Why do anti-abortion signs

[fix]

---

**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.

Thanks. These threads have really gotten me to think more deeply about abortion and our culture. It is easy to say yes abortion is an evil, but do we really grasp the magnitude of it all?

These threads have me wondering.

 

[boppaid]

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

Yikes. I was jsut trying to be nice in saying that we simply aren’t going to understand each other. Bear & Fix, I get what you’re saying about this issue, but to me, it doesn’t make much sense. The arguments seem very circular and inconsistent. I just meant that if I’m feeling that way, I’m sure you are feeling the same with regard to my position as well! Bear, you sounded snippy…I didn’t mean any disrespect with what I said, I hope my clarification helps.

 

[boppaid]

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.

Well, the “evil of abortion” and the “evil of the pictures” are not really related. The picture could be of any murdered bloody human and I think the effect of the child would be the same.

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..

Who defines what is “intrinsicly evil”? If it is official church teaching, is something NOT intrinsicly evil unless the church declares it so? Do you think this is a good practice ONLY because the church hasn’t declared it bad?

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.

Well, the war on children doesn’t begin and end with abortion. It is perpretrated by Christians every time they take away another little bit of their innocence. Abortion is not the cause of these children having to deal with this, irresponsible people who accidentally let children view these horrors is.

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.

Yes they can. And if this is a war zone, these postors are weapons aimed at our children as well.

If the little ones inadvertently catch a glimpse of this brutality it is an undesired side-effect, a temporary indisposition.

That sounds very reasonable and quaint. Kind of like calling an unborn baby a “clump of cells”. I mean no disrespect, but I find the “watering down” of what is happening bothersome.

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?

Again, it’s not a few possible nightmeres. It’s the taking away of their innocence.

Oye, I said that I would stop debating because it is going nowhere. But here I am. I must be addicted to this debate. Or I need the last word. Hee hee hee. Sorry. I’ll try to slowly back away from the keyboard.

 

[boppaid]

I understand your position, but respectfully, I do not see the logic at all.

I guess that’s what I meant about us going round and round. I realize that I am not making sense to you either.

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.

I do have to add something to this, though. I know you keep referring to this as “unintended acts”. While that may have been true at the beginning of this debate, we have pointed out that children do indeed see these. So if people reading this debate show the posters, they are doing so knowing full well that children will see them, thus it is no longer “unintended” but rather a “casualty of war”.

 

[setter]

I guess that’s what I meant about us going round and round. I realize that I am not making sense to you either.

I do have to add something to this, though. I know you keep referring to this as “unintended acts”. While that may have been true at the beginning of this debate, we have pointed out that children do indeed see these. So if people reading this debate show the posters, they are doing so knowing full well that children will see them, thus it is no longer “unintended” but rather a “casualty of war”.

The devil is the only one with the strategic agenda to put a plausible and sanitary face on the horrors of the mass commission of intrinsically evil acts. This has always been the devil’s strategy in the spiritual warfare, to get humans to deny and minimize the reality and consequences of doing evil.

 

[Holly3278]

The horror of abortion needs to be exposed no matter how graphic. The truth is graphic and the truth is what needs to be shown.

 

[fix]

So if people reading this debate show the posters, they are doing so knowing full well that children will see them, thus it is no longer “unintended” but rather a “casualty of war”.

Again, when I got in my car this morning I knew well that it was possible I could harm someone during an accident. I still drove my car. If I did hit someone by accident would I have been guilty because I knew it was always a possibility?

 

[Rosalinda]

Boppaid, Thank you for the courtesy of your reply.

As you have asked who decides what is intrinsically evil not to mention the many times you have based your argument on “the end doesn’t justify the means.” may I suggest the new Catechism of the Catholic Church for your study. Part Three, section one is very helpful.

II. Good Acts and Evil Acts
1755
A morally good act requires
#1.the goodness of the object,
#2. of the end, and of
#3. the circumstances together.

An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts—such as fornication—that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. (note Boppaid: the following would be a definition of intrinsic evil) There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery.
(Here’s your oft repeated axiom Boppaid) One may not do evil so that good may result* from it.*

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt1art4.htm

The object here in displaying graphic abortion posters is to show the humanity of the child in utero who has been abandoned by his parents, exposed and subjected to the cruel instruments of a professional assassin hired to seek out and destroy its innocent, nascent life. No moral law has been violated or disregarded when these brutal acts are publicly exposed. A carefully made exercise of prudential judgement has been made to show the truth. This truth is ordered to the good, as is defending life, whereas it is the deceit and murder of the abortion industry which are the evil acts against Divine law.

Contrary to violating any Divine precept the Golden Rule is being fulfilled. “Do to others whatever you would have them do to you.” Mt.7:12

Therefore, I conclude all three conditions of a morally good act have been met. The end does justify the means as the means are not evil but good.

 

[Rosalinda]

Boppaid, Thank you for the courtesy of your reply. As you have asked who decides what is intrinsically evil several times not to mention the many times you have based your argument on “the end doesn’t justify the means.” may I suggest the new Catechism of the Catholic Church for your study. Part Three, section one will be very helpful. It is a great reference to keep handy, especially for a mother who will certainly face many challenges raising her children.

II. Good Acts and Evil Acts
1755
A morally good act requires
#1.the goodness of the object,
#2. of the end, and of
#3. the circumstances together.

An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts—such as fornication—that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. (note Boppaid: the following would be a definition of intrinsic evil) There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery.
(Here’s your oft repeated axiom Boppaid) One may not do evil so that good may result* from it.*

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt1art4.htm

The object here is to show the humanity of the child in utero who has been abandoned by his parents, exposed and subjected to the deliberately cruel instruments of a professional assassin hired to seek out and destroy its innocent, nascent life. No moral law has been violated or disregarded here. A carefully made exercise of prudential judgement has been made to show the truth. Truth is ordered to the good as is defending life whereas lying and murder are against the Divine law.

Contrary to violating any Divine precept the Golden Rule is being fulfilled. “Do to others whatever you would have them do to you.” Mt.7:12

Therefore, I conclude all three conditions of a morally good act have been met. The end does justify the means as the means are not evil but good.

 

[carol_marie]

I think showing the graphic cut up babies in public where innocent children can see them is HORRIBLE. How dare someone take my children’s innocence and totally freak them out?!! I think it turns ALOT of people off - I know if it makes me mad, and I’m prolife - how do the fence sitters feel? I don’t think we win anyone over this way. Showing pictures of beautiful babies in the womb at different stages of development in my opinion will win more people over to the pro-life side - and winning them over to our side so that we can pass laws protecting the unborn will help stop abortion.

Also, regarding the end justifying the means - many people want to redifine marriage. Would it be OK if pro-traditional marriage people held up signs with pictures of a husband and wife having sex - maybe with the words: This is how a marriage should be - written across the top? Would it be OK for small children to view those signs? I think not. Great message - wrong method.

I think the graphic abortion signs are the same. Great message - wrong method. I would NEVER financially support a group that used this method - so I’m thankful for this thread - it has made me recognize that I need to determine where my $ is spent when I contribute to pro-life groups.

 

[fix]

Also, regarding the end justifying the means - many people want to redifine marriage. Would it be OK if pro-traditional marriage people held up signs with pictures of a husband and wife having sex - maybe with the words: This is how a marriage should be - written across the top? Would it be OK for small children to view those signs? I think not. Great message - wrong method.

Such a pic would be unjust as it violates modesty and the dignity of those involved.

The analogy does not hold either. In the case of abortion an innocent life is lost through the means depicted in the photo. It shows how unjust the actions really are.

Exposing the marital embrace of some couple in no way makes the point about redefining marriage. It would be simply a gratuitous attempt to garner attention.

 

[bear06]

I think showing the graphic cut up babies in public where innocent children can see them is HORRIBLE. How dare someone take my children’s innocence and totally freak them out?!! I think it turns ALOT of people off - I know if it makes me mad, and I’m prolife - how do the fence sitters feel? I don’t think we win anyone over this way. Showing pictures of beautiful babies in the womb at different stages of development in my opinion will win more people over to the pro-life side - and winning them over to our side so that we can pass laws protecting the unborn will help stop abortion

.

Sorry Carol Marie. You may not think these pictures work but they have been proven to save lives. This is why most who have been on the front lines for years use them. It’s certainly not because it’s a fun thing to do. You might want to contact Fr. Pavone and let him know you don’t appreciate him freaking out your child. I’m sure he’s give you a pretty concise response. I also think you missed the point of the pictures. They aren’t so much to sway public opinion. They are to show the reality of what these mothers are about to do.

Also, regarding the end justifying the means - many people want to redifine marriage. Would it be OK if pro-traditional marriage people held up signs with pictures of a husband and wife having sex - maybe with the words: This is how a marriage should be - written across the top? Would it be OK for small children to view those signs? I think not. Great message - wrong method.

Apples to oranges. A picture of a couple having sex is an occasion of sin or, at best, a near occasion of sin for anyone to see. Pictures of the dead are not.

I find it funny that almost eveyone here has said they wouldn’t have a problem with an older child seeing these pictures. If they were truly evil, why would we want a child of any age to see them? Why is it that we feel it’s OK to “steal” an older child’s innocence?

We feel this way because they are not evil. They are disturbing. I think EVERYONE here has agreed that they are disturbing and EVERYONE here has said that it’s best to avoid a young child seeing them if possible.

Like I’ve said, there are disturbing things in life that are not always possible to avoid. This doesn’t mean that the act, place, picture, etc. is evil. Is the ER evil when your child has to go and there’s a huge trauma in the next room with blood and screams and your child’s innocence is being stolen"? Saving the life of a child the most effective way possible is one such situation.

Let’s look at an applicable verse from the Bible.

6 But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh. 8 And if thy hand, or thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee to go into life maimed or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into everlasting fire. 9 And if thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee having one eye to enter into life, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. 10 See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.

**6 “Shall scandalize”… That is, shall put a stumblingblock in their way, and cause them to fall into sin. **

7 “It must needs be”… Viz., considering the wickedness and corruption of the world.

8 “Scandalize thee”… That is, cause thee to offend

.

Notice that this verse doesn’t say anything about stealing children’s innocence. It says everything about leading them into temptation. These pictures are not a stumbling block that would cause one to fall into sin. In fact, they are just the opposite.

It’s also interesting to look up the definition of innocence. One is a lack of knowledge and one is freedom from sin. While these signs certainly would give children knowledge that they don’t have, they aren’t causing them to sin.

 

[Rosalinda]

Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae ( the Gospel of Life) emphatically stated we have a grave and clear obligation to oppose abortion by conscientious objection. par.73.1

We know children are alive today because these images did finally reach hearts where all else failed. A young mother testified last summer in this forum saying she only wished such conscientious objectors had been outside the “clinic” to stop her and her boyfriend from aborting their child. There are many more such testimonies available at priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/graphicspraise.htmNow

If you believe you have a right to stop others who bravely stand on the front lines of this war against the unborn taking all the venomous heat from the outraged public your commitment to democratic free speech and the culture of life needs to move to a deeper level.

In North America there are over 50 milliion innocent children who have died since the liberalization of abortion laws in 1973.

We live in a contemporary culture steeped in philosophical nihilism. The dignity of life of every citzen is seriously undermined by the dominating attitude which essentially boils down to "freedom of indifference". Is it not the indifference of the masses which allows so much death to happen quietly concealed from public scrutiny?

Heaven forbid anyone dare disturb our peace of mind, our comfortable life or our blissful ignorance. How many who have expressed such strident opposition to this difficult educational effort are even wearing tiny feet pins on their lapels or pro-life messages on their bumper stickers? How many “faithful Catholics” recite even a single decade of the rosary daily to end this slaughter? Could it be that some are so haunted and disturbed with these images because they feel guilt?

We should all tremble with fear when we ponder our sins of omission.

[sign]‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’
He will answer them,** ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ **
And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
[/sign]
Matt.25:44-46
usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew25.htm

 

[carol_marie]

I hear what you’re saying… all of you who think the pictures are necessary. You make very good points - especially in light of the millions of lives already lost to abortion.

Maybe you are right… I’m not sure. I just know that someone once sent me an email attachment of a picture of a cut up aborted, late term baby. It was horrific. I can’t imagine my child seeing that. It would break my heart if he knew at such a tender age (4) that some mommies do that to their babies. He is so innocent & he thinks that the world is a beautiful place. Soon enough he will learn the truth.

I just wouldn’t want someone else holding a sign to decide that day is today.

 

[bear06]

I hear what you’re saying… all of you who think the pictures are necessary. You make very good points - especially in light of the millions of lives already lost to abortion.

Maybe you are right… I’m not sure. I just know that someone once sent me an email attachment of a picture of a cut up aborted, late term baby. It was horrific. I can’t imagine my child seeing that. It would break my heart if he knew at such a tender age (4) that some mommies do that to their babies. He is so innocent & he thinks that the world is a beautiful place. Soon enough he will learn the truth.

I just wouldn’t want someone else holding a sign to decide that day is today.

Believe me, it break my heart too. It breaks my heart equally, if not more, that millions of babies have been brutally murdered. I’m sure our children will have to carry on this fight but I’m hoping my grandchildren, at least, will never have to know this evil.

 

[carol_marie]

Believe me, it break my heart too. It breaks my heart equally, if not more, that millions of babies have been brutally murdered. I’m sure our children will have to carry on this fight but I’m hoping my grandchildren, at least, will never have to know this evil.

Amen! Please make it so Lord!

 

[Rosalinda]

[sign]that someone once sent me an email attachment of a picture of a cut up aborted, late term baby. It was horrific. I can’t imagine my child seeing that[/sign]

My apologies to you Carol Marie for the lack of good judgment on the part of that pro-lifer. It would be better to add a signature to one’s email with the Priests For Life link; from there one can read some comments by Fr. Pavone before selecting the hyperlink to see the actual images.

[Likewise opening unexpected attachments puts your p.c. at risk of downloading a virus or trojan of some sort. It isn’t a safe practice. As a courtesy, I usually send a brief text email first giving notice to expect an attachment in the following email. This security measure gives reassurance to friends and family that it is indeed a photo from me.]

 

[hasikelee]

I hear what you’re saying… all of you who think the pictures are necessary. You make very good points - especially in light of the millions of lives already lost to abortion.

Maybe you are right… I’m not sure. I just know that someone once sent me an email attachment of a picture of a cut up aborted, late term baby. It was horrific. I can’t imagine my child seeing that. It would break my heart if he knew at such a tender age (4) that some mommies do that to their babies. He is so innocent & he thinks that the world is a beautiful place. Soon enough he will learn the truth.

I just wouldn’t want someone else holding a sign to decide that day is today.

Carol,
I am curious. What is your parenting strategy for teaching about death and dying? Do you have a tv in the home? Is your child going to attend public/private school or be homeschooled? Does your child visit with friends or visit other places? Does he go with you in your car on the highway? Do you have newspapers and magazines unattended in your home?

 

[boppaid]

Carol,
I am curious. What is your parenting strategy for teaching about death and dying? Do you have a tv in the home? Is your child going to attend public/private school or be homeschooled? Does your child visit with friends or visit other places? Does he go with you in your car on the highway? Do you have newspapers and magazines unattended in your home?

I’m not Carol, but since she and I have sort of the same take on this, I’ll answer. I talk to my children about death and dying, but I don’t show them pictures of grotesque deaths to demonstrate death. Yes, my child visits with other friends and goes with me in my car on the highway. We do have newspapers and magazines in our home, although I get rid of anything that would show them disturbing images before they have a chance to see them.

 

[hasikelee]

I’m not Carol, but since she and I have sort of the same take on this, I’ll answer. I talk to my children about death and dying, but I don’t show them pictures of grotesque deaths to demonstrate death. Yes, my child visits with other friends and goes with me in my car on the highway. We do have newspapers and magazines in our home, although I get rid of anything that would show them disturbing images before they have a chance to see them.

Well, that is why I was asking. I was assuming that this being a catholic forum with regulars posting on this thread, the average children of these posters probably has seen less.

And yet I heard that the average 8yo has seen 2 million murders on tv. Or was it deaths in general? I don’t know; I will have to pull up the statistics.

Anyways, my point is that unless you are a very determined mommy with a very young child who does not go to school or public areas, or have any outer sources such as media, your child has seen plenty of grotesque images, real or fake. For example, on our highway, there are 2 billboards showing half-dead, starving children advertising a charity to save people in Africa. Any general television show or commercial is liable to show a lot of blood and gore and video games can be included too.

I just hear this argument used a lot against showing the truth of abortion and it always strikes me as a ironic when I question the people arguing me. Like a mother who stopped by where we were protesting and was angry about the images. Into the conversation, it turns out her 6yo son has an xbox 360 and owns the game called saint’s row.

For those of you unfamiliar with this game, it shows nudity, gross, graphic violence, death, blood and gore, essentially, people go around killing each other in interesting ways. Yet the truth of what happens when a baby is aborted was too much for her son.

I wonder if everyone’s natural aversion to abortive images and the uncontrollable urge to hide it has to do with some subconscious desire we all have to love and care for tiny, innocent beings.