• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Campus Aborted Fetus Exposure

TopherRed

New member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
1,272
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Enneagram
2w3
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
My friend Daniel is another ENFJ. We are still a bit different though.

When a Pro-Life group went on his community college campus (Sac City), they showed aborted fetus pictures in the quad for all to see. This happened at my school (American River) years ago...I was a part of a Speech Class that debated it during the entire two-hour period.

Dan loved the shock-methodology of the group. He said they had several people come up to them and told them that seeing the pictures changed their minds about abortion and "choice"; that they could never consider doing it after seeing those pictures.

When this happened at my school, all I heard was stubborn whining and moaning about how offensive the pictures were and how they should be torn down. People ignored the intended message of the pictures and instead focused on how bad the "religious right" was because they were trying to take away people's decision to "choose". I began to see how such a statement, presented as it was, could cast Christinity in a bad light (they are Christians who run it, but they don't say anything religious unless they are asked; it's not like people don't know though). I didn't care that they had dead fetus pics on campus, quite the contrary, I loved that somebody was trying to spread the truth...I just didn't believe in the open-air shock value--that catching somebody offguard right after lunch, by suprise with those images was wrong on some level.

When people complained, the group was forced to create a walled partition (American River), so people could walk through and see the pictures, but didn't have to do so if they just walked through the open-air quad where the exhibition was. I think this was waaay more appropriate, but probably only reached the people who were brave enough to go in there--perhaps not the intented audience--women who might consider it, or who are going through an unwanted pregnancy, might not want to look.

So now I'm thinking about siding with Dan--or at least meeting the people who run this chapter of the organization he is now a part of (and, to which, I've forgotten the name; will edit later).

So, what do you all think?

Just a note--I have great sympathy for all rape victims, and people whose developing feti are brain damaged (or otherwise damaged/incapacitated), or when there is a serious health issue involved that will risk the life of the mother. I don't make a judgement call on abortion when such issues arise. Even when that's not the case...
 

Usehername

On a mission
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
3,794
I think graphic infomation should be mandated to be at abortion clinics (not to impose guilt on the pregnant, but because it's such a final and deep decision that they should know exactly what's happening before they commit) but I'm anti-forcing it on the random public. I like the partitioned walls thing--available to those who voluntarily choose to know.

Edit: I'm anti-abortion protesting in theory, but I think that the partitioned walls is a very good compromise to honour the protester's legal rights.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I think graphic information should be mandated to be at abortion clinics (not to impose guilt on the pregnant, but because it's such a final and deep decision that they should know exactly what's happening before they commit) but I'm anti-forcing it on the random public. I like the partitioned walls thing--available to those who voluntarily choose to know.

More apt to lean in this direction.

I strongly believe that people should be equipped to make informed decisions, especially with something with large emotional and physical ramifications; but I also think there's a lot of un-love, insensitivity, and personal disrespect that occurs when people feel that their stance on a particular issue is morally justified.

The end doesn't justify the means.

Despite sharing many Christian beliefs and not favoring abortion as a solution, as a moderate I usually end up being more annoyed by the extremes of behavior, including invasive pro-life stances.
 

TopherRed

New member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
1,272
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Enneagram
2w3
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I usually end up being more annoyed by the extremes of behavior, including invasive pro-life stances.

Exactly. That's really at the heart of the issue...people behind shock and awe campaigns rarely see the shades of grey. They may hurt more than they help.
 

Z Buck McFate

Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
6,048
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I think graphic infomation should be mandated to be at abortion clinics (not to impose guilt on the pregnant, but because it's such a final and deep decision that they should know exactly what's happening before they commit) but I'm anti-forcing it on the random public. I like the partitioned walls thing--available to those who voluntarily choose to know.


I'm right here ^ with Usehername. I've known a couple of women who made this choice without really being aware of certain grisly details about the procedure, and I can only imagine how difficult it would be to see graphic information about it 'after the fact'. I can't think of any valid reason to impose these images on the public, but I absolutely agree that women should be required to have a complete understanding of the procedure before they go through with one.
 

Katsuni

Priestess Of Syrinx
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
1,238
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
3w4?
I'm all for education of those that want to make the decision,y eu should know all the facts if yeu're going to have an operation like that.

However, I highly disagree on showing it to everyone as well; not everyone has any right to pass judgement on this issue. It's like the catholic priest condemning such, except that he isn't female, isn't married, doesn't have kids, is not allowed to have sex in general, and has absolutely no understanding of whot he's talking about other than from pictures and idealized forms of pretensious belief of good/evil without any practical concepts to back them up.

Not everyone should have to see such, especially those who seriously have no say in the matter. If yeu're A: not a woman, or B: not intending to ever get pregnant, then yeu have no say in this matter, and yeur opinion seriously has no impact.

Or at least it shouldn't.

The thing is, this kind of 'shock' treatment isn't really aimed at the people who's opinions matter. It's aimed at the people who don't, and tries to stress sensationalism over actual understanding.

It's an important thing to understand, yeu have to understand WHOT is being done, though "it won't be alive anymore" is pretty much the end result either way, so those that have decided to go that route, generally won't be swayed since they already knew that part.

Anyways... a full understanding is required, sensationalism is not understanding. This kind of campaign is solely focused on emotional response, not logical thought; it has no place in important decision making. People who toss around crap like this are the ones who kill their message, especially if it's an important one. The only ones they truly rally to their side are the fanatics and the emotionally insecure. Go yeu, yeu have a bunch of weak willed, and whiney brats, and some who are boarderline psychotic, and the rest are fanatics who picket funerals. Wonderful lineup yeu're accumulating there.

The ones who argue the intrinsic rights of life, unborn or not, get rational minded people who know WTH they're talking about. I can at least respect their position, even if I may not agree with it fully.

The extremists should really just shut up though, they're not helping anyone.
 

Usehername

On a mission
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
3,794
Not everyone should have to see such, especially those who seriously have no say in the matter. If yeu're A: not a woman, or B: not intending to ever get pregnant, then yeu have no say in this matter, and yeur opinion seriously has no impact.

Or at least it shouldn't.

I disagree. It makes me highly uncomfortable to think that the father might desperately want the child, but yet is expected to be alright with the mother choosing to abort because it's her body. (Not that any laws should change, just the cultural mores.)

IMO, if it was consensual sex and the guy wants the baby badly (say, to the point that he's willing to sign away everything he's worth that if she carries his child he'll be 100% accountable for it), the cultural expectation should be for the woman to carry the baby so the guy can raise it. Yes, it very well might damage the woman's career or plans and likely negatively impact her, but if her sex participation was voluntary, she should deal with the repercussions of her choices and not literally destroy the guy's baby if he wants it. It's not like he can carry his kid.

That said, I'm still pro-choice with legal matters.
 

rhinosaur

Just a statistic
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
1,464
MBTI Type
INTP
They came through my campus, too. People were all shocked and shit.

Their argument is mostly pathos. In that regard it does not really address the mostly logical philosophical debate. And although I've seen enough *shock value* crap to not be influenced too much, I can't help but wonder how many of our leaders (and future leaders!) are going to be persuaded by it.

I personally am pro-choice, but if I discovered proponents of my "side" were using these kinds of *shock value* dollar fifty bullshit I would be quite annoyed.
 

TopherRed

New member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
1,272
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Enneagram
2w3
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Rhino, what logic can you apply to the philosophical argument? Do you think of philosophy like a science; the current mores actually defining the unseen?
Who are you to judge emotion to be less valuable than logic! How can you be logical over the value of human life? Logic cannot comprehend it, but emotions can. If somebody out there would like the baby and can take good care of it, why destroy it? There are plenty of couples out there who are sterile and can't give birth.
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
Should soldiers not be shown pictures of bodies burned with white phosphorous?

Do you want to have the benefits of a choice, but remain ignorant of the actual consequences of that choice?

To refuse to look at those pictures is intellectually craven.
 

proteanmix

Plumage and Moult
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,514
Enneagram
1w2
I don't know if it's the same group or not, but the same thing was done on my campus a couple of years ago.

I categorize it as a publicity stunt, but I was glad I saw the photos. It didn't change my mind or anything though, just rounded out my views.

I have this thing about being unflinching and not turning my eyes and heart away from such the ugly side of life, almost to the point where rainbows and butterfly outlook sickens me in the same way some would be disgusted by those photos.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
I think that putting them behind a wall is the most appropriate thing to do. First of all, forcing things like that upon the general public will actually take away from the credibility of the pro-life stance, as you witnessed with all of the complaints that were experienced on your campus. It causes people to look at the visceral, exploitative nature of such of an exhibit, thereby taking away from the power of the argument. Giving people a choice to whether or not they want to view the pictures makes your position seem more balanced and less tyrranical.

Secondly, you have no idea who suffers from things like panic disorders, people who might be triggered or flip out by seeing such a thing, although they themselves have never or would never have an abortion. That's kind of sick and cruel to do that to innocent people.

Thirdly, some women who have already had abortions suffer from psychological or emotional problems, and randomly forcing grisly pictures of them isn't going help them recover emotionally from what they've gone through. I'd like to remind you that many women choose to have abortions because of desperate situations like extreme youth, poverty, or fear of abuse at the hands of a parent or even the father of a child if they found out the girl was pregnant. Then there are instances of rape, incest, etc. That isn't always the case, but it's wrong to have a mind to "punish" those women when they're already suffering enough trauma from what they've gone through.

And the ones who aren't traumatized? Well, your pictures aren't going to change their minds anyway.

I think it's a good idea for people to be thoroughly informed before they make such a serious decision, and it's also a good idea to make the exhibit readily available to young people. However, forcing it on people is distasteful, borderline unethical, and may even turn people against your side instead of opening them up to it.
 

jixmixfix

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
4,278
My friend Daniel is another ENFJ. We are still a bit different though.

When a Pro-Life group went on his community college campus (Sac City), they showed aborted fetus pictures in the quad for all to see. This happened at my school (American River) years ago...I was a part of a Speech Class that debated it during the entire two-hour period.

Dan loved the shock-methodology of the group. He said they had several people come up to them and told them that seeing the pictures changed their minds about abortion and "choice"; that they could never consider doing it after seeing those pictures.

When this happened at my school, all I heard was stubborn whining and moaning about how offensive the pictures were and how they should be torn down. People ignored the intended message of the pictures and instead focused on how bad the "religious right" was because they were trying to take away people's decision to "choose". I began to see how such a statement, presented as it was, could cast Christinity in a bad light (they are Christians who run it, but they don't say anything religious unless they are asked; it's not like people don't know though). I didn't care that they had dead fetus pics on campus, quite the contrary, I loved that somebody was trying to spread the truth...I just didn't believe in the open-air shock value--that catching somebody offguard right after lunch, by suprise with those images was wrong on some level.

When people complained, the group was forced to create a walled partition (American River), so people could walk through and see the pictures, but didn't have to do so if they just walked through the open-air quad where the exhibition was. I think this was waaay more appropriate, but probably only reached the people who were brave enough to go in there--perhaps not the intented audience--women who might consider it, or who are going through an unwanted pregnancy, might not want to look.

So now I'm thinking about siding with Dan--or at least meeting the people who run this chapter of the organization he is now a part of (and, to which, I've forgotten the name; will edit later).

So, what do you all think?

Just a note--I have great sympathy for all rape victims, and people whose developing feti are brain damaged (or otherwise damaged/incapacitated), or when there is a serious health issue involved that will risk the life of the mother. I don't make a judgement call on abortion when such issues arise. Even when that's not the case...

Honestly I'm all about freedom of speach and exposure, and exploitation. I think there should be a warning before the presentation giving a hint as to what is going to been shown. Today's society isn't so closed in anymore, we pretty much like in a vicarious western world. If showing pictures of aborted fetus making an argument more powerful then so be it.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Honestly I'm all about freedom of speach and exposure, and exploitation. I think there should be a warning before the presentation giving a hint as to what is going to been shown. Today's society isn't so closed in anymore, we pretty much like in a vicarious western world. If showing pictures of aborted fetus making an argument more powerful then so be it.

That's what the wall is. A warning. So they aren't just up on the walls for everyone who walks by to see them.
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
I think most women that have abortions are aware of it not being the most pleasant of things. They wouldn't consider it a desirable situation and don't need to be reminded of the fact.

There are many meat eaters that don't particularly want to see grisly images of animals being slaughtered for food. But showing them in the hope it will convert people to vegetarianism is manipulative.

While I'm aware this is a hypocrisy of sorts on my behalf, I believe there are a lot of undesirable yet unavoidable things that occur in society that we know are awful but must be allowed to continue. I don't like that people are having abortions but I believe that they are a necessary evil.

This sort of stuff shouldn't be inflicted on people against their will. If they want to see those images, then fine, but give them the choice not to.
 

kyuuei

Emperor/Dictator
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
13,964
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
8
^ Agreed entirely. I see no reason to put even more disgusting-but-unavoidable things out than absolutely necessary.

Everytime I see stunts like this, I think "Way to be an insensitive prick."
 

Katsuni

Priestess Of Syrinx
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
1,238
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
3w4?
Marmalade stated my point better than I could. Go marmalade! And some wewts for southern kross too. Exclaimation point.
 

avolkiteshvara

New member
Joined
Apr 27, 2009
Messages
893
MBTI Type
YaYa
We could also show diseased hearts, smokers lungs, young children molested by catholic priests, and chickens getting their heads cut off. Once the shock wears off, you're still presented with a decision of how you feel.

Its basically just cheap flash marketing without any kind of substance behind it.


It also stigmatizes those women that got abortions for medical or rape issues.
 

TopherRed

New member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
1,272
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Enneagram
2w3
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I agree. My friend is going to Berkley pretty soon...I wanted to warn him about the used condoms they're going to throw at him, but he's younger and idealistic--he won't listen until it happens. ;)

Another interesting trigger--he won't let me meet the people involved. I tried to explain I was just going to ask questions, not give opinions, but he won't introduce me or arrange a meeting to try and convert me to his way of thinking. Plus the group that does this belongs to a paraorganization that is probably difficult to contact and get in touch with.

Right now, it all screams of "Are you serious?"

I don't think this helps people. I think having an exhibit that's walled off probably does...because at least then you don't have rape victims who made that decision walking through the Quad and suddenly falling to the ground seizing because the whole thing brings back truma.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Should soldiers not be shown pictures of bodies burned with white phosphorous?

Well, just a week or two ago there was a large stink because the AP released photos of a recently dead soldier. The reporter had been present with the squad in battle and witnessed the wounding and subsequent death; all the soldiers present had seen the pictorials before they were sent back to the paper and seemed to approve and understand the relevance of them; but back here people were very quick to raise a stink about how immoral and insensitive the release of these pictures were, yada yada yada. The response both fascinated and disgusted me, because it did not seem to take any context into account but just overlaid the truth of the photographer's feelings and the other soldiers with its own moral preferences.

Do you want to have the benefits of a choice, but remain ignorant of the actual consequences of that choice?

Apparently people do, as long as the choice does not impact them directly. Sigh.

To refuse to look at those pictures is intellectually craven.

Agreed. To me, it's about accepting responsibility for one's choice. It's just that people are all different and can handle only various degrees of detail (i.e., some pics might be more than enough for some people and too little for others, so now you've really mucked up the more sensitive types).

Also, public display of pictures where you cannot control who views them and there is no real declaration of what you might run into is unfair to parents with young children, for example, who can't process what the relevance of the pics are and who now might have to deal with disturbed kids. Information has to be targeted.
 
Top