Pro-life video of the day: Priests for Life graphic voter initiative
by LauraLoo
Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, discusses a project that reveals the graphic reality of abortion. The project involves placing images of aborted babies on large trucks.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwINEFYf0f0[/youtube]
If you would like to get involved, please sign up today at http://www.PriestsForLife.org/Trucks
Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.
[HT: Leslie - Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, New England]
Aug.01, 2012 12:00 pm |
Video of the day |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Go Father Frank!! Keep up the good work! So glad to see you out and about doing your awesome, life saving work.
Will be praying for many engine troubles to plague these trucks!
Yeah, maybe the prayers for engine troubles might just work!
Maybe the trucks will break down in areas where more people will then see them than they would if they were moving. Maybe the trucks will cause traffic jams and the trucks will make the news! Maybe the trucks will break down on busy highways and they can be like a big highway billboard. It is easier to see details on a parked truck over a moving truck any day.
Keep on praying!
Everytime he opens his mouth, er, taps his keyboard, he proves he’s pro-choice. Wanna know what choice is? See the side of the trucks. That’s choice. Not your cute little euphemisms. In fact, I wonder why he didn’t pick “Ex-Pro-lifer” as his moniker. Would be more apt.
If a pro-choicer is alone in the woods and no one is around to hear him, is he still wrong? You betcha!
Sorry ninek – didn’t know it was a qualification of the pro-life crowd to embrace this type of “marketing”.
EGOP,
Since when is a warning label “marketing?” “Don’t do this!” is 180 degrees away from selling something.
Did the anti-life hackers nail this Priests for Life website? It’s got a big warning sign on it at 12:48 am 8/2.
“This web page at http://www.priestsforlife.org has been reported as an attack page and has been blocked based on your security preferences.
Attack pages try to install programs that steal private information, use your computer to attack others, or damage your system.Some attack pages intentionally distribute harmful software, but many are compromised without the knowledge or permission of their owners.”
Hope they get it fixed soon.
Hey, all pro-lifers are not alike, many don’t like the graphic images. However, for someone who CLAIMS to be pro-life, I’ve yet to see any pro-life comments. All I see is knocking whatever is being done, contributing nothing constructive, and exhibiting a penchant to overlook the many failings of the Celebutante in Chief.
pharmer, I noticed silentnomoreawareness.org had a similar warning up yesterday.
They keep getting more and more nervous.
This is off topic, but…
Ex-GOP, remember when you said “Not many people wanting to grow a business hesitate because they fear what future taxes might be.”
I thought you might find this interesting:
http://www.ibj.com/cook-medical-shelves-midwest-expansion-plans/PARAMS/article/35735
Ex, you’re only against stopping the murders of unborn children when it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy and still united with your freaky death-obsessed libs.
Don’t go away angry, just go away.
ninek -
Then you haven’t read enough posts.
Courtnay
Thanks for the thoughts. I don’t agree with pipe bombing clinics either, and I’m hoping you don’t. Not all tactics must be supported by all people – or do you support a group think, lemming type approach?
Tossing out a barb accusing us of supporting violent crime? As Chandler Bing would say, “Could you BE more pro-choice?!”
Ninek – if you read the post, I said quite the opposite.
I essentially said, while that might be a tactic, I would hope we’re in agreement that this would not an acceptable way to go.
Hey, again, if you don’t think there should be disagreement in regards to how to best influence the world, then just say it.
I’m simply of the opinion that the graphic photo route, even if it does impact some people, is a crappy route to go. First of all, there’s a lot of kids in society, and as a parent, I don’t appreciate people forcing these images into my kid’s lives. I understand the free speech issue. But there are a lot of things I don’t want my kids exposed to until they are good and ready. I’d say the exact thing if PETA wanted to drive around a truck with images, or if pro-choice people wanted to have a contraception truck with sexual images on it.
Second – and I’ve said it 50 times – it is a sloppy argument. The logical answer to a graphic image such as this can be “abort children earlier or in a different fashion”. Read about the death penalty debate and the switch from the electric chair to the three drug cocktail to better understand this. I think the value and beauty of life is a much more powerful argument.
But again, sorry you feel threatened if people don’t agree 100% with you.
I agree with Ex about the graphic imagery. But I am also cool with contraception so I have already been informed I am not pro-life lol.
I think it is an excellent strategy because the pro-abort elites (?) understand completely the power of words so by giving people the opportunity to see what choice looks like pro-lifers give individuals the opportunity to make up their own mind. I understand how some might be offended by the graphic imagery but the fact that acts of violence are committed daily against the unborn justifies the use of visual imagery, and if pro-aborts are offended by the consequences of their ideology then they need to change their ideology not try to sensor individuals who don’t agree with them.
Myrtle
I just feel that attitude of adults feeling justified that their position is so important that they are okay exposing images even to children – that is how we end up with sex ed way too early in school and all sorts of other inappropriate images/ideas around kids.
I just want to be able to parent, and I want my kids to be able to be kids. That’s all I’m asking.
When is someone old enough to see what is being done to our children?
I’d suppose those who don’t like graphic campaigns would not appreciate Flannery O’Connor’s grotesques, which might be deemed their literary equivalent. You can’t see the beauty if you’re complacently an accessory to evil. Repentance means seeing what’s vile (which was always under your nose) and turning to what’s good.
For some reason this conversation reminds me a bit of a brief exchange recorded in the Bible (1 Kings): When he saw Elijah, Ahab said to him, “Is that you, you troubler of Israel?”
The prophets were not generally esteemed for a genteel bedside manner. They broke bad news (“You vermin are going to die, says the Lord”) with little homage to polite convention, and melodrama was their stock in trade.
Does that mean their example gives our contemporaries a blank check to run around offending everyone? No. It just means that anyone objecting on grounds they think should appeal universally to reasonable folk, has an argument with God himself. Certainly some kind of “ewww! icky! go away, you’re so gross!” objection could be justifiably laughed to scorn, in light of how pitifully minute one’s personal comfort compares with the weight of 60 million lives snuffed out — conveniently out of sight and out of mind.
That latter point can even be made verbally. “Eew, ick, gross!” It would not be a ridiculous response: “F*ck you, you pathetic accessory to murder.”
Not the Christian response, of course (imaging God would mean behaving likewise: Psalm 103:10). But it would not be an irrational or in the least disproportionate one.
Good question Prax. I think every kid is different, and I like to defer to parents more than others.
I know when I was driving on the interstate with a four year old in the van, and was coming up on one of these trucks, I took a different route.
Rasqual
I’m fine with graphic images in places kids aren’t around (I still think it is a sloppy logical argument, but that’s just a side note).
Having them around kids though is where I think the line is drawn – it goes from being uncomfortable for people to being inappropriate.
Ex-GOP,
For what it’s worth, I acturally agree with you. In very public displays I think our side - you are on our side, aren’t you? – should stick with pictures of live babies of all ages.
Hans -
I am a gigantic fan of promoting the value of life. I dug the Tebow commercial and other stories celebrating life. I love promoting organizations that can help mothers who are struggling with the decision. I love the promotion of the wonderful things about people.
If a woman isn’t sure what to do, I think we’re much better off saying “you are going to have a marvelous baby, a wonderful gift. Here are organizations that can help you, churches that will embrace you, and while every moment won’t be wonderful, you’ll look back at having the baby as one of the greatest decisions you’ve ever made. And if you simply can’t care for it, there are many people who would love to, and you’d be giving them a gift greater than any other gift you could give”
Over “Look at what the hell you are going to do – you stupid murderer, look at the mutilation that you want to cause.”
Ex-GOP,
All right. I can roll with that. But I would still say to you, “Look at what the heck you are going to do - you stupid voter, look at the miserable economy you want to continue.” ;)
I like to defer to parents more than others.
I don’t think prochoice parents ever want their kids to see these pics. How about showing these photos in heath class, maybe after they show the video of a woman giving birth?
I know when I was driving on the interstate with a four year old in the van, and was coming up on one of these trucks, I took a different route.
How old will the four year old have to be before you avoid these photos? Do you change the channel when commercials for Victoria’s Secret come on as well when the four year old is around?
Hans -
Ha, yes. I’m starting to think Washington is finally broken beyond fixing – neither party will have 60 votes in the senate, which means nothing is going to get done. Compromise gets you thrown out these days. I think we need to put in a one term limit for President and Senate – two for house people, and have some triggers (unemployment rates for instance) that gets them ALL thrown out automatically!
Prax -
Do you have kids? I don’t remember from previous posts (kind of wish I had a brief bio on everyone…heck, I don’t know if most people are even a man or a woman!)
Of course I censor certain commercials and tv shows from my kids – a good parent is going to do that. And when they see certain things, you sit down and talk about it. I just don’t feel it is a parenting style that I embrace to say “hey kid, we’re going to have a ‘welcome to the world’ day. Here are pictures of the holocaust. Here are aborted babies. Let’s read about Matthew Shepard. Want to see pictures of fire hoses, dogs, and the civil rights movement”?
I do have kids. Almost all grown now.
In my district they showed freshmen a video of a woman giving birth. Other health classes have shown real pictures of STDs. Parents could of course sign their kids out of class if they wanted to. What would you think if schools showed an abortion video? Parents could opt their child out of course.
As far as the videos of the fire hoses, dogs and the civil rights movement, our district shows kids this in 8th grade. Parental permission is not asked beforehand.
Prax -
My kids are 9, 7, and almost 2 (all girls).
Junior High – sure, for some things.
I don’t know though if schools are the right things for a lot of these issues. And if so how do they do it in a “fair” manner? Do they show a live birth and a table with the costs of having kids – show various abortion videos at different stages. Tough call. I don’t know how much of the political molding should be done at schools (at lot is done already – some of it is unavoidable – but how much do they confront these subjects? tough call).
I just feel that attitude of adults feeling justified that their position is so important that they are okay exposing images even to children – that is how we end up with sex ed way too early in school and all sorts of other inappropriate images/ideas around kids.
I just want to be able to parent, and I want my kids to be able to be kids. That’s all I’m asking.
Ex-Gop
I think the use of visual imagery is effective and of course I’m sure when you say you just want to protect your children I would think your probably sincere but I think the argument that visuals of aborted babies are offensive to children thus they should not be shown is usually just rhetoric. I think comparing imagery of aborted babies to sex ed and inappropriate images/ideas is not a valid comparison. I do beiieve though that schools should not be subjecting children to imagery that is as graphic as aborted babies and if a mutilated unborn baby was just a random act of violence and not a government sanctioned occurence then I would be upset too but civility at least in my opinion includes protection of the unborn.
believe
Myrtle – we’ll have to agree to disagree. I think my ability to parent, and my rights to parent, should be taken into consideration as people try to spread their various political messages.