Why do anti-abortion signs

[fix]

I am still not sure what Fix is looking for. How can you prove your child was hurt by this? How can you prove that I think it is evil? It is my opinion that it is evil. It is the opinion of many that it is evil. Why do I think it’s evil? I have given you all my reasons. You do not need to agree. But I will not stop trying to stop this type of activity.

My position is that a good end cannot be achieved by an evil means. An evil means should have an objective component to it. That you or I think a means is evil is not enough to make it evil. Does the means violate the divine law or natural moral law or Church discipline? If you can show me that this particular means is objectively evil I will gladly change my position. So far all you offer is your private view.

Is that not unlike me claiming abortion is a good simply because I declare it so in my opinion?

Like I said before, I don’t need the church to submit an official proclamation that showing innocent little children bloody, grotesque, images of murdered babies is evil. You may need that official proclamation before you deem something evil. I don’t. THAT is a difference.

Not an official proclaimtion but some solid moral reasoning would be acceptable.

So, where you require “proof” (which I’m guessing means Church doctrine), I don’t need the church to tell me that it’s a horrible thing to do. As far as slander goes, I never pretended that it wasn’t my opinion that the actions of those groups is evil. Never. And last I checked, we are all entitled to our opinions, aren’t we? Thus, the freedom protestors have to protest legal activities at all.

I try my best to be logical. I fail to see the logic in claiming another’s actions are evil simply because I think they are when my belief is simply an opinion. If I think folks who eat tuna fish are evil is it fair for me to conclude that?

I’m not arguing the merits of abortion. But there is a time and a place for everything, and I am arguing that no matter how good the outcome may POSSIBLY be, I don’t want my children’s innocence taken away. Because then not only is there the sin of abortion, there is also the horror of my child’s innocence being taken away. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and there should never be justification for a wrong. And I would think that everyone here thinks it is at least “wrong” for a child to be shown these posters, even if they prefer not to use the word “evil”.

The problem is one of definitions. No one here thinks a good end is justified by an evil means. The problem is we must understand that term correctly.

Don’t you think it is fair to show that someone’s" innocence is taken"? I mean how is that defined? And if one is temporarily “hurt” by viewing something does it not matter what degree of hurt? And is not that “degree” to be measured against other factors?

For example we know that in driving a car it is very possible for an accident to happen. Perhaps a deadly accident. Does that make the use of a car evil? You know by using a car you may kill a child. If you drive by a school a child could run out in front of you and you may hit them. Is that means of a car evil? You could always use a bike and always avoid the potential for killing a child.

My point is that an evil effect may happen does not make the means necessarily evil.

 

[boppaid]

Fix, you bring up some excellent points. I will try to address them one by one. (Then I MUST get back to my homework…this board is so addicting. )

My position is that a good end cannot be achieved by an evil means. An evil means should have an objective component to it. That you or I think a means is evil is not enough to make it evil. Does the means violate the divine law or natural moral law or Church discipline?

Then I think we’re talking apples and oranges. I believe something can be evil simply because it is, not because the evil has been officially defined. The reason I believe it is evil is because I think a child’s innocence is being stripped away by the pictures. In the same way a child viewing pornographic photographs strips away their innocence. In the same way that any horror they have to face strips that away from them. Truly, in explaining WHY I believe this to be evil the parallel of the effect of pornographic photos is a good one. I believe (intent of photos aside) BOTH these types of pictures takes away a child’s innocence. I don’t think that is good. In fact, I think it is horrid.

Now (as far as I can tell) the argument here isn’t whether showing these awful pictures to children is good, but whether the ends justifies the means here, right? In my OPINION, no… in yours and other…yes. Right?

If you can show me that this particular means is objectively evil I will gladly change my position. So far all you offer is your private view.

I spelled it out as best I could above. Do you have children? WOuld you feel that pornographic pictures were harmful to your children? Do you think it woul dbe evil for them to be forced to see those pictures? If so, that is my argument here. Even if a life may possibly be saved (just like stem cell research MAY possibly save a life), the ends does not justify the means. If you DONT think that it would be evil for your kids to be forced to see pornographic images, than we simply will never agree.

Is that not unlike me claiming abortion is a good simply because I declare it so in my opinion?

Well, it would be your opinion, and no one would have to agree with it. But if you expect to sway others’ opinions, I am sure you would have to provide reasons WHY you think it’s good.

Not an official proclaimtion but some solid moral reasoning would be acceptable.

Why is my reasoning above not solid or moral?

I try my best to be logical. I fail to see the logic in claiming another’s actions are evil simply because I think they are when my belief is simply an opinion. If I think folks who eat tuna fish are evil is it fair for me to conclude that?

We are all entitled to our opinions. You are entitiled to think all who eat tuna are evil. I would think you were silly, but you could feel that way. (However, please note I’m not saying these protestors are evil but that their actions are.) Let’s face it…all our moral beliefs are opinions. We base our opinions on lots of things. What the Bible teaches, what we were raised with, and what we’ve seen.

The problem is one of definitions. No one here thinks a good end is justified by an evil means. The problem is we must understand that term correctly.

Do you think the ends (a possible baby being savedis justifies the means (forcing small children to view horror)?

Don’t you think it is fair to show that someone’s" innocence is taken"? I mean how is that defined? And if one is temporarily “hurt” by viewing something does it not matter what degree of hurt? And is not that “degree” to be measured against other factors?

Before I answer how to define how someone’s innocence is taken away, I need to know if you feel a child’s innocence is taken away when forced to view pornography. Because your answer will affect mine.

 

[marcsababa]

Before I answer how to define how someone’s innocence is taken away, I need to know if you feel a child’s innocence is taken away when forced to view pornography. Because your answer will affect mine.

Sorry Fix I can’t resist:

Viewing porn is a sin.

Seeing images of dead people is not a sin.

Viewing porn (apart from being sinful in the first place) is known to create porn addiction it fills the mind with inapporpriate images that may cause permanent damage in terms of enjoying pure marital relations when the right time comes.

Seeing pictures of cut up bloody babies may be horrifying, gut wrenching you name it…but it is not sinful unless done with glee at what was done. Then there is more to the sin then just seeing pictures. Unlike with porn, I have not heard of the potentially sin inducing effects of seeing pictures of dead dismembered people.

By the way my 6 yo dd drew a picture a days ago that mistified me. She drew a picture of a car with a boy and girl in the back, a mom in the front and a baby dangling by a rope outside the car. I asked my dd what it was and she said it was a picture of abortion. The mom had thrown the baby out of the car. I admired her drawing and said it was very good and agreed with her that abortion was a horrible thing to do. She was very pleased with her self. It was one drawing among the many many that she produces each day, usually of princesses. So she is not morbidly obsessed. She is very normal and cheerful. She just found a way to depict this mysterious act of a mother killing her child.

Maybe allowing her to deal with it by facing it and not wishing that she never saw it helps. As I mentioned before, my 6 yo dd is very sensitive and is often trully frightened at tense scenes in the most harmless of movies. We tell her to cover her face if she needs to, but have had to tell her to stop over reacting before. She just covers her face now and doesn’t over react now. My mother does the same thing because she is also sensitive. We are working through similar overreaction regarding dogs.

 

[fix]

Sorry Fix I can’t resist:

Viewing porn is a sin.

Seeing images of dead people is not a sin.

I need all the help anyone can give me.

This is my point from traditional moral theology:

Double Effect

We may perform an act that has at least two effects, one good and one evil, if it meets four criteria: 1. The act itself, independent of its consequences, must be good or at least morally neutral.
2. The good effect must not result from the evil effect. The evil effect must be an incidental by-product of the good effect.
3. The evil effect must not be intended but only permitted.
4. There must be a proportionately grave reason to permit the evil effect.
All four criteria must be met. If even one is not met, the act is evil.
secondexodus.com/html/catholicdefinitions/doubleeffect.htm

Insert pornograpy in every level and see what you get? Insert exposing the public to abortion posters in every level and see what you get?

From the start we dismiss pornography as the intent of it, the making of it and the desired effect are all evil.

Posters of aborted babies are very different.

The intent is good, that is educating about the horror of abortion.

The end is good as folks can learn what an evil it is.

The means are at least neutral it seems to me. Exposing the public is not intended to corrupt anyone. Any evil effect is less proportionate than the evil of abortion.

If I am wrong I would like someone to show me my error as I am no expert.

 

[marcsababa]

Double effect…

Never heard of it before, but doesn’t mean much. It is interesting and makes sense to me. The examples fro the CCC are similar to Bear’s efforts to clarify the issue.

One thing that may have to be clarified is what exactly one should insert into the 4 points. My vote is for “The displaying of pictures of aborted children in public with the intent of discouraging mothers from having abortions and rasing a complacent public’s awareness of the nature of the act of abortion.”

This is important as one could say we are discussing: “The displaying of pictures of abortion with the intent of shocking children and forcing them to have nightmares and irreparable permanent damage to their ability to live in this world with any form of peace in their hearts and minds.”

I am exagerating to make the point of the importance of defining what we are talking about. MommyGreen I am not making fun of the suffering your children are enduring. I hope you have been able to take them to see a wise holy priest.

 

[boppaid]

Sorry Fix I can’t resist:

Viewing porn is a sin.

So are you saying that if there is a pornographic billboard and your child sees it while walking down the street they are sinning? If you are NOT saying that, then we’re talking apples and oranges. I just need you to clarify before I respond to your post.

 

[boppaid]

Regarding point #2: “2. The good effect must not result from the evil effect. The evil effect must be an incidental by-product of the good effect.”

I think the good (preventing abortion) is resulting from the evil (showing these pictures to children, thus, taking away their innocence.

However, you don’t think that in and of itself is evil. I do. Based on our definition of what is evil, we won’t agree. I think I could present the Double Effect for my argument as well. Because (again) you and I can’t agree on whether or not it is evil to force children to see these images.

 

[marcsababa]

Boppaid!!

In reply to your question of if my child is sinning if he sees a porn poster posted publicly:

No. The child is probably innocent and the poster of the picture is guilty.

However the matter is not so simple:

** If** the child is in full knowledge of the fact that looking at the poster is a sin **and **fully participating in the occasion of sin i.e. not being coerced, THEN the child commits a sin if they persist in looking once they have gone past the casual “glance” phase.

In order to be held responsible for a sinful act one must commit the sin in full knowledge that what is being done is sinful and one must be doing it out of free will. Being forced to see a picture by happening upon it by chance in a location where one does not expect such pictures is not a sinful act. A child may or may not know that viewing the pornographic image is sinful.

So to take the matter further: If a man, who is fully aware that looking at porn is a sin, walks down the street and sees a porn poster he can look away and he will not be sinning, unless he dwells on the image for the sake of deriving illicit pleasure. If he catches an unwanted glimpse of the porn poster and proceeds to look away and mentally makes efforts to discipline himself then he is doing what he should be and is not culpable of a sin just because he unexpectedly happened upon the picture.

Back to your effort to use the double effect argument against the abortion posters. I think the ball is in your court on this one. Use the argument as you will and see if you still think the people who use the pictures of abortions to deter people from abortions are doing something evil. I can only respond to an actual argument on your part not a hypothetical “I could use the argument to back my point.”

You need to use the Double effect argument in the way it is laid out. You have to define all your terms.

To win an argument you need set up your statements and definitions and then phrase your conclusion in a way that comes directly from your valid statements. You cannot win an argument by mixing terms, making invalid statements and not clearly outlining how you came to your conclusion.

 

[boppaid]

Thanks for your response, marc!

In reply to your question of if my child is sinning if he sees a porn poster posted publicly:
No. The child is probably innocent and the poster of the picture is guilty.

However the matter is not so simple:

** If** the child is in full knowledge of the fact that looking at the poster is a sin **and **fully participating in the occasion of sin i.e. not being coerced, THEN the child commits a sin if they persist in looking once they have gone past the casual “glance” phase.

In order to be held responsible for a sinful act one must commit the sin in full knowledge that what is being done is sinful and one must be doing it out of free will. Being forced to see a picture by happening upon it by chance in a location where one does not expect such pictures is not a sinful act. A child may or may not know that viewing the pornographic image is sinful.

Okay. Then your argument that the difference between showing pornography to children and showing other disturbing images to children is different because looking at pornography is automatically sinning doesn’t make sense. It is wrong to show children pornographic images, pure and simple. I would argue that it is evil to do so. Why? Not because the children sin when they view them, but because it takes away their innocence. The same is true (in my opinion) about showing other disturbing images. If you don’t want your child to see these pictures (porn)

Your answer about the sin of porn was born of my question:

Before I answer how to define how someone’s innocence is taken away, I need to know if you feel a child’s innocence is taken away when forced to view pornography.

So, again, do you feel that a child’s innocence is taken away when forced to view porn? (You never answered that, I don’t think. If you did, I apologize because I missed it.)

Back to your effort to use the double effect argument against the abortion posters. I think the ball is in your court on this one. Use the argument as you will and see if you still think the people who use the pictures of abortions to deter people from abortions are doing something evil. I can only respond to an actual argument on your part not a hypothetical “I could use the argument to back my point.”

You need to use the Double effect argument in the way it is laid out. You have to define all your terms.

I did. I said

Regarding point #2: “2. The good effect must not result from the evil effect. The evil effect must be an incidental by-product of the good effect.”

I think the good (preventing abortion) is resulting from the evil (showing these pictures to children, thus, taking away their innocence.

However, you don’t think that in and of itself is evil. I do. Based on our definition of what is evil, we won’t agree.

To win an argument you need set up your statements and definitions and then phrase your conclusion in a way that comes directly from your valid statements. You cannot win an argument by mixing terms, making invalid statements and not clearly outlining how you came to your conclusion.

Truly, I’m not trying to win an argument. I’m not trying to argue at all. I’m simply trying to explain why I, and so many others, are so upset that other Christians are shoving these horrid images in our young children’s faces. I am trying to explain why I feel as I do. And I’m also trying to explain that I don’t need to the church to clarify something wrong or immoral. People on this board who don’t agree with me seem to feel that since there is no Church teaching that states that upsetting children with these pics and stripping away their innocence is immoral, it must not be. I guess I’ll never understand that thinking. Again, I don’t feel I need to make you feel the same way I do. I know I won’t change your mind. However, I am so appalled by these activities of certain pro-Life groups (and thankfully not all are like this) that I feel I must speak out.

 

[marcsababa]

Yes, showing my child a picture of pornography is inappropriate. No, showing my child a picture of a dead person is not necessarily wrong. It depends on what the intent is.

So I guess you do have a point. I was being thick. I just think that the showing of the picture is not in and of itself evil, but you do. But There is no Catholic Church teaching to back that up… so we are going around in circles. Boy you are patient for doing this with Bear, then me.

. My mother took us to India when I was 10 and my brother was 8. We saw dead people, people with gross growths, naked people, starving people etc. We saw, we accepted, we went on and are fine.

I rely on Church teaching to guide me in discerning the truth do it because I would rather rely on the cummulation of 2006 years worth of wisdom of people who are usually more learned than I, than just myself. I might be able to come up with the contents of the CCC,Canon law and the Encyclicals on my own, but I would rather rely on the Church, I don’t have 2006 years worth of time.

I think if we discussed further we would see that we differ in even more respects than this one. We probably don’t agree on fundamental things regarding parenting, life, the universe and everything. Except maybe that the answer to the ultimate question remains: 42. I do not suppose we can find middle ground on this one.

You are not trying to win an argument, that is okay then I will stop having one. I like arguments. They are learning experiences especially if I lose. I like to lose because then I learned something.

I also like having the last word.

 

[bear06]

A child may be traumatized by going to the ER, the dentist or even the doctors. It isn’t evil to see the blood, gore and possibly even nakedness that might be found there. While it’s great to avoid it when possible, it is not always possible and quite surey it may be necessary. That still doesn’t make it immoral for your child to be there or see what they might see.

 

[fix]

Regarding point #2: “2. The good effect must not result from the evil effect. The evil effect must be an incidental by-product of the good effect.”

I think the good (preventing abortion) is resulting from the evil (showing these pictures to children, thus, taking away their innocence.

The intent is to inform. The intent is not to show pics for the sake of showing pics. The means of informing is to show the pics.

However, you don’t think that in and of itself is evil. I do. Based on our definition of what is evil, we won’t agree. I think I could present the Double Effect for my argument as well. Because (again) you and I can’t agree on whether or not it is evil to force children to see these images.

No one is forcing anyone. That the pics may be seen by some children is unintended.

 

[fix]

Thanks for your response, marc!

Okay. Then your argument that the difference between showing pornography to children and showing other disturbing images to children is different because looking at pornography is automatically sinning doesn’t make sense. It is wrong to show children pornographic images, pure and simple. I would argue that it is evil to do so. Why? Not because the children sin when they view them, but because it takes away their innocence. The same is true (in my opinion) about showing other disturbing images. If you don’t want your child to see these pictures (porn)

Your answer about the sin of porn was born of my question:

So, again, do you feel that a child’s innocence is taken away when forced to view porn? (You never answered that, I don’t think. If you did, I apologize because I missed it.)

I did. I said

Truly, I’m not trying to win an argument. I’m not trying to argue at all. I’m simply trying to explain why I, and so many others, are so upset that other Christians are shoving these horrid images in our young children’s faces. I am trying to explain why I feel as I do. And I’m also trying to explain that I don’t need to the church to clarify something wrong or immoral. People on this board who don’t agree with me seem to feel that since there is no Church teaching that states that upsetting children with these pics and stripping away their innocence is immoral, it must not be. I guess I’ll never understand that thinking. Again, I don’t feel I need to make you feel the same way I do. I know I won’t change your mind. However, I am so appalled by these activities of certain pro-Life groups (and thankfully not all are like this) that I feel I must speak out.

Pornography is an objective sin. Photos of aborted children are not. Pornography is always wrong. It can never be licit.

Photos of aborted children are not always wrong. It is possible to misuse them, but they are not wrong in and of themselves.

There is no analogy between the two items. It seems your position is that because children may suffer from viewing certain things then all intentions and means are evil. That is incorrect. Bad effects, called evil, do not directly prove the intent or means are evil.

 

[boppaid]

Yea, I think we’re just going 'round and 'round here with circular arguments.

Pornography is an objective sin. Photos of aborted children are not. Pornography is always wrong. It can never be licit.

Pornography is an objective sin. I believe that taking away a child’s innocence is an objective sin also. (Note, I’m not saying the reason this is bad is because a child is disturbed. I’m saying it strips away their innocence.)

Photos of aborted children are not always wrong. It is possible to misuse them, but they are not wrong in and of themselves.

You’re right. BUT, showing these photoes to children (if they strip away at their innocence by being extremely violent and grotesque) is always wrong.

There is no analogy between the two items. It seems your position is that because children may suffer from viewing certain things then all intentions and means are evil. That is incorrect. Bad effects, called evil, do not directly prove the intent or means are evil.

No, that is not my position. Again, just to clarify, my position is that I’m not saying the reason this is bad is because a child is disturbed. I’m saying it strips away their innocence.

Fix, I think we’re going to have to stop. Your arguments make absolutely no sense to me, and I’m sure mine don’t make sense to you either. Agree to disagree?

 

[boppaid]

I also like having the last word.

Well, so do it. At least with my husband.

 

[bear06]

Again, just to clarify, my position is that I’m not saying the reason this is bad is because a child is disturbed. I’m saying it strips away their innocence.

And I just said that the ER can strip away their innocence too (if you’ve ever been there on a Friday night you’d know what I mean). That said, it’s a necessity. Going to the ER is not evil. Showing pictures of dead babies is not evil. Both are sad necessity!

Fix, I think we’re going to have to stop. Your arguments make absolutely no sense to me, and I’m sure mine don’t make sense to you either. Agree to disagree?

Well Fix, I think they’re quite sensible to me. I also don’t think they’re that hard to understand either.

 

[Rosalinda]

The principle of double effect which Fix has been basing his reasons on is extremely pertinent to the moral quandary we are debating. Fix is encouraging us to move beyond a visceral response which is emotion centered to work through a more analytical process. He has been extremely patient.

Dianne Irving,PhD. has an excellent article on the principle of double effect which she applies to the case of saving the life of a mother.
lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_08natlaw.html#a16

With respect to Boppaid she has conflated the evil of abortion with the graphic images of abortion and further fused these images with pornographic images. Abortion is an intrinsic evil as is pornography. Converting the sinner, instructing the ignorant, counseling the doubtful are all properly known as spiritual works of mercy. It is an inversion of reality and a misappropriation of terms to call this work evil, immoral or sinful conduct. [sign]If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain “irremediably” evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person…
Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act “subjectively” good or defensible as a choice.
[/sign]
Veritatis Splendor, JP II

**The display of the consequences of an intrinsically evil act is itself either morally neutral and possibly good. Now I would hasten to add these images must be used responsibly and not targeted primarily at young children. Nonetheless, pro-lifers can’t guarantee no child will inadvertently see these posters; that would be impossible. America has declared war on her own children for more than two generations and the inevitable consequence of war is that non-combatants are exposed to the horror of war. It is not the intention of a responsible activist to torment young children with gory images. Nor can parents reasonably demand to live a peaceful, comfortable existence shielding their children entirely from this harsh reality while living in a war zone. If the little ones inadvertently catch a glimpse of this brutality it is an undesired side-effect, a temporary indisposition. What’s the risk of a few possible nightmares compared with the nightmare of a baby trapped in his mother’s womb with no where to hide and a surgeon’s clamp seeking to end his life by dismemberment and decapitation? Is it not hyperbolic to suggest the life of a child in immediate danger does not take precedence over the rights of children who already enjoy the care and protection of loving parents? **

---

**Let us travel back in time to the 1940’s and ask ourselves what would we have done if we had been living in wartime Nazi Germany. Who would be willing to risk the lives of our entire families in order to shelter Jewish families marked for extermination? Would we act heroically or try to maintain a life as normal as possible completely ignoring all the suffering around us? **

---

I never understood how The Holocaust could have happened when I was a child. Today the answer is all too clear.

 

[Rosalinda]

The principle of double effect which Fix has been basing his reasons on is extremely pertinent to the moral quandary we are debating. Fix is encouraging us to move beyond a visceral response which is emotion centered to work through a more analytical process. He has been extremely patient.

Dianne Irving,PhD. has an excellent article on the principle of double effect which she applies to the case of saving the life of a mother.
lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_08natlaw.html#a16

With respect to Boppaid she has conflated the evil of abortion with the graphic images of abortion and further fused these images with pornographic images. Abortion is an intrinsic evil as is pornography. Converting the sinner, instructing the ignorant, counseling the doubtful are all properly known as spiritual works of mercy. It is an inversion of reality and a misappropriation of terms to call this work evil, immoral or sinful conduct. [sign]If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain “irremediably” evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person…
Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act “subjectively” good or defensible as a choice.
[/sign]
Veritatis Splendor, JP II
The display of the consequences of an intrinsically evil act is itself either morally neutral and possibly good. Now I would hasten to add these images must be used responsibly and not targeted primarily at young children. Nonetheless, pro-lifers can’t guarantee no child will inadvertently see these posters; that would be impossible. America has declared war on her own children for more than two generations now and the inevitable consequence of war is that non-combatants will be exposed to the horror war is. It is not the intention of a responsible activist to torment young children with gory images. Nor can parents reasonably demand to live a peaceful, comfortable existence shielding their children entirely from this harsh reality while living in a war zone. If the little ones inadvertently catch a glimpse of this brutality it is undesired side-effect, a temporary indisposition. What’s the risk of a few possible nightmares compared with the nightmare of a baby trapped in his mother’s womb with no where to hide and a surgeon’s clamp seeking to end his life by dismemberment and decapitation? Is it not hyperbolic to suggest the life of a child in immediate danger does not take precedence over the rights of children who already enjoy the care and protection of loving parents?

Let us travel back in time to the 1940’s and ask ourselves what would we have done if we had been living in wartime Nazi Germany. Who would be willing to risk the lives of their entire families in order to shelter Jewish families marked for extermination? Would we act heroically or try to maintain a life as normal as possible completely ignoring all the suffering around us?

I never understood how The Holocaust could have happened when I saw all those horrible pictures as a child. Today the answer is all too clear.

 

[fix]

Yea, I think we’re just going 'round and 'round here with circular arguments.

I do not think my argument is circular at all. Perhaps I can express myself better in the future.

Pornography is an objective sin. I believe that taking away a child’s innocence is an objective sin also.

It can be an objective sin only if the one taking the innocence intends to take it or uses an evil means. It is not objectively sinful if it happens as an unintended consequence of a good action.

See the end you focus on, as in the loss of innocence, is bad but that bad end does not translate to guilt simply because it is undesirable.

(Note, I’m not saying the reason this is bad is because a child is disturbed. I’m saying it strips away their innocence.)

A loss of innocence can be evil, but you want to impute that loss specifically to persons without proof. Your "proof " is that it may happen therefore the one’s holding the photos are guilty. Cause and effect does not show culpability.

If I follow your logic we would have to abstain from all types of things simply because an undesirable end may occur.

That is why I brought up the principle of double effect. It exists just for cases like this.

You’re right. BUT, showing these photoes to children (if they strip away at their innocence by being extremely violent and grotesque) is always wrong.

The only way your point would be valid is if I specfically targeted a 5 year old and I say come and stare at these photos because I want to “steal your innocence”.

What if a child sees a police arrest a violent man in the street. The child may be traumatized. Is the action of arresting a person evil because the child suffers this bad effect?

Life is full of bad effects and all those bad effects can’t be attributed to evil actions.

No, that is not my position. Again, just to clarify, my position is that I’m not saying the reason this is bad is because a child is disturbed. I’m saying it strips away their innocence.

Fix, I think we’re going to have to stop. Your arguments make absolutely no sense to me, and I’m sure mine don’t make sense to you either. Agree to disagree?

I understand your position, but respectfully, I do not see the logic at all. You focus exclusively on the fact one’s innocence may be lost and refuse to see that the evil of losing innocence is not always the result of intentional evil acts. It may happen as the result of a good act that is unintended.

Let us use the common example of direct versus indirect abortion. Direct abortion is always evil. Indirect abortion is licit. If a pregnancy occurs in a fallopian tube it is permissible to excise that portion of the tube knowing the effect will include death of the child.

If we apply your position it would make the surgeon and mother guilty of evil actions because the child will die. But, the death is unintended. It is still a type of evil in that an innocent child will die but it is licit.

 

[fix]

And I just said that the ER can strip away their innocence too (if you’ve ever been there on a Friday night you’d know what I mean). That said, it’s a necessity. Going to the ER is not evil. Showing pictures of dead babies is not evil. Both are sad necessity!

I think that is a fair analogy. If you brought a child there specfically to watch all the trauma, chaos, acting out, weirdness, and such then a reasonable person could conclude you are trying to diminish your child’s innocence for some reason. You would be forcing them to confront things at too early an age for some bizarre reason.

On the other hand if your child fell and cut their lip and needed sutures and were exposed inadvertently, to all the nuttiness, then any bad effect that is experienced is not as important as getting their bodily health back in order.

I know I am simplifying all of it but I think my point is valid.