B
- Status
B
bear06
Guest
I’m not seeing any red so I’m not sure what you want me to respond to. Why would you have a problem with a pro-lifer’s claims?
R
Rosalinda
Guest
Zooey in post #272 provided the rationale of a rebellious teenager who goes out with a boyfriend her father has forbade her to date and adding to the sin of disobedience fornicates with her forbidden lover too. There is simply no logic to such an argument let alone intellectual honesty.
[sign] I looked at what seems like it must have been a million pix of dead babies, & it never did a thing to make me pro-life. In fact, just the opposite:
For decades,** the strongest single force convincing me that abortions were acceptable** in some circumstances, was the fact of all you pro-life people & your “dead baby” pictures[/sign]
I respectfully suggest, “the strongest single force convincing” people that abortions are acceptable is demonic activity.
Fr. Frank Pavone has heard it all before:
[sign] I looked at what seems like it must have been a million pix of dead babies, & it never did a thing to make me pro-life. In fact, just the opposite:
For decades,** the strongest single force convincing me that abortions were acceptable** in some circumstances, was the fact of all you pro-life people & your “dead baby” pictures[/sign]
I respectfully suggest, “the strongest single force convincing” people that abortions are acceptable is demonic activity.
Fr. Frank Pavone has heard it all before:
priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/photosandsocialreform.htm
R
Rosalinda
Guest
The point which so many posters seem unwilling to face is that abortion is a civil rights issue. Allegations that Christians are persecuting, targeting, traumatizing and robbing children of their innocence are nothing more than diversionary tactics which seek to camouflage this fundamental human rights struggle. It is ironic how many self-proclaimed pro-lifers can’t understand their anger is misplaced. Rather than focusing their energy and hostility toward Planned Parenthood, who has made abortion a profitable industry and has committed these crimes against humanity, they accuse the few brave soldiers who faithfully stand their ground on the battle line armed with nothing more than rosaries and photos. Who is the enemy here? The licensed butchers who tear babies to pieces or the protesters armed only with truth?
Now, juxtapose this present day civil rights movement with the story of Emmett Till. Not one black American parent vilified his mother for the decision to show America how brutally her young boy had been murdered. Children did see the photographs of his mutilated face in the sixties. Yes, they were shocked. No, it was not the intention of his mother. She only wanted to expose the guilty to the scrutiny and condemnation of the whole world. Ironic how yesterday’s heroine would be today’s villain.
Ironic too, how the Prince of Darkness, who thrives on the destruction of beauty and life of children, hides behind the screen of children’s innocence to hide his dirty work. Do you really think he cares?
Now, juxtapose this present day civil rights movement with the story of Emmett Till. Not one black American parent vilified his mother for the decision to show America how brutally her young boy had been murdered. Children did see the photographs of his mutilated face in the sixties. Yes, they were shocked. No, it was not the intention of his mother. She only wanted to expose the guilty to the scrutiny and condemnation of the whole world. Ironic how yesterday’s heroine would be today’s villain.
Ironic too, how the Prince of Darkness, who thrives on the destruction of beauty and life of children, hides behind the screen of children’s innocence to hide his dirty work. Do you really think he cares?
F
fix
Guest
Yes, I can’t follow the logic. I think it is not so much about logic, but an emotional response to this topic.I don’t think we can get past it because it’s being totally ignored by most. It’s amazing how most posts get a response with the exception the point that we’ve both made above and the questions I’ve asked repeatedly. The devil must just be zapping these posts from most!
No one has explained how showing the pics in front of an abortion clinic is evil other than to say a child may experience some negative feeling if they inadvertently saw them. Again, a negative experience does not make a moral act immoral.
Just following that reasoning would deem many things in life evil that we all must do each day to live.
K
Kristopher
Guest
I learned the word “abortion” when I was an adolescent, while paging through a dictionary, and quite honestly could have done without the experience altogether; additionally, my fiance at the time that I was eighteen, and she seventeen, chose not only on her own, but with her parents the abortion of our child, which I opposed from the beginning of our relationship to her knowledge.
You sound very confused between the meaning of the words “innocence” and “ignorance”. Neither your childs, nor your innocence were destroyed after viewing these images: I think your situation rather sad that you failed to act promptly toward your children by protecting their vision with your hand, and instructing them to look down at the pavement, not at the signs, but someplace where there vision would remain blocked: my mother always did this with my sister and I in movie theaters, in public, etc., and we were quite obedient at very young ages such as four, and five.
To some extent I think that your viewpoint to stop the display of these images that are very graphic to stop abortion is against forum rules, because you are assuming that you recognize what other people need.
You and your children remain innocent after having viewed these images, because neither you, nor they: giving you the benefit of the doubt, have been supportive of abortion. Opposition to these images promotes ignorance. It is your ignorance, and theirs about abortion that has been destroyed.
Your view about the 4D images is correct: they show a living unborn child. They do nothing to promote the reality, the truth of what is abortion. You very naively think that this will somehow prevent abortions. What you fail to understand and perhaps not through any fault of your own, but I find difficulty accepting this: assuming you are a Catholic, you are obligated to have learned something about your faith, and given the the three-and-a-half decades, which have resulted in abortions that have decreased the population of the US by at least thirteen percent; I would say, you at this point should have learned quite a bit about abortion just from its existence as part of our American culture and the epitome of a woman’s right, of the Equal Rights Amendment. What I mean to say is this, abortion is a reality both bloody, and brutal, euphemistically portrayed as compassionate to the plight of a mother, and of a father.
Abortuses are shown to the benefit of society: they destroy any ignorance about what has happened to a baby as a consequence of abortion. Your support of 4D images does nothing to educate people about abortion, and its effects; it only supports the reason many women, and men, support the choice for abortion–to end a human life, a pregnancy. There are those who support abortion even after a child has been born.
There is no escape from the reality of terrifying elements within our culture. You should support your child being protected, and yourself included, against this terror by recognizing the very clear need that we must be educated about conception, about human life and its developement, and the effects of what means surgically, pharmaceudically, and other means too that destroy human life in the womb.
It is sad: your children were exposed to this horror that our US Supreme Court has legalized as a woman’s choice. It is sadder still people view the education provided by these images as a threat not to ignorance, but to innocence.
P.S. From a standpoint of business, the graphic nature of these pictures demonstrate the end result of a service provided in the same manner any business will often depict either goods, or services provided. In anycase, the images are designated as non-profit educational. Hospitals by means of abortions provide the service, yeilding an abortus. More than an appropriate location, and well within First Amendment rights. Maybe you will be quicker to block your children’s vision in the future.
M
Mommyof02green
Guest
Well I’m glad that your Mom was able to keep her hands on the steering wheel of a car AND cover your eyes with her hand. Maybe I should meet her and she can teach me how to keep my hands on the steering wheel and reach in the back seat to cover my kid’s eyes. Or maybe you are just “ignorant” of that fact that I was driving a car at the time.
Those are just 2 posting where I made mention I was driving a car at the time. God Bless and Merry Christmas
R
Rosalinda
Guest
There is no doubt these graphic tools are effective. I have read testimonies of former abortion providers and abortion assistants who have admitted how the presence of prolife picketers outside their “clinics” slowed down the number of abortions everyday they were out there. Many abortion-minded women have changed their minds after seeing the truth. Many of these accounts are readily available on line at Priests for Life. The abortion propagandists hate them and are scared of the truth because it hurts their profits and rips away the mask of deceit and all the clever abstract euphemisms.
Don’t believe it boppaid?
Read this from feminist Naomi Wolf,
[sign]"When someone holds up a model of a six-month old fetus and a pair of surgical scissors, we say “choice” and we “lose.”[/sign]
Cynthia Gorney, author of Articles of Faith, a book about the abortion wars, says that serious damage was done to the pro-abortion side when partial birth abortion was widely revealed to the public. Attitudes shifted from 33% down to 22%.
[sign]"With partial-birth, the right-to-life movement succeeded for the first time in forcing the country to really look at one awful abortion procedure[/sign]
str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5693
If these images weren’t effective they would simply be ignored.
Don’t believe it boppaid?
Read this from feminist Naomi Wolf,[sign]"When someone holds up a model of a six-month old fetus and a pair of surgical scissors, we say “choice” and we “lose.”[/sign]
Cynthia Gorney, author of Articles of Faith, a book about the abortion wars, says that serious damage was done to the pro-abortion side when partial birth abortion was widely revealed to the public. Attitudes shifted from 33% down to 22%.
[sign]"With partial-birth, the right-to-life movement succeeded for the first time in forcing the country to really look at one awful abortion procedure[/sign]
str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5693
If these images weren’t effective they would simply be ignored.
C
carol_marie
Guest
I’ve not personally encountered these signs in public, however I have a friend who did. She was going to the Milwaukee zoo with her family and she and her children had to walk past several LARGE pictures of dismembered babies. Apparently a local hospital that provides abortions was having it’s company picnic at the zoo that day. The protestors knew that lots of children would walk past the signs but displayed them anyhow.
It is one thing to hold the signs outside a clinic - I’m curious as to the opinions about holding them outside a zoo on a Saturday? However, the fact isn’t lost on me that those who provided the abortions were the evil ones. Just curious if you believe the signs are, in this case, not appropriate?
It is one thing to hold the signs outside a clinic - I’m curious as to the opinions about holding them outside a zoo on a Saturday? However, the fact isn’t lost on me that those who provided the abortions were the evil ones. Just curious if you believe the signs are, in this case, not appropriate?
A
apricot_yogurt
Guest
By showing these images we are showing the abortionists that *we know *what they are doing all day, and we are showing the general public that this is what goes on behind the cosy euphemisms of “choice”, and “women’s rights”
B
bear06
Guest
The main objection of these images is always to stop the death of a child. Now this can be done in different ways. It’s very effective as a last line of defense and it can ALSO be a way to educate the public and it sounds like the group your friend encountered was trying to make life very uncomfortable for the zoo who let them have a company picnic there and for the abortionists themselves. MANY abortionists have stopped doing aboritons, not because they were wrong, but it cost them too much personally due to pro-lifers exposing their deeds to the neighbors. NOW has been whining and crying about this for years. This same tactic used in different places has the same results - more babies being saved whether it be by mothers changing their minds, abortionists giving up their trade or the public at large voting correctly.
G
gam197
Guest
How about pets? When a pet hamster dies, it causes children alot of grief.
No one is trying to harm children. I used distraction when I came across things I didn’t want my children to see. I simply point in the opposite direction and say “Look at this.”
No one is trying to harm children. I used distraction when I came across things I didn’t want my children to see. I simply point in the opposite direction and say “Look at this.”
C
carol_marie
Guest
Again, if it saves one baby it’s worth it. I imagine that the hospital workers were very uncomfortable when confronted with the reality of who they work for. I often think of the Nazis and wonder how they could’ve tortured Jews and then gone home to their wives and children and ate dinner like nothing horrible happened? I wonder if their families really knew what they spent their day doing? I think the same of abortion providers. Another poster said that these images prevent people from hiding behind nice words like “choice.” I agree.
R
Rosalinda
Guest
carol marie asked:
[sign]It is one thing to hold the signs outside a clinic - I’m curious as to the opinions about holding them outside a zoo on a Saturday?[/sign]
While I adamantly defend the need to show these graphics and understand why some would feel the need to spoil this picnic prudence seems lacking here. Was the public given fair notice beforehand so that parents could decide to postpone their visit to the zoo? Maybe it would have been more appropriate to protest with simple signs in this context. The guilty would have had a shadow cast over their day as they would have felt haunted by these gentler reminders yet the youngsters would have remained oblivious to this protest.
On the other hand, Bear06 has made some good points too… Many doctors who do abortions are not suspected even by their neighbours, friends, colleagues and wives. These murders are committed as an aside to their regular practice. Doubtless, public exposure has given many the incentive to discontinue this “elective procedure”. That being said, Christians are called to be as wise as serpents and as meek as lambs. Targeting zoos does not seem very wise. Maybe meekness would have been a better option.
[sign]It is one thing to hold the signs outside a clinic - I’m curious as to the opinions about holding them outside a zoo on a Saturday?[/sign]
While I adamantly defend the need to show these graphics and understand why some would feel the need to spoil this picnic prudence seems lacking here. Was the public given fair notice beforehand so that parents could decide to postpone their visit to the zoo? Maybe it would have been more appropriate to protest with simple signs in this context. The guilty would have had a shadow cast over their day as they would have felt haunted by these gentler reminders yet the youngsters would have remained oblivious to this protest.
On the other hand, Bear06 has made some good points too… Many doctors who do abortions are not suspected even by their neighbours, friends, colleagues and wives. These murders are committed as an aside to their regular practice. Doubtless, public exposure has given many the incentive to discontinue this “elective procedure”. That being said, Christians are called to be as wise as serpents and as meek as lambs. Targeting zoos does not seem very wise. Maybe meekness would have been a better option.
B
bear06
Guest
Actually, Rosalinda, this is a really good idea. One that I hope they used. I think it’s good to send out a “warning shot”. Hopefully the zoo was notified first (and even the pro-aborts) that this would happen should they show up there. It gives the parties a chance to reconsider whether or not they want to host and whether or not they want to go through with it. After that, it might be nice to warn the public at large (although that could be difficult to achieve on a shoestring budget) but they could make some effort. After that I wouldn’t have a problem with them being there.
It’s not a place I’d go to (or at least I haven’t) but I’m not going to condemn those going. These tactics have been proven to hurt the abortion industry and thus save babies. Like I said before, we all have to find our niche in this fight and just because somebody else’s niche isn’t ours doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong. I’m sure they’ve prayed and received counsel just like the rest of us.
R
Rosalinda
Guest
[sign] it might be nice to warn the public at large (although that could be difficult to achieve on a shoestring budget) but they could make some effort.[/sign]
Yes, Bear06. Prolifers are not in this struggle to make money and often the money is coming directly out of their own pockets to fight this injustice. If there wasn’t the time or money for a notice in the local media protesters with warning signs a few blocks away on the perimeter of the zoo would have been helpful, at the very least.
[sign]It’s not a place I’d go to (or at least I haven’t) but I’m not going to condemn those going[/sign]
Yes, I agree. Bear06. No one has a right to condemn such an action as evil as many have presumed to judge here. That’s where I draw the line, at calling an act of poor judgement a grave sin.
Only God can see the whole picture. I’m just struggling to correctly place a few pieces of a puzzle without benefit of the whole picture.
Yes, Bear06. Prolifers are not in this struggle to make money and often the money is coming directly out of their own pockets to fight this injustice. If there wasn’t the time or money for a notice in the local media protesters with warning signs a few blocks away on the perimeter of the zoo would have been helpful, at the very least.
[sign]It’s not a place I’d go to (or at least I haven’t) but I’m not going to condemn those going[/sign]
Yes, I agree. Bear06. No one has a right to condemn such an action as evil as many have presumed to judge here. That’s where I draw the line, at calling an act of poor judgement a grave sin.
Only God can see the whole picture. I’m just struggling to correctly place a few pieces of a puzzle without benefit of the whole picture.
K
Kristopher
Guest
You only mentioned leaving the hospital: you never mentioned in what manner. I figured you walked out the front doors, and there were the pictures.
It must be difficult to command obedience from four yr. olds, and five yr. olds, but did you try to tell them not to look out the windows, until mommy says it’s okay, or to look at the front seats, or occupy their time with toys or something?
I don’t know what was happening there, but did those signs surprise you, or were they waiting there for you, on the sidewalk, or were they parked at the curb? What did you do to meet your responsibility to protect your children? How did you explain the pictures to your kids? Can you refer me to a post that you already have addressed this?
Those who typically run the campaigns to bring these images to others avoid elementary schools, traffic during the day when toddlers, and adolescents might be with parents on the road, etc. It is their responsibility, and yours, and mine to inform people about the destruction caused by abortion.
I am glad that you had an alternative, the 4D images, but I cannot agree that they do anything at all to show the destruction of abortion, let alone do so effectively. Photographs since the 1960’s of stillborns have been photographed, and the act of conception filmed, and every stage of human development shown by photographs for over thirty yrs. now–these pictures of the unborn–as I think about it now: every woman interested in an abortion has the opportunity to watch abortions being performed on themselves, or others through ultrasound–it is something used to demonstrate just how safe of a procedure it is for the woman.
4D images of a baby in the womb are ineffective at showing the destruction caused by abortion–they are effective in showing abortionists where to slit the throat of the unborn child, and to show the woman receiving the abortion: what the doctor, or assistant is doing.
R
Rosalinda
Guest
Kristopher please clarify this statement:
[sign]every woman interested in an abortion has the opportunity to watch abortions being performed on themselves, or others through ultrasound–it is something used to demonstrate just how safe of a procedure it is for the woman.[/sign]
I’m confused. My understanding has been at least 78% of abortion-minded women who see their unborn child on ultrasound experience an immediate change of heart. In point of fact, abortion providers instruct assistants to be very careful the clients do not see the ultrasound screen, precisely because they fear humanizing the child. What could be more humanizing than a mother? I only wish it was mandatory for all abortion-minded mothers to at least look at their child in utero - via ultrasound - before consenting to their deliberate killing. If such were the case, this whole issue on the ethics of publicly showing graphic posters would be moot. So Kristopher, kindly explain just when these poor women have “an opportunity to watch an abortion being performed on themselves.”
I agree with your point about the ultrasound images. How ironic it is. This tool in the hands of pro-lifers saves lives yet this same tool in the hands of abortionists facilitates their “work”.
Likewise, there are some who can never imagine just how cruelly these children die. They will never take the time to sit down and read step by step how the “doctor” methodically inserts instruments of torture into her to deliver her child piecemeal. They have never read how the “doctors” describe the texture of their children as they grab, twist, pull and dismember them. After so many killings, these doctors acquire a knack for guessing the developmental age of their victims. They have the same calculatingly cool minds of serial psychotic murderers. It is incredible how these medical practitioners proudly flaunt their skills in courtrooms detailing how well they know their victims by the amount of resistance their little muscles and joints give them. Really, they brag about their intimate knowledge of death with the candor of diners relishing a chicken stew!
Frankly, reading their words is far more grueling and horrific than are the photographs. We are a visual culture, nonetheless, and few are going to inform themselves about the true nature of the people they are entrusting their lives to, so what’s left but holding up these posters like a stop sign? Stop signs are there to save lives. So are these posters, stop signs to save lives.
[sign]every woman interested in an abortion has the opportunity to watch abortions being performed on themselves, or others through ultrasound–it is something used to demonstrate just how safe of a procedure it is for the woman.[/sign]
I’m confused. My understanding has been at least 78% of abortion-minded women who see their unborn child on ultrasound experience an immediate change of heart. In point of fact, abortion providers instruct assistants to be very careful the clients do not see the ultrasound screen, precisely because they fear humanizing the child. What could be more humanizing than a mother? I only wish it was mandatory for all abortion-minded mothers to at least look at their child in utero - via ultrasound - before consenting to their deliberate killing. If such were the case, this whole issue on the ethics of publicly showing graphic posters would be moot. So Kristopher, kindly explain just when these poor women have “an opportunity to watch an abortion being performed on themselves.”I agree with your point about the ultrasound images. How ironic it is. This tool in the hands of pro-lifers saves lives yet this same tool in the hands of abortionists facilitates their “work”.
Likewise, there are some who can never imagine just how cruelly these children die. They will never take the time to sit down and read step by step how the “doctor” methodically inserts instruments of torture into her to deliver her child piecemeal. They have never read how the “doctors” describe the texture of their children as they grab, twist, pull and dismember them. After so many killings, these doctors acquire a knack for guessing the developmental age of their victims. They have the same calculatingly cool minds of serial psychotic murderers. It is incredible how these medical practitioners proudly flaunt their skills in courtrooms detailing how well they know their victims by the amount of resistance their little muscles and joints give them. Really, they brag about their intimate knowledge of death with the candor of diners relishing a chicken stew!
Frankly, reading their words is far more grueling and horrific than are the photographs. We are a visual culture, nonetheless, and few are going to inform themselves about the true nature of the people they are entrusting their lives to, so what’s left but holding up these posters like a stop sign? Stop signs are there to save lives. So are these posters, stop signs to save lives.
K
Kristopher
Guest
Thank you for the statistic, it is very encouraging and I remember during counselor training that I received through Living Well Medical Clinic that many women have a change of heart when exposed to medical models showing the development of their child, such as what Dr. Bernard N. Nathanson used in his narrative “The Silent Scream”.
I must have gone a wee-bit overboard in my claim opposing the use of 4D ultrasound images to show the destruction of abortion.
I remember the abortion of my child, the nurse, just like in the narrative The Silent Scream used the euphemism “Number One” for my child’s head, being severed from its body. I tried with what you wrote to recall if there was an ultrasound: it is a vague memory and my thoughts were largely extant at the time to control my rage–the temptation to kill 'em all as I witnessed in my mind, the murder of my child.
We visited Planned Parenthood before the abortion, once. Though I at the time, opposed birth control, and Planned Parenthood; I thought in terms of the commitment to her, and the emotional characteristics of the relationship seemed to demand on my part, my presence there with her–considering my own irresponsible behavior that presented her with an opportunity for birth control. I remember the receptionist recommended that in the event she should choose an abortion, having it viewed on ultrasound was an option.
The Dr. I think could have cared less about the humanity of the unborn, and the nurse as well. Money was more than a word to the two of them. Though, the nurse felt–I think that she expressed feeling forced to perform that part of her job, I think. Memory is poor on the matter.
Men have their stories on this too, women make their choice not only for themselves, but also for their men, for their parents, for their grandparents, and for society as a whole–no matter the responsibility of the medical profession, and education failing them with proper information about the facts of human development: who and what is a person, a human being that can in fact, and in fact has been defined by medical science, and theology as well.
P.S. Education has very clearly failed many men, many women to provide them with the skills essential for them to fulfill the responsibilities demanded of them as legal adults at the age of eighteen, sadly. Though, education may blame the economy that has for at least two generations now failed to provide legal adults with opportunities to become adults to the extent that they may actually afford families, homes, land, education, automobiles, etc.
R
Rosalinda
Guest
Kristopher, Thank you for sharing your experience. I agree abortion has many victims. We are all affected in ways we cannot even begin to imagine. May I suggest you contact Silent No More if you haven’t already.
This man, Jonathan Flora, used his grief to write and direct an exceptional little movie called “A Distant Thunder”.
Kindly accept my condolences for your loss. My prayers are with you.
This man, Jonathan Flora, used his grief to write and direct an exceptional little movie called “A Distant Thunder”.
silentnomoreawareness.org/men/index.html
Kindly accept my condolences for your loss. My prayers are with you.
- Status