I don’t think it would be prudent to actually post the photos that Fr. Pavone and the Priests For Life have placed on their website.
But click here for Fr Pavone’s address to Canadian youth at a recent pro-life rally concerning the usage of graphic images that we MUST show the world if we ever hope to get it through this evil world’s head that ABORTION IS MURDER!
Warning, I’ve posted one of the many images from their site. Use discretion.
I am reminded of the end of WWII – suddenly the newsreels in the movie theaters were full of graphic film of the concentration camps. I hadn’t yet started school, and saw those horrible images – the limp, starved bodies being thrown into graves, the half-burned corpses in the crematoria, the haunting faces of the nearly-dead inmates our troops had liberated.
I think those pictures were a good thing – no one who saw them at my age could ever be fooled by Nazism or any similar dictatorial system.
Is anyone familiar with Dr Dobson’s radio show…Focus on the Family? He recently interviewed some nurses at a local hospital who came up with…Operation Ultrasound. It is designed to give women ultrasounds, if they are considering abortion…and guess what…99% of these women chose life instead of abortion. It’s pretty amazing.
I’m trying to generate a move to make a 4D Ultrasound an issue of Informed Consent. A woman who is aborted and not shown a 4D Ultrasound of her unborn baby should have standing to sue the abortionist for failure to fully inform her of the nature of the act.
Similarly, underage girls should have standing to sue after reaching majority.
Under my proposal, there would be no waivers. An underage girl cannot sign away her rights, any more than she can consent to sex at that age. And she could sue not only for the abortion, but also for concealing evindence (since her pregnancy is a result of statutory rape, at least.)
Similarly, one cannot waiver the 4D Sonogram. The purpose of the 4D Sonogram is that she be fully informed – how can she waiver when she is not fully informed?
I agree…what is perplexing to me, is that an underage girl couldn’t stroll into the hospital for major surgery without her parents’ consent, yet she can have an abortion (often which scars a woman physically) on her own, without a parent/guardian approval?
I disagree with the statutory rape comment…I think many underage girls AND boys are having sex…they did when I was a kid, and the girls didn’t turn around and sue the boys for rape. That’s called not taking responsibility for one’s actions. Gosh, I hope we don’t start teaching girls to sue their boyfriends for having sex…that is not teaching a girl how to respect herself, that’s teaching her to make money off of not respecting herself.
It isn’t about helping the girl – she’s a throwaway in the eyes of the pro-abortion crowd. Their intention is to leave her compromised – forever forced to choose between facing the horror of what she did, or defening it as a good thing.
They abort her and throw her right back into the same environmenrt where she got pregnant in the first place. if she gets pregnant again, so much the better for them.
Except that it is rape – statutory rape. A child of that age cannot consent to have sex.
And we have lots of studies to show that many teenage pregnancies are the result of older men taking advantage of young girls.
What’s your objection to teaching boys and girls to have responsibility, and not have sex until they’re ready to care for the resulting child?
And what’s your objection to holding the father of the child responsible for his actions?
Many teenage pregnancies…more so are from an underage girl AND boy having sex. You need to show me stats that show that more are from men who are raping these girls. Not saying that doesn’t happen–of course it does–but, to think that there are not a ***plethera ***of underage girls and boys having sex WILLINGLY, because they are dating one another, or whatever, is naive. And many young women in their late teens, early twenties are having abortions…again, from premarial consentual sex.
Vern–why would you assume I’d have an objection to holding the father accountable? Do I sense a lack of charity in your posts?:o
Getting back on topic of this THREAD. I have seen the “graphic images” and I have no problem with showing them to adults and possibly even teens.
However I don’t like it when it could be easily exposed to a 4 year old. At that age they can distinguish between real and fake and showing an unspeakable atrocity (which abortion certainly is) to a 4 year old is not good.
I am not suggesting we pack up and not use it at all but perhaps we could show it places where young children are not likely to see it.
Our children’s innocence is being lost through the crud of the Internet and TV.
I was born 5 days before Pearl Harbor. I have distinct memroies of seeing horrific Movietone News pictures of the Holocaust when I was about 3 1/2 – including shots of limp, naked bodies being dumped into mass graves, partially burned bodies in the crematoria, and the haunting faces of those nearly-dead who were liberated.
It did me a world of good – it was like being vaccinated against dictatorship. It led me to an understanding of the evils such systems spawn.