Pro-Life Group Displaying Abortion Videos In Public


#1

PHILADELPHIA (My9NJ.com) -
The abortion debate has been going on for well over 30-years, with both sides using various tactics to share their views on the extremely controversial topic. Now one pro-life group, Created Equal, feels like the best way to push their agenda is to show actual abortions being performed on a large video screen in high-traffic public places.

These videos show the various stages and results of abortions, including aborted fetuses. At the Independence Mall in Philadelphia, one of the nation’s top tourist attractions, one video played over and over again as people passed by.

Created Equal’s national director, Mark Harrington, explained their reasoning behind putting these extremely graphic videos in public places.

myfoxphilly.com/story/26840852/pro-life-group-displaying-abortion-videos-in-public


#2

Sometimes shock therapy is needed.


#3

http://3nonetwo.com/zpers/images/KermitNod.gif

I agree 100%.


#4

We have an evangelical protestant pro-life group come to our school at least once a year. They stand just on our school property line and show large posters depicting in graphic detail the products of abortion.

It is my belief these images do more harm than good.

In dealing with teenagers you need to remember their developmental stage.

I find the posters offensive and inappropriate.

As the chaplain of the school I have discussed these issues with the group but they refuse to budge.

I have counselled a couple of students who were pregnant and who were considering abortion. One had the abortion against her will because her parents pressured her. She was suicidal and attempted suicide, in which I intervened and rode in the back of a police car with her to emergency. These posters would not have stopped her. The pressures were too great.

This girl was also in my religion class and continued to attend my classes. She continues to progress and become stronger and more her own person.

For the rest of the school the posters and the rather militant evangelicals who held them, posed a challenge to the students who acted out of their usual mild Canadian character and were quite angry and confrontational in their responses.

We deal with abortion in the Religion classes. We don;t need protestant fundamentalists doing our job (badly) for us.

A video I find very helpful is this:

youtube.com/watch?v=fKyljukBE70

Abortion is not mentioned at all: but the absolute wonder and awe of the developing child is shown in minute detail. After this video many of the pro-abortion arguments that kids try out are totally blown away.

BTW the best way stop teen abortion is 1. stop teen pregnancy, 2. get to the teen’s family if the teen is pregnant.


#5

Abortion is a gruesome procedure ending in death of a child and I have no issue with showing the reality of it.
Mary.


#6

I disagree with this. Pornography is evil but I’m not showing pornos on a big screen at the local mall to make my point. There is a right way and a wrong way to handle things.


#7

Aye. There is also the aspect that showing these videos will help to desensitize the general public to even more blood and gore.


#8

Absolutely they work, I saw such pictures when I was maybe not even a teenager, I’ve never thought of being anything other than pro-life.


#9

What non-Catholics fail to understand is that abortion is a most horrible blasphemy against the Eucharist. In the Eucharist, Jesus says “this is My body”. In abortion, the woman says “No, this is my body…and so is that of my unborn child”.


#10

This is an issue that I have read about considerably. Personally speaking I too find those type of photos disturbing and question if they are the best way to go about it. I do agree that they can reach adults who are considering abortion but for children/teens I have to wonder as well.

Just as a suggestion, what if instead of pictures showing what abortion does, show photos of how beautiful the unborn baby is. It can affirm the hideousness of abortion by showing the beauty and humanity of the unborn baby.


#11

Maybe they should show these pictures to all Christians and all Catholics as well, required.


#12

Good point, I think most people just shrug their shoulders if they see a picture of a lynching or concentration camp.


#13

This is what Fr Pavone, president of Priests for Life said in 1995:

Should graphic photos of babies who have been killed by abortion be used by pro-lifers who demonstrate on public sidewalks?

Even among those who oppose abortion, answers to this question vary. The dispute was recently brought to my attention again by a news article describing the concern of residents of a certain area that the graphic photos used by local pro-lifers disturbed the children.

I have demonstrated against abortion on the public sidewalks of almost every major city in America. I have used graphic images and have watched their effect. I am convinced they should be used, and here are some of the reasons.

  1. 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. The procedure is never shown in the media. Too many people remain either in ignorance or denial about it, and hence too few are moved to do something to stop it. Graphic images are needed. A picture is worth a thousand words – and in this battle, it can be worth many lives as well.
  1. Graphic images of abortion have saved lives. One example is a letter I have from Violet Sherringford of New Jersey, who went to an abortion facility and found pro-life protesters there. “The posters they displayed, though very graphic, did succeed in bringing me back to reality and in conveying the horrible mutilation and dismemberment inflicted on the unborn child… I decided to have the baby. It was the best decision I ever will make.”
  1. We use graphic images to save lives from other kinds of violence - I’ve seen graphic drawing by first and second graders accompanied by the words “Drugs Kill”." I’ve seen smashed cars put on public display with the sign, “Drunk Driving Kills.” The LA Times 7/8/95 reported an effort at Jefferson High School to stop street violence. Freshmen were shown slide after slide of victims blown apart by bullets. The anti-war movement in America was given momentum in the early '70’s by a famous photo of a napalmed girl. Efforts to save the starving have been spurred on by images of malnourished children. The examples can go on and on.
  1. 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.
  1. I too am concerned about little children who see graphic images. I am also concerned about the littler children those images depict. The key factor that will make the difference in how children react to seeing anything disturbing is the role of their parents, who are present in a loving and comforting way, answering their questions and calming their fears. But to say that the presence of children in a neighborhood forbids the use of graphic images leads to an absurd conclusion, for what neighborhoods have no children? Is free speech to be limited to adult-only communities? And even then, what is to be done for the adults who complain?

It seems to me, furthermore, that if we find it difficult to explain images of abortion to our children we will find it even more difficult to explain why we didn’t do more to stop abortion itself. The bottom line is that if graphic images of abortion are too terrible to look at, then the abortions themselves are too terrible to tolerate. We need to expose the injustice, and then direct our displeasure toward those allow the injustice to continue, not toward those who speak against it.

priestsforlife.org/articles/2819-should-we-use-graphic-images


#14

The evil of pornography is of a different nature than that of abortion. Pornography is intended for sexual arousal,so of course we would not publicly display it to get people to see how evil it is. It would just cause embarrassment and outrage at the display,rather than outrage at pornography itself. But to display images of aborted children makes people aware of the evil of abortion,which is a hidden evil,practiced in private and not shown by those who practice it.


#15

I 100% agree with this. Children are not those that should be shown those graphic images. I am very pro-life, but object to graphic images! A video in an appropriate spot of the unborn child developing is what is needed.

Also, how many people turn their eyes from the road (including teens) to watch the videos. We have enough of that with people talking on their cell phone (without a bluetooth) or texting.


closed #16

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.