Graphic Anti-abortion Posters In A High School

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Didacus' post='1556237' date='Jun 3 2008, 09:19 PM']that sounds like a sound plan.

Maybe a two layered poster?

Layer one showing a baby at 3 months gestation in the womb, alive and doing well with the inscription; Lift poster to see effects of abortion.

Once the first layer is lifted, the aborted pic is on layer two with the message 'killed by choice at three months gestation'.
A disclaimer can be affixed to the first layer to warn the truly light hearted, adn the truly shocking images will in general be hidden from sight, visible only to those who lift the first layer after supposedly reading and being warned of the content of the second layer.
How does that sound?[/quote]
I think I like that idea.

[prose]

I don't mean to push my idea too much, but, again, if you can put up those femists for life posters, I have found them to be EXTREMELY effective because they address the pro-choice "issues"

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='prose' post='1556285' date='Jun 3 2008, 09:43 PM']I don't mean to push my idea too much, but, again, if you can put up those femists for life posters, I have found them to be EXTREMELY effective because they address the pro-choice "issues"[/quote]
Is there a link to those posters?

[prose]

[url="http://www.feministsforlife.org/ads/index.htm"]http://www.feministsforlife.org/ads/index.htm[/url]

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='prose' post='1556293' date='Jun 3 2008, 09:47 PM'][url="http://www.feministsforlife.org/ads/index.htm"]http://www.feministsforlife.org/ads/index.htm[/url][/quote]
Those are really good!

[homeschoolmom]

Have not read the whole thread-- I'm lazy... sorry.

As the mom of a very sensitive child who is only two years away from starting high school (gulp).....

Some children are very sensitive. I am not sure how I am going to get my daughter through high school biology because of dissecting. The idea of cutting into animals to look inside (while she understands the scientific merit) is not something that she can stomach. The idea of her having to confront posters of aborted babies makes me shutter. The horror of it would probably make her unable to function in class.

[XIX]

I think the best places for these images are at college, especially considering how many people turn pro-choice during college. I think in high school it could be effective too, since it would prepare them to defend themselves against a liberal brainwashing in college. I think the images work in ways that ultrasounds do not work because they are shocking and they grab your attention. You can't really forget them.

I disagree with the sentiment that abortion won't end until everybody sees abortion. The Nazi holocaust ended because the Japanese were stupid and bombed Pearl Harbor. That, and Hitler killed himself after making a strategic blunder. Slavery ended because Abe Lincoln swept the vote in the North, while the vote in the South was split between two candidates. There is really no telling or predicting how abortion is going to end.

I do have some qualms/misgivings about graphic abortion images. I hear all sorts of stories about how people's minds have been changed by the genocide awareness project and the like. But I still have two unresolved questions:

1) For every person who turned pro-life from these images, how many people have been turned away from the pro-life movement? There's really no way to know for certain. All of the anecdotal evidence in the world doesn't do a lot of good. The statistician in me wonders why I should be impressed by 2 or 3 dozen success stories from a group that's probably encountered hundreds of thousands of students. I mean, if you throw enough spaghetti at the wall, some of it is going to stick, right? That doesn't mean the spaghetti is sticky though, even if I can tell a great story about the strand of spaghetti that clung to the wall for days.

But I digress.

2) The pictures primarily work by striking an emotional cord. Like OMGOSH THAT'S HORRIBLE!!!11 Like all things emotional, the effect is bound to wear off eventually. Do the pictures really affect people's hearts, or do they just work by hurting their feeling enough to make them pro-life until they feel better again?

[quote]I feel that it exploits the death and invades the privacy of the baby. They deserve privacy just like all other human beings. I fear that by showing the graphic images of their death, we are robbing them of the privacy that each one of us deserves.[/quote]
Honestly I don't have a problem with that. The Holocaust Museum in D.C. has all sorts of that stuff in there. I don't recall anything in particular, but I don't think anybody would object to there being a dead body there because it would drive home a point. And even Catholics have places where they keep the uncorrupted bodies of their Saints. Not to mention they sometimes go into the grave of St. Philomena in order to come up with scientific proof that she existed (which they DID find, by the way). But the point is, I don't think the invasion of privacy is a huge issue here. It's not like the babies' souls are still here on earth with their aborted remains.

There are a lot of emotional and psychological issues that worry me. Such as: how it affects post-abortive mothers ("oh my gosh the pro lifers must hate me") how it affects sensitive people (could it affect them so badly that they go into a shell?) and how it reflects on the pro-life movement (will people think we are a pro-"fetus" version of PETA fanatics?)

On the whole I think graphic images are necessary. They have consequences, but logically, I think they do get the message across in a way that other images aren't going to do. I'm certainly not on board with the people who think that's is the only way to get across to the other people, if only people different people react to different cues. Some people are visual, some people are emotional, some are logical, some are statistical, some are just ideological. But they images will reach a lot of people, simply because you can't really miss them and you can't forget them either. It's a lot easier to forget an ultrasound image than it is to forget about a gory image. I think it's a lot like firing an atomic weapon. It's a drastic move and it's going to cause a lot of damage where we don't want to cause damage, but if the situation calls for it, it will yield enough fruit to justify the action.

There are some scenarios in which the images are really a bad idea, like outside of an abortion clinic with mothers going in--good luck getting her to listen to you after you effectively call her a murderer). Also, crisis pregnancy centers shouldn't use them, because mothers won't go in if they know they will be subjected to that. They'll head to an abortion clinic instead. But there are a lot of situation in which the images will change minds, and bear great fruit. Sometimes you just have to be the spoon that stirs the pot.


XIX

[Fr. Antony Maria OSB]

I'm not going to vote on this right now, but a large concern of mine would be for the mentally disabled kids at your school. Like you pointed out, for the most part (or a large majority) of them won't be able to understand what the posters mean, and could easily be scared by them. I don't know how well looked out for the kids are, but I would think that there would be a prominent possibility that either parents of the kids or others who see them scared would ask the school to take them down. Then (and this might be a reach) it could be that you alienate some people who would see you as being inconciderate to the special needs of some of the students (even though you obviously are not).

In all honesty, though, I think you have to ask yourself what the student population at your school is like. Are there many students who are outspoken advocates for abortion? How many do you think are on the edge between supporting abortion and being against it? How many people just don't care? I just remembered this: I don't know who said it, but I heard somewhere that these posters are supposed to be offensive, because that is what they are. The killing of a child is extremely offensive to human dignity. If the posters spark debate and discussion about abortion, then they could serve a very good purpose, but if they just lead to name calling and meaningless arguments that get no where, then they could be a detriment. Like I said before, I think it would come down to the students at your school. You're obviously going to get a wide spectrum of responses to this, but what would you think the main response would be?

[Autumn Dusk]

I actually had more time to think about this.

I really think that using an image of a dead baby as a trademark, becuase thats what these posters will become, is horrible.

I think it does not respect the unborn. Its like saying that a poster young woman in a bikini can show that we should all excerercize and have great muscle tone is a great way to encourage people to excercize. Its just not true. The poster offends her dignity by making her an object.

These images are of human beings. In a museaum where everyone knows to be respectful, in a speech where the listeners are quiet and prepared, in a place where the death can be accepted and respected...thats where these images belong. I question even sending doctors these images. I do not believe in having them out on the street, either. This is a HUMAN BEING! This is a tiny and innocent child! I feel so much grief for the child who's death now means an endless cycle of scare tactics and pain for others. I do not think its ok. Thats someone's child. It could be a child of a scared teen, threatened by death, it could be a child of a young couple who thought they were doing the right thing. The baby could be the child of even a someone who "naturally" had a baby die and had to have it removed from thier body. You could be looking at a loved child, but insted its made to be a model of death and sin.

Edited July 23, 2008 by Autumn Dusk

[jmjtina]

Every situation has specific needs and should be handled differently. I would recommend reading more from Rock for Life and Priests for Life. Some people told me that talking is enough. Sugar coated posters were "enough". However, about a year into it, changing the pictures, lead to more deep discussions and true honesty about abortion. This was my personal experience and everyone is different. However, I would not recommend a "in your face" either. Everything must be done with charity and you must pray.

Abortion pictures should entice horror. They should know what is going on daily in the abortion clinic next to the McDonalds they visit everyday.

Bottom line: Abortion is a reality which is so horrific that [i][u]words alone[/u][/i] can never convey its meaning.

This is a bold step for any teenager to take, and I applaud you for thinking about how to address the issue.

From Fr. Frank Pavone himself:

[size=3][quote]Photos in the dynamics of social reform

Fr. Frank Pavone

National Director, Priests for Life

An intriguing question

I recently asked a representative of a major secular news network, "Why not show the American people what an abortion is?" He was intrigued by the question, and we had a good discussion about it. He suggested I should continue asking it, privately and publicly.

I intend to.

Ask any audience around the country whether they have seen any kind of surgery on television. Almost all will raise their hands. But if you ask that same audience how many have seen an abortion on those same networks, none raise their hands. Yet abortion is the single most frequently performed surgery in America. Some claim it is legitimate medicine, and in fact an integral part of women's health. But look at it? Take it out from under the veil of euphemism and abstract language? No way.

Still, there is an even more fundamental and troublesome question to ask, and that is, Why do so many people who oppose abortion also oppose letting it be seen for what it is?

Certainly, showing images of an abortion, and what an abortion does to a baby, has to be done in ways that properly prepare the audience for what they are about to see, and place the matter in the context of the compassionate care which the Church gives to those who are guilty of an abortion. One of the most well-known videos of abortion footage is called "The Harder Truth" (a revision of the previous "Hard Truth"). It comes with a manual which gives clear instructions about how to prepare the audience for viewing. People are told, for example, that they are not being asked to watch anything that they don't want to see. They are invited to avert their eyes, and the video has no narration, so that people do not even have to hear anything they don't want to hear. (The video, incidentally, has been used with great effect in Churches.)

Yet even with all that in place, there is still a great deal of resistance to the notion that we should expose the evil for what it is, bringing it into the light of day for the naked eye to see.

A heresy: we have to be liked to be successful

Part of the resistance, to be sure, is one of those ever-ancient, ever-new heresies: we have to be liked to be successful. I have heard numerous times that we can't show graphic photos, because, essentially, they will turn people against us, and then we won't be able to persuade them of our message.

But on what concrete evidence is it assumed that initial anger at the messenger prevents the message from being delivered? Moreover, is it true that the viewer will always be angry at the messenger? Suffice it to say here that the experience of those who consistently use these graphic images is that the message does get through whether the viewer is angry or not, and that once the image gets in the head, it's impossible to get it out.

Our Lord simply did not follow the doctrine that successful ministry requires being liked. In fact, He promised that fidelity to Him (that is, "success" in being His disciples) would guarantee persecution. It is wrong, of course, to use such a guarantee as an excuse for imprudence, insensitivity, or lack of preparation. But to ignore this promise of the Lord is to risk severing our ministry from the only context in which it ultimately makes any sense: the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.

Our success will depend more on whether we are respected than liked. Respect flows not from doing what the other finds pleasing, but from what is seen as consistent with principle, courageous, and immune from the temptation to change with the wind.



That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ…

When we ask to "be made worthy of the promises of Christ," it would be well to remember that one of those promises is that we will be hated on account of Him. Some of the Scriptural bases for this truth are as follows:

"All men will hate you because of me . . . ." (Matt. 10:22); "Blessed are you when men hate you ... because of the Son of Man." (Luke 6:22); "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake." (Matthew 5:10); "Woe unto you when all men speak well of you for their fathers did the same to the false prophets." (Luke 6:26); "A servant is not greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you ...." (John 15:20); "Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world, makes himself an enemy of God." (James 4:4).

One, indivisible Gospel

Some may object, however, that these promises of persecution have nothing to do with showing images of abortion, but rather with proclaiming the Gospel of salvation. Yet such an objection is ill-founded, because it makes too much of a distinction between Gospel salvation and opposition to injustice. The Gospel makes it clear that the love of God cannot survive in our hearts if we exclude our neighbor from that love (see 1 John 3:17; Matthew 25:31-46), and that to follow Christ to salvation means to carry out what He has commanded us, first among which is to avoid the shedding of innocent blood (see Matthew 19:18)

Proclaiming the good demands exposing evil (Ephesians 5:11) As Pope John Paul II has enunciated at great length in Evangelium Vitae, there is a particular urgency in our day to focus on sins against life itself, and particularly the sins of abortion and euthanasia. The Church has asserted that her teaching on these matters is "unchanged and unchangeable" (Paul VI, Humanae Vitae (25 July 1968), 14; John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995), 62). At the same time, pro-abortion forces declare that the "right to choose" is absolute, and that there will be "no turning back." The formula for an intense and long-lasting struggle is in place. We cannot retreat from it, and have nowhere to go but forward in the great task of transforming society. The United States bishops have called for urgent, priority attention to abortion as "the fundamental human rights issue of our day" (Resolution on Abortion, November 7, 1989; see also Pastoral Plan for Pro-life Activities: A Reaffirmation, 1985; Living the Gospel of Life, 1998). In short, there is only one, indivisible Gospel. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the Gospel of Life.

Learning from other social reform movements

If we study social reform movements, we find that they always exposed the injustice they were fighting, and that this was an integral key to their success.

The civil rights movement was galvanized, for example, when the 14-year-old boy, Emmett Till, was killed and thrown in the Tallahatchie River. Authorities wanted to bury the body quickly, but his mother insisted on an open casket funeral so the world could see what was done to her boy. Black Americans everywhere saw the mutilated corpse when the photo was carried in Jet magazine.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was guided by the philosophy he expressed in his famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail, in which he wrote, "Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured."

As long as segregation was hidden under the veils of euphemism, or was discussed in words alone, it could not galvanize the opposition required to overcome it. But when the injustice of it was brought before the TV cameras of America as our black brothers and sisters were attacked with dogs, hoses, and other forms of violence, people saw the evil that words alone could not convey.

In the Library of Congress there is an exhibit of about five thousand photographs taken by Lewis Hine in the midst of another struggle for justice. He used these photographs to combat industrial exploitation of children. He said to those who complained, "Perhaps you are weary of child labor pictures. Well, so are the rest of us. But we propose to make you and the whole country so sick and tired of the whole business that when the time for action comes, child labor abuses will be creatures of the past."

Government officials have been well aware of the power of photos for social change. President Woodrow Wilson ensured that no photos of the World War I battlefield carnage ever reached the public. These same suppressed photos were later used by isolationists trying to keep the United States out of Word War II. President Franklin D. Roosevelt set up a special section of Farm Security Administration to use ¼ million photos to sell his New Deal programs.

Educators likewise are not unaware of the need to graphically portray injustice. Just look at the way the movie "Schindler's List" has been used to educate the young about the holocaust. Some have objected that such a graphic portrayal of such violence may in fact hurt children psychologically. Yet liberals who support the use of the film claim that greater weight must be given to the need to prevent such violence in the first place.

The LA Times (July 8, 1995) reported an effort at Jefferson High School to stop street violence. Freshmen were shown slide after slide of victims blown apart by bullets.

In the courtroom, photographic evidence holds a critical place. "There are no charts, no words, that can convey what these photographs can," argued prosecutor Brian Kelberg in a dispute over whether photos of the slashed murder victims could be shown to O.J. Simpson's jurors. The defense had argued that the photos were too distressing and sickening, and should not be shown. Charts and diagrams were suggested as an alternative. But the judge allowed the photos.

Examples can be multiplied, from the efforts to make people aware of famines and starvation, to the horrors of the Vietnam war, to the efforts of environmentalists and animal-rights activists to awaken the public to the abuse of other living creatures.

Isn't it time to summon the courage to expose the injustice we are fighting in abortion, in the same way that successful social reform movements of the past have done?

A conclusion without the evidence

The word abortion has lost practically all its meaning. Not even the most vivid description, in words alone, can adequately convey the horror of this act of violence. Abortion is sugar-coated by rhetoric which hides its gruesome nature. What a pro-life person has in mind when he speaks about abortion and what the average American has in mind when he hears the word are two very different things.

One of the key reasons the pro-life movement is not making more progress is that we so often assert before the public that abortion is an act of violence, but do not produce the evidence which would lead people to this conclusion. Photographic evidence is the most trusted source of information in any discipline. It transcends language and logic, and goes straight to the heart, where people are motivated to take action, instead of merely to the head, where people passively entertain all sorts of concepts without any commitment necessarily following.

People absorb impressions rather than substance. Although a photo is just a slice of reality, if it is the right slice, it captures the distilled essence of an event in a way that nothing else can. A photo is even more powerful than a video, since it is the difference between 30 images per second vs. one image for 30 seconds.

The First Amendment has a price

The fact that the use of such images is disturbing does not mean such use is wrong. The free-speech rights guaranteed under the First Amendment apply even to speech which is disturbing, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld (see The Right to Protest, ACLU: Gora et al.). Such disturbance is part of the price we pay for freedom. People might also be disturbed, annoyed, and upset by the blaring sirens of an ambulance rushing through the neighborhood. Yet the noise serves a purpose: People's lives are at stake, and the ambulance must be given the right of way.

Conclusion: Our Ministry and social reform

As a result of careful study of the dynamics of social reform, a number of significant sectors of the pro-life movement are about to launch major initiatives to show the public, in ways that have not been done before, the photographic reality of the violence of abortion. This will impact the Church; this will challenge the priesthood. We are called and ordained to be prophets of justice. When the greatest injustice in our midst is exposed, we need to be ready to respond. May we respond not with cowardice which dismisses the need to expose the injustice, but rather with the courage to learn from social reform movements of the past, and to reject the heresy that we need to be liked to be successful.[/quote][/size][b][/b]

[Autumn Dusk]

still i think graphic posters take away from the sanctity of the dead

[Treehugger]

The following is excerpted from an article written by my Diocesan bishop, Bishop Frederick Henry in his article “Not the Gospel of Life.”

Poisoning babies in the womb with a saline solution or cutting them up with surgical tools is a heinous act. The magnification and subsequent portrayal of the body parts on moving trucks further violates the human dignity of the aborted children, denies human remains the respect that inherently must be accorded them, and reduces them to things, albeit, for an arguably good reason. The end, however, does not justify the means.

The in-your-face approach and the usage of such pictures on the sides of trucks as billboards is irresponsible and does not take into account the harm that may be done by inducing post traumatic distress disorder to woman who have had abortions. Nor do such measures provide the support and counselling needed to woman (and men) in such instances.

In no way may these pictures be construed as healing, nor can the project be described as tough love. This is not Gospel pedagogy.

I absolutely 100% take the stance being communicated in the above article.

[Treehugger]

1) Respect for life means respect for the aborted children, for those would have to see the "pro-life" posters/billboards/etc. BUT...it doesn't stop there. There must also be respect for the lives of the mothers and fathers and others who have been affected by abortion experiences.

LOVING, COMPASSIONATE PRO-LIFE versus ANGRY ANTI-ABORTION!

2) Pro-life means that we are for something. Let's defend life, rather than just condemning the choice of abortion.

3) Also, in the above article, it continues with three letters from woman who had had abortions and their attitudes towards this type of "pro-life" awareness. They said things like, "The signs said to me: Look what you did! They are hostile and not gentle."...You can't feel my pain, but you can cause me more. Why do it? Why not try the compassion and kindness. I assure you it will work much better."..."If you were about to have an abortion, would you walk up to someone standing nearing violent and exploitive pictures."..."My children are not objects and their death is not something to be displayed."... "I would advocate that to picture a family with the loss of a child as a shaded child in the background with the words, what is missing? would be an effective delivery of the message...A picture of a playground with no children would also speak volumes of what the loss is."..
"THE CELEBRATION OF THE IMAGES OF LIFE AND LIVING IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED TO RENDER THE IMAGE OF LOSS. A LIFE IS NOT SHOWN IN THE IMAGE OF DEATH, LIFE IS LIVED IN THE IMAGES OF THE LIVING...DAY BY DAY."

It is so helpful to hear from these mothers their advice...they are telling us how to reach them with the Gospel of LIFE that we believe so passionately!

[Treehugger]

Please read my above posts and tell me why and how putting up graphic anti-abortion posters would be moral and effective. I simply do not understand the reasoning of the other side of this argument. Doesn't make sense to me.