Why do anti-abortion signs

[marcsababa]

I am sorry if the following has already been covered in this thread:

These are reasons why aborted babies are shown on anti abortion signs:

1. The goal is to make abortion more horrific in the mind of the potential aborting mother than the prospect of giving birth to a child and giving it up for adoption
2. research was done on past successful civil rights issues and in the case of blacks, child workers and victims of drunk drivers great success was achieved with graphic images.

Abortion is a bit different from most civil rights issues in that the victims do not have a voice. They are dead by the time we see them outside the womb. Also the media usually picked up on other civil rights issues and crusaded for the cause. In this case the media is mysteriously determined to stick to the idea that people have the right to kill a baby. So unusual ways have to be utlised to get the information to the public.

CBER has a website with many success stories of using these images.

I agree with allowing children to see pictures of aborted babies. They are forced to see other images daily of people who do not respect their bodies, who do not respect sex, etc. We have had frightening fairy tales for children to learn from for centuries. Today many parents are afraid of letting their children be exposed to the real world. They want to cacoon them in a pink barbie pardise away from the experience of doing without anything, away from the experience of having to master their emotions, away from the need of finding their own way to occupy their time. PUKE sorry I am ranting now…

 

[Karin]

I agree with allowing children to see pictures of aborted babies.

I agree that older children can see these…buy not young kids, IMHO

They are forced to see other images daily of people who do not respect their bodies, who do not respect sex, etc.

not my kids

We have had frightening fairy tales for children to learn from for centuries.

WHAT fairytales talk about abortion? I do not ever recall telling my kids one of these stories.

Today many parents are afraid of letting their children be exposed to the real world.

not at all…but I do not think it is your choice to tell me when **my **kids can see aborted baby pics…especially when they are under the age of 5.

 

[bear06]

not at all…but I do not think it is your choice to tell me when **my **kids can see aborted baby pics…especially when they are under the age of 5.

And we don’t think it’s your choice to tell us not to use the most powerful tactic we can to try and save a baby’s life. We’ll never agree on this one.

We’ll just keep going around on this one. I do truly get what you are saying and it would be my desire not to have any of my children ever exposed to the horrific pictures. I just simply can’t but my childrens’ possible reactions over saving a life the best way I know how. I simply have to pray and believe that God will protect my children no matter what the situation.

 

[m134e5]

The graphic posters showed otherwise. Most abortions are committed against fully recognizable human beings. That day a little doubt was implanted in the minds of two men who didn’t previously know what an abortion actually was.

Although I think pictures of beautifully formed babies in the womb is the better approach, I’m not ready to completely give up on graphic images. Newspapers, magazines, television and even college and high school campuses have denied us the forum to effectively educate the public about the true horrors of abortion. The only forum left is the street. I wish I weren’t so, but that’s what we’re dealing with.

It still isn’t right to let unsuspecting people see those images. They don’t leave your mind- for those who are bothered easily, they are enough to ruin your day (and those types of people who are bothered so much are probably already against abortion anyway). It is also unfair to scandalize innocent children (many of which freak out in gory movies- even worse when it’s the real thing). Showing these images doesn’t help- it only makes people mad, and more stubborn- if you want to hand out pamphlets, that’s fine, but show pictures of healthy, living babies- both in the womb and out, so that passersby can appreciate the beauty of human life- rather than react to atrocity.

 

[bear06]

I love the absolute answers from people who have no proof. Those who hold graphic signs do have proof that they work. So I’m a little perplexed at how you can say they don’t work? What’s the proof of this? Did you even bother reading Fr. Pavone’s site on this? This is why they’re used. You think they ruin your day. Imagine the day that some babies would have if they were aborted.

 

[boppaid]

All I can say to those of you who think it is ok to display graphic pictures of dead children where small children might see them, is that it is a really good thing you do not live where I live. If you did you might find yourself indicted for exposing a minor to indecent material. I would be the one indicting you by the way.

We are not called to do evil to prevent evil. It is evil in my opinion to expose small children to graphic photos of someone who is dead, regardless of how they died or at what age. Children have a right to be raised with some amount of innocence. Innocent lives should not be taken, but innocence should not be taken from lives either.

I am exposed to dead people all the time as I am a felony prosecutor. However, if someone exposed my small child to this, they better be ready to spend a little time in jail. People of all ages are killed every day. It is a horrible thing. Stripping the innocence from a small child is not going to stop people from killing each other, but it sure does a great deal of harm to the child.

The ends do not justify the means. Just my two cents for what they are worth.

Yours in Christ.

A

 

[boppaid]

And I’m sorry if you feel my children have been harmed. I know they haven’t and the conviction I see in them gives me hope that the next generation might be the ones who end this horrific act.

The thing is, if you don’t feel that it’s harmful to show your children bloody murder pictures, that’s fine…that’s your parental right I suppose. However, it is MY parental right not to expose my children to that either, and the law is fortunately on my side.

I have a question…would you object to me showing your childrne pictures of gruesome murders of adults? What if I showed your 5 year old a picture of a decapitated man with his genitals cut off? Again, using evil to stop evil is NOT right in the eyes of the Church, and that is exactly what is happening when we show our innocent children such horrific pictures, and makes them think about them.

This makes me upset, as you can see. My nephew saw a pic like this on a sign, and had nightmeres for days. WRONG.

 

[boppaid]

Sorry to serial post.

But Catherine, you seem to be totally ignoring the fact that some babies have been saved directly because of the graphic pictures. Not only that, some hearts have also been changed by these pictures.

Aren’t we told over and over though that the ends doesn’t justify the means?

 

[bear06]

I have a question…would you object to me showing your childrne pictures of gruesome murders of adults? What if I showed your 5 year old a picture of a decapitated man with his genitals cut off? Again, using evil to stop evil is NOT right in the eyes of the Church, and that is exactly what is happening when we show our innocent children such horrific pictures, and makes them think about them.

How is truth evil? It’s the act that is evil. Exposing the act and showing women exactly what happens to their babies is not evil - it’s the defense of a human life! Murder is illegal so showing someone a picture of it will probably not make it any more rare. People know the consequences of this action. Abortion is legal and until people get it through their heads just what it is and what they are doing to their children, the pictures need to be shown.

BTW, I’m not really sure what you mean by the law is on your side. And, even if it was, which I’m quite sure it’s not, the law is on Planned Parenthood’s side too. Does this make them right?

And btw, I’m not sure where you get the idea that the law is on you side.

The Church has never condemned showing pictures of aborted babies to people. It has also never condemned showing concentration camp pictures or pictures of starving children in third world countries. These are all evil things. All quite disturbing and yet I don’t think you’ll find them condemned by the Church. Besides that, you might want to consider how many wonderful and holy priests you have just said are using evil means to stop the death of innocent children. I guess they must not know the teachings of the Church even thought their organizations are sanctioned and applauded by the Church.

This makes me upset, as you can see. My nephew saw a pic like this on a sign, and had nightmeres for days. WRONG

I’m finding it quite disturbing that people will condemn something that will save the life of a baby because some child might have nightmares for days. It’s almost as if we, ourselves, don’t believe it is murder. If we knew that the 2 year old next door would be murdered, wouldn’t we use any means of self defense possible on behalf of this child? Yes, shooting someone with a gun is usually considered evil unless it’s used in self defense. It’s the same thing with these pictures.

 

[boppaid]

How is truth evil?

The truth is not evil. Taking away the innocence of children is evil.

The Church has never condemned showing pictures of aborted babies to people. It has also never condemned showing concentration camp pictures or pictures of starving children in third world countries.

And the Church has never condemned showing children pictures of decapitated men with their genitals cut off either. Would you like someone to show that to your children?

Besides that, you might want to consider how many wonderful and holy priests you have just said are using evil means to stop the death of innocent children. I guess they must not know the teachings of the Church even thought their organizations are sanctioned and applauded by the Church.

There have been many evil acts in church history performed by the clergy. They are not perfect.

I stand by my ascertaition that using evil to stop evil is not right, and (the church DOES say this the end does not justify the means.

I’m finding it quite disturbing that people will condemn something that will save the life of a baby because some child might have nightmares for days.

Again, the end does not justify the means.

 

[Odell]

Do you honestly believe that they would not react to a picture of a living baby in the womb? Most women I know just want to hug and hold every baby they see. You don’t think that seeing a blown up picture of a Living Baby in the womb would stop them from getting an abortion?

It worked didnt it

I think you need both. have a picture of a baby in the womb and one aborted. Think of all the high school girls that may think of having a abortion which one do you think would have more of an impact?

 

[bear06]

And the Church has never condemned showing children pictures of decapitated men with their genitals cut off either. Would you like someone to show that to your children?

What purpose is trying to be served doing this? Is it something I can directly stop from happening? Sorry, not enough info. Besides that, nobody is saying “Let’s aim these pictures at the children.” We’re simply saying that if a life can be saved by showing these pictures than that supercedes protecting our children from viewing them.

There have been many evil acts in church history performed by the clergy. They are not perfect.

Holy cow! You are actually saying that Fr. Pavone, et. al., are committing an evil act?! Oh my. Well, at least I’m in good company! Do you even know who he is?

I stand by my ascertaition that using evil to stop evil is not right, and (the church DOES say this the end does not justify the means

. You have yet to show that showing pictures of aborted babies is an evil act.

 

[boppaid]

What purpose is trying to be served doing this? Is it something I can directly stop from happening? Sorry, not enough info. Besides that, nobody is saying “Let’s aim these pictures at the children.” We’re simply saying that if a life can be saved by showing these pictures than that supercedes protecting our children from viewing them.

If the end doesn’t justify the means, then it doesn’t matter for what purpose.

Holy cow! You are actually saying that Fr. Pavone, et. al., are committing an evil act?! Oh my. Well, at least I’m in good company! Do you even know who he is?

I do know of him. He has never shown bloody fetus pictures on the streets, has he? Because if he has, I certainly have lost respect for him. Do I think he’s evil? No. Do I think it’s evil to take away young children’s innocence by showing such gruesome atrocities to them? Yes.

.

You have yet to show that showing pictures of aborted babies is an evil act.

Well, I guess it’s a difference of opinion of whether or not it is evil to force children to look at these pictures. However, as a parent, it is ABSOLUTELY my right to ensure my children do not see these things. I would fight just as hard for any grotesque picture, any pornographic picture, or anything that strips away at their innocence.

 

[bear06]

If the end doesn’t justify the means, then it doesn’t matter for what purpose.

Sigh! You are saying there is something wrong with the means. Not I and not the Church. Fr. Pavone’s organization is well known by the Vatican and Fr. Pavone is an official for the Pontifical Council for the Family. If you are going to use this line of thinking then you’d have to also say that showing pictures of the Nazi concentration camps was evil and showing starving children in third world countries is also evil because it will traumatize some.

I do know of him. He has never shown bloody fetus pictures on the streets, has he? Because if he has, I certainly have lost respect for him. Do I think he’s evil? No. Do I think it’s evil to take away young children’s innocence by showing such gruesome atrocities to them? Yes.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

It still isn’t right to let unsuspecting people see those images. They don’t leave your mind- for those who are bothered easily, they are enough to ruin your day (and those types of people who are bothered so much are probably already against abortion anyway). It is also unfair to scandalize innocent children (many of which freak out in gory movies- even worse when it’s the real thing). Showing these images doesn’t help- it only makes people mad, and more stubborn- if you want to hand out pamphlets, that’s fine, but show pictures of healthy, living babies- both in the womb and out, so that passersby can appreciate the beauty of human life- rather than react to atrocity.

I’m afraid I disagree. One of the evils of abortion is that we’re basically removed from it, we don’t see its results, we’re innured to it (by that I mean that it sort of only exists, in some ways, in our minds, as a theoretical). These pictures tell the truth and if children see them (I’m not saying we deliberately show them to, I dunno, a class of first Communion candidates, but I certainly think they should be show to kids prepping for confirmation), then that’s a generation that ISN’T innured to this great evil.

I remember seeing footage from the seal hunts on TV when I was a small child. The “hunters” would go out onto the ice and club harp seal pups, who didn’t even know enough to try and escape. It was horrible, most everyone thought it was horrible, and it was stopped. If those images of animals being killed (animals of which we are allowed by natural law to make use) are so bad that people couldn’t tolerate the practice anymore, I say show the images of the poor little bodies dismembered, the little feet no longer than a finger joint, and maybe the same type of people who were outraged that a seal pup could be clubbed to death will develope the same outrage over the innocent and most helpless of our own species, made in the image of the Holy One.

 

[boppaid]

Sigh! You are saying there is something wrong with the means. Not I and not the Church. Fr. Pavone’s organization is well known by the Vatican and Fr. Pavone is an official for the Pontifical Council for the Family. If you are going to use this line of thinking then you’d have to also say that showing pictures of the Nazi concentration camps was evil and showing starving children in third world countries is also evil because it will traumatize some.

Yes, I am saying there is something wrong with showing grotestque, bloody images to small children. There is something wrong with taking a 3, 4, or 5 year old’s innocence away. And, yes, I believe it is equally wrong to show a small child slaughtered pictures of people in Nazi concentration camps. There is no inconsistency in my beliefs about doing this to children. I don’t care what the atrocity, it should not be thrown in my young child’s face.

Uh, yes he has and if you had bothered to read the links I’ve provided for his arguments for using these pictures. You can’t have it both ways. He’s used these pictures and, in your book, he’s committed and evil act. He’s just one of MANY priests that believe in this tactic.

I didn’t read the link you provided. I’m sorry. I have read about him now. No, I don’t think he’s evil. As I said, though, I believe he’s commited an evil act. I don’t care if he’s just one of many priest who have done this. I don’t care if the Vatican approves it. I don’t believe it’s an infallible approval, and I do believe they have approved things that weren’t right in the past. So, I’m sorry. I think it’s a sin to force evil images on children. But, as we Catholics say…love the sinner hate the sin, so I have nothing against Fr. Provone except I GREATLY dislike his tactics.
.

There is no force. It’s a possibility. If you want to protect your right then you might want to make sure there are no scheduled showings of these pictures anywhere you might be traveling for the day. Direct your children not to look if they are present. Avoid Planned Parenthood and check websites because these pictures will continue to be shown. Again, if this fight doesn’t end with our generation, it will be your children’s generation and possibly grandchildrens’ generations that will have to deal with it. I personally don’t want my children to feel compelled to carry on this fight because we can’t win.

You know as well as I do that you can’t avoid every instance like this. At least where I live, you can’t. I’ve tried the “don’t look” line,by the way, and it doesn’t work. By the time I notice it, they’ve seen it. Besides, it’s not always by clinics. We had protestors one time on the street, no where near a clinic.

 

[Rosalinda]

abortionno.org/RCC/graphic/graphic.html

Warning some examples of horrifying images children are routinely exposed to.

[sign]I think it’s a sin to force evil images on children[/sign]

declared boppaid.

Fr. Frank Pavone according to boppaid has [sign]commited an evil act.[/sign]

The sin is to co-operate with evil. Only the side in favor of the forces of darkness wins when we hide the dirty deeds of the perpetrators who commit these atrocities against children.

We will all be held to account not only for what we didn’t do: abort our own children but for what we failed to do: protect the unborn. Somehow, I don’t think Fr. Frank Pavone will have his heels held to the flames of hell for this one. Would that every Catholic priest could speak so eloquently and with such passion in defense of life.

 

[apricot_yogurt]

I think the real anger and disgust at these images should be aimed at those people who did this foul thing to these little babies in the first place. Do not shoot the messenger.
I have four small children, and while I wouldn’t go out of my way to show these images to them, if they were to see them, I would sadly explain to them as best I could what they were about. I think my children might be damaged by seeing these pictures, and that would be a shame, and my children would become another victim of abortion, along with the mothers, fathers and grandparents of these aborted babies.
We are all involved in this holocaust of abortion, whether we like it or not.
Praise God that your children are alive to witness these pictures, and are not on them.

 

[bear06]

to Rosalinda, Kirk and Apricot Yogurt! And AY, may the rest of your pregnancy goes smoothly!

 

[fix]

If the end doesn’t justify the means, then it doesn’t matter for what purpose.

If someone could show me the means are evil I would gladly change my position on the matter.

How are you reasoning the means are evil? Is your point that some minor may see them and experience some sort of untoward mental distress? Does such a limited experience itself make the means evil?

Why is the potential uneasiness from the child the sole determining factor to claim the means are evil? Children are exposed to all types of things that could potentially make them have bad dreams, question, or be disturbed for a time.

It seems the parent has the obligation to educate and raise their child as they determine. That does not mean any exposure to anything that may be disturbing is stealing a child’s innocence or that a certain means are evil.