I don’t think we can put a price-tag on it. There is some prudential judgement at work. The billboards, trucks and airplanes with signs do work. Minds and hearts are changed for the better – and babies are saved. Those who put money in to those projects do so for a good reason.

I don’t think it’s a good idea to argue against the images in a sweeping judgement. If you were saying that there are other approaches that people should try, or that some people are better persuaded by other styles – then that could be true. The signs are one way. But it would not be correct to say that the images never work, or that they have no value.

Fr. Frank Pavone, director of Priests for Life is one of the most prominent Catholic pro-life leaders in the world. He addressed the topic of graphic images here:

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/jul/07072011.html

I told you that I had been involved in this since I was your age, been working on this fulltime across the world, worked with the Holy Father, and Mother Teresa and all these people, worked with the pro-life movement on every level. There is no single thing that I have seen more powerful to change people on abortion than simply showing them the pictures.