Graphic Pictures Of Abortions

[Lil Red]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1173388' date='Jan 22 2007, 05:08 PM']Yes. America didn't start to reject racism until we saw Emmitt Till's body. Our nation won't reject abortion until we can see it.[/quote]okay, just clarifying

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1173391' date='Jan 22 2007, 07:11 PM']
okay, just clarifying
[/quote]

yep

[Era Might]

If I were organizing an event, I would not use them, and I would ask those with me not to use them. I would hold up icons and similar images. I can't say whether others are wrong for using them, but I don't feel that they convey the right message. Abortion is often an act of desperation, and the horror of the act weighs already on the conscience of these women. Do some women turn back when they see these images? It does happen. But I think a lot women are inclined to see abortion as a necessary evil. If we can give them a glimpse of Heaven, I think it is more effective than a glimpse of hell. They live in a vale of tears; they have seen hell, which is partly why they are considering abortion. I believe the power and the hope of the Gospel of Life is more effective than grim reality. Public displays are a sort of condensed message. If some women are willing to listen to what we have to say, we can maybe offer privately to show them graphic images of aborted children, and explain the medical aspect. But I think that first "message" that we convey should be positive, of another way out of despair and towards life.

[cmotherofpirl]

[url="http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/inthewomb/preview.html"]http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/chan...mb/preview.html[/url]

[mroger]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1173179' date='Jan 22 2007, 01:51 PM']
The truth will set you free.
Slice and dice supporters should have no problems looking at the slaughter, after all THEY condone it.
[/quote]


If that is the case, then using the images would be self-defeating. However, I think I am against the use of these images for the protection of the innocent who have laready lost their lives. "Saving face" might seem like a lost cause for some, but I have an issue with it. From my journalistic background, it would be unethical.

Coincidentally, I also do not agree that we should show the faces of those poor children in third world countries who are being exploited. You may have noticed in another thread that I expect to go to Sudan, Darfur this summer to help with what I can. I am taking two other semiarians with me, one, a former emergency room doctor, the other a plumber. We'll set up plumbing and attend the sick and build houses for the orphanage that is there.

So, I'm all for social justice. I'm just no for explicatively explioted those who have been neglected, abused, raped, abandoned, beaten, murdered or otherwise mistreated. I just cannot see the good in that and it usually goes down bad like a cheap horror flick. It is unjust.

We must seek another means for finding justice for the "yet born".

Speaking of, I spoke on another tpoic about taking ownership of vocabulary and arguments - This is just such one of those occassions.

Instead of saying "the unborn", which could leave room for the interpretation that one did not need to be born and might not be expected to live. I suggest we change our vocabulary from "unborn" to "yet born".

"Yet born" eliminates all interpretive error. "Yet born" anticipates the birth of a FULL HUMAN BEING, and so, should accordingly be attributed to all embryos, fetuses, etc.

[cmotherofpirl]

I think many many people say they are "pro-choice" without seeing exactly what it means. Reality is not always pretty. Hence the pictures of chopped babies or starving children hit home.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

I'm really not sure. Part of me thinks that people need to see what they're doing to thousands of unborn children every day.

Another part of me wants to show respect for the souls of those children and not allow pictures of their mutilated bodies to be seen on the street.

[Guest zealforChrist03]

[size=3]I think it most certainly depends on the situation... in high school, i was an active pro-life member of my local parish, and would go and pray outside of the abortion mill once a month with the youth group. We would arrive at the clinic before it had opened. Many protestants who would also be there to pray and minister to the women had signs at the entrance drive way depicting graphic images--- one that i distinctly remember of an aborted late term infant. I remember on several accounts women who would drive up the the clinic and would be taken aback the shockingly disturbing and horrifyingly truthful images of aborted babies. These women would then proceed to turn their car around and leave the clinic. In this situation i do believe that the pictures of aborted infants was very effective in conveying the pro-life message. HOWEVER, i do not believe the graphic images should [i]remain[/i] present [i]after [/i]the women have had the abortion. The message we as Catholics should be trying to convey is a message of [b]love. healing. forgiveness. mercy.[/b] [/size]

Edited January 23, 2007 by zealforChrist03

[goldenchild17]

I definitely support it. I don't think a person is wrong for deciding not too though. Different approaches can work in different situations. I don't really think it matters WHY a person chooses to get an abortion, I still believe it's murder and whether or not they believe they had a good reason doesn't matter to me. I think they need to see what happened with the decision they make.

Same goes for those who actively take part in the pro-life movement. While one can be active in the movement without looking at such photos I think it helps to visualize what you are standing for, the violence you are trying to stop. If it sickens you, all the better. That's what you should feel. If you don't feel it without the pictures then maybe you need a little reminder of what you stand for and why. Being pro-life is not just a philosophy. It's a real response to a real problem. We need to know just how real it is.

Again, in some situations it would be better to refrain. But in mass settings, public settings and for reasons above I think it's beneficial to do so. I just joined the pro-life group at my campus after seeing their display on the commons. I have always been pro-life, but actually seeing it (I have before but it's been awhile) gives a different response, made me actually decide to do something about it. It turned my philosophy into my action. It should be this way for everybody.

[123]

These photos seem to just make women, going into the abortion clinic, mad. However, I feel that pictures of murdered children may or may not sway a apathetic paitent dooped into thinking that death for her baby is the only way out.

My question is, are these pictures tactics in psychological warfare?

[goldenchild17]

Dialoguing with people about the truth of Catholicism may or may not make them change their mind either, would you argue that it is okay then to just not make the effort? Just because it might not work in all, or most, cases doesn't give one an excuse to not do it. To change just one person should make it all worth it.

[123]

[quote]Dialoguing with people about the truth of Catholicism may or may not make them change their mind either, would you argue that it is okay then to just not make the effort? Just because it might not work in all, or most, cases doesn't give one an excuse to not do it. To change just one person should make it all worth it.[/quote]

Dialouge is not the point I'm making. I encourage that. Taking your point, I would have to say that we, at least I myself do not, utilize [b]graphic[/b] pictures to debate on Catholicism

Of course it is all based on your personal reference. I feel that if graphic pictures are nessessary then use them. If they are not nessessary, then don't.

Edited January 24, 2007 by GloriaIesusChristi

[goldenchild17]

I was using it as an example to show why I disagree with your statement.

You said: "I feel that pictures of murdered children may or may not sway a apathetic paitent..."

So? Do you just not do it then? Because it won't work for some people? How do you know it won't work if you don't try?

Same thing with evangelization. Many, I would say the vast majority, will ignore you and not be swayed by your efforts. Does this mean then that you can just lay down and do nothing? Because it won't work for every single person you came into contact with?

How many of the great theologians in our Church would be non-existant if such a principle were followed. How many great missionaries would never have made the impact that they did. These people surely did not convert every person they ever talked to. But they kept trying because it was all worth it for every person that did listen.

Same principle here. Just because using these pictures won't help some people doesn't mean you can then just not use them. They are an effective means for some, I'd say many, people. How many people would not be swayed if these pictures were NOT used?

I'm not saying that these pictures are the ONLY way to do it, because as you said, it doesn't work for everybody. But for many it does work, and thus is an effective tool for change.

[picchick]

I am not sure what to say. I said that it depends on the situation in the poll but now I am not sure. I know that I would not want kids to see it. It might sway the undecided crowd and maybe even draw from the pro-choice crowd.

However, I agree also with GlorialesusChristi. What message are we sending when we show the aborted babies? How much respect are we giving those who died when we show their torn bodies? I don't think the country would show a dead soldier's torn, blown up body on television.

Meg

[123]

[quote]So? Do you just not do it then? Because it won't work for some people? How do you know it won't work if you don't try?
[/quote]

I undertand your disagreement, What I am saying is that [b] in certain situations[/b] violent pictures of dead or dismembered children are not nessessary to prove a point. When I went to a abortion clinic in Dayton we had a candle light vigil and there were some bloody bad pictures there. I had no personal offense to these images. However, I do feel in certain times in the past after reading about paitients or employees of clinics lashing out at sign-holders and peaceful protestors, because of the signs that they held made them mad, not sorrowful for what they had done. The differences I have with sign is merely out of safety for the protestors. I do, however, urge for more and more funding and fighting for the lives of the innocent. We must speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. But, I feel we must do it the right way.

Edited January 24, 2007 by GloriaIesusChristi