In Brief
Inquiring minds wanted to know the opinions of the VN bloggers on the death of Jim Pouillon. Here is my opinion. Other contributors are free to offer their own.
For those unaware, Jim Pouillon was known for his advocacy on behalf of the unborn. This advocacy took the form of prominently displaying pictures of aborted fetuses outside schools, churches, and public areas. Many pro-lifers strongly object to this form of advocacy and consider it a violation of the public square. Not to put too blunt a point on this, but I would not be bothered if this form of advocacy were legally proscribed. Hopefully it is obvious that Pouillon’s pornographic displays should not merit death. As media reports have emerged, I think it is manifest that the killer’s motive was the offensiveness of the images and not the brownshirt images of the killer that have been conjured up. Having said all of this, there seems to be a great dearth of evidence that this is the beginning of the persecution of the pro-life movement.
Comments are closed.
Joe Hargrave whines that we have not blogged about this event, and he accuses us of deleting his post criticizing us for that.
This is interesting, considering I tried at least three times to comment on his post commending him for it. Each attempt of mine to compliment his post, and to agree with the basic thrust of his position, was deleted. I suppose this was necessary in order not to undermine his claim that Catholic progressives “don’t care” about the man’s death. I just never thought he would follow that up by going on the offensive over at this blog. How he could do that, making the accusations he made after doing the same thing himself, is unbelievable.
Having said all of this, there seems to be a great dearth of evidence that this is the beginning of the persecution of the pro-life movement.
This seems correct to me.
MI,
I have not deleted any of your posts. I do not know why they have not appeared; if it is within my power to do so, I will see to it that they do.
My sincere apologies.
No posts appearing under either of your wordpress names has appeared anywhere in the TAC dashboard.
I had no part in whatever decision was made to prevent you from posting at TAC.
I am interested in your comments, so perhaps you might post them here.
No posts appearing under either of your wordpress names has appeared anywhere in the TAC dashboard.
I’ll refrain from saying a two-word phrase to you which would make me sound like Joe Wilson. All I will say is that I have one WordPress name that I use regularly, and which I used to comment on your post. I also attempted to post without being logged into WordPress. All of them were censored.
I appreciated the passion with which you wrote about Pouillon’s death and I think it is right to point out the lack of coverage of his death. But I do agree with M.Z. that you are attempting to see some kind of violent movement against pro-life activists where there probably is none. I’m certainly open to correction on that, but that is my perception.
I also think your post suffered from the usual “left/academic/bad” vs. “right/regular-guy/good” binary that haunts your posts and those of the general conservative wing of the Catholic blogosphere.
Thank you for encouraging me to comment on your post here. I appreciate you graciously allowing me the space to say what I wanted to say.
Your sarcasm aside, I was interested in what you have to say, and as I am somewhat of an incompetent when it comes to administrative blog controls, I do not know why you cannot post, or how to allow you to post. I am telling you the truth, even if you don’t want to believe it.
Nowhere did I mention a violent “movement” against pro-life activists. I simply claimed that this was an act of terrorism, and I will stand by that definition. An act of terrorism does not require a “movement”, either physically or logically. It need only terrorize. I don’t think there was a movement behind the man who shot Archduke Ferdinand and ignited WWI, but I do think it was an act of political terrorism. I don’t think there was a movement behind John Wilkes Booth either. I could be wrong about either of these men, I suppose, but it is besides the point.
As for the academic versus the regular guy, when I see the cadres of academics step forward in consistent and ardent defense of innocent life, I will revise my opinion. When college campuses stop prosecuting pro-life student groups, and ridiculing their views, again, I will reconsider.
I am not one to make virtues out of the lowbrow opinions and habits of the ‘working man’; I would love nothing better than to see the further development of the conservative Catholic intelligentsia. But if it is a question of smug leftist academic versus regular guy Jim Pouillon, in that case, his daily actions speak with more authority and are deserving of more respect than any number of words published by the former.
Nowhere did I mention a violent “movement” against pro-life activists.
I at least felt it was implied in the way you compared this action with the very organized, violent sector of the pro-life movement.
But if it is a question of smug leftist academic versus regular guy Jim Pouillon, in that case, his daily actions speak with more authority and are deserving of more respect than any number of words published by the former.
Well, you see, it’s not a question of them vs. him. You are the one making that opposition.
Actually, Michael, you made that opposition – you said it “haunted” my post. Indeed, I don’t recall ever extolling the virtues of the “little guy” in general, though I certainly did take a shot at leftist academics.
As for whether or not there was a movement, I only suggested that this act of violence could be linked to the outrageous and irresponsible statements made by professionals, leaders, and public figures in the abortion industry.
I do not believe there is a conspiracy to commit acts of violence – other than, of course, the daily slaughter of thousands of innocent children. I don’t want to forget that minor detail.
Michael,
In Joe’s defense, I was checking the blog fairly regularly yesterday, and I didn’t see any of your comments come through. It could be that they were deleted by someone else, but that’s unlikely because each contributor (in this case, Joe) controls their posts. If it happens again, feel free to e-mail Joe or I, and we’ll try to figure out what’s going on.
[...]
MZ
To refer to graphic images of aborted fetuses as “pornographic” was not good partly because there are no good motives behind porn but let’s deduct the guilt by association and take it as loose metaphor. Would you object if it were anti war people holding pictures (very extant in the anti Vietnam era) of slain war time civilians from Iraq? Would that be pornographic while it is trying to save lives? Is it street art when done against war but porn when done against abortion?
What is unique to abortion as opposed to murdering an adult is that a large section of humanity would not murder an adult but will do abortion because its consequences can remain unseen by their human eye and by all human eyes and the government affirms it as the government once affirmed selling black slave families apart.
Those pro life people who show such pictures of fetuses are trying to counter the physical phenomenology of abortion…which is: that it is invisible murder…out of sight out of mind….perhaps much like asbestos leaking from an old school’s walls but much quicker.
I haven’t seen any pictures of what he was carrying, and all of the news outlets have said only that he was carrying pictures of babies Are we sure that they were as graphic as you imply, M.Z.?
When it comes to free speech in general, I tend to be an absolutist. Though I think that in many cases (though not all) the use of graphic images can be counterproductive to the pro-life movement, I’m not comfortable with “legally proscribing” their use. Honestly, the best opinion I’ve read on that particular issue was posted (quite surprisingly) in the Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/12/780903/-Killed-for-Holding-a-Sign).
Let’s keep our inter-blog interactions civil and then some. I know that I have failed significantly in the past in this regard, but we must proceed with diligence.
Remember that we together are a part of that which is (to be) the sacrament of the world’s salvation.
Would you object if it were anti war people holding pictures (very extant in the anti Vietnam era) of slain war time civilians from Iraq?
Yes.
Would that be pornographic while it is trying to save lives?
Showing pictures of diseased limbs to medical students is attempting to save lives. Displaying pictures of diseased limbs in the public square is pornographic because it is appealing to the lower appetites.
I also have an issue with prostituting the dead for one’s own cause.
Are we sure that they were as graphic as you imply, M.Z.?
One description I have read was that there was a picture of a fetus with a severed head.
When it comes to free speech in general, I tend to be an absolutist.
That’s regrettable.
As for the topic at hand,
“Those pro life people who show such pictures of fetuses are trying to counter the physical phenomenology of abortion…which is: that it is invisible murder…out of sight out of mind…”
Yes, imagine that. Its nice to see someone more concerned with the actual murders taking place than the potential swooning of sensitive passers-by.
Or is it embarrassment, perhaps?
Right now I have more respect for the pro-abortion feminist Naomi Wolf, who declared that the pro-abortion movement would itself be in bad taste if it were to declare regarding these images that “the truth is in poor taste”, than I do for an allegedly ‘pro-life’ Catholic, whose indifference to violence against pro-life activists and hostility towards the work they do is as despicable as it is incomprehensible given the labels he chooses to wear.
I, for one, am a bit conflicted about such signs. I think the truth about abortion needs to be known. I have two quite serious hesitations, however.
The first is that I don’t know if this convinces more people that abortion is evil or that pro-lifers are crazy. I genuinely don’t know, but if showing the pictures undermines the pro-life cause, then I am against it. It is possible that we can attend to a fact (the grim nature of abortion) while ignoring the truth about human persons that relates to how they are most likely to hear a message.
The second is that, since becoming a father, I have become increasingly sensitive to the kinds of things that are allowed in the public square. When I watch a baseball game with Toby, I have to edit the commercials in case there is an ad for some slasher movie that is going to freak him out. The last thing I want is my two-year old in the back seat of the car and someone coming up to me at a stoplight and putting a picture of a dismembered corpse to the window. In other words, some of sensitive passers-by deserve to be treated sensitively.
Brett,
Have you considered the consequences of not showing the photos? Of not exposing people to the reality of abortion? Isn’t this a serious enough matter, the daily mass murder of innocent children, to warrant such bluntness? Do not complaints about offended sensibilities pale in comparison to the badly butchered bodies of the victims of abortion?
It is a documented fact that these displays save lives. And it is also, I believe, quite likely that anyone who has any respect for those who are sincere about their convictions will not be turned off by such a display. Anyone who is disturbed by these images would do well to question what actions made them possible, rather than getting angry with the messenger.
In my view abortion is so widely accepted precisely because the pro-abortion forces have succeeding in making abortion language sound nice and clinical while doing all they can to block to sight of abortion. It is more likely that a person who sees, and is horrified and disgusted by, an abortion, will think longer and harder about having one than someone who believes that abortion is a ‘routine medical procedure’.
How many women have gone into the clinic with one idea of what an abortion was, only to have their minds and souls traumatized in ways they couldn’t imagine? It is better to be a little or even greatly disturbed on a street corner than it is to go to an abortion with false expectations.
If we don’t want our kids to see abortions, we should stop abortion.
You sound like the pornographers defending their ‘art’.
It is a documented fact that these displays save lives.
Consequentialist much? What kind of tautology are you proposing here anyway? The pictures are so grotesque that any woman contemplating abortion should be instantly be repulsed by the act she is committing but an innocent bystander should be unmoved by the display because the movement is so important.
If we don’t want our kids to see abortions, we should stop abortion.
What kind of pollyannish nonsense is this? We have seen countless photos of the effects of war, but we still have war. We have seen countless shootings across this country, and yet we still see shootings. In your more sane and rational moments, has it ever occurred to you that a society that dwells in darkness exudes darkness. I’m sure you have no problem seeing how pornography and it’s portrayal of women systemically harms real women. Did it ever occur to you that putting chopped up people on billboards, sandwich boards, and everything else, be they born or unborn, does harm to their actual human worth and perpetuates greater harm to them?
You have the nerve to question my sanity and rationality?
You throw around the word “consequential” in such a way to render it meaningless. Yelling “NO” at a child might prevent him from putting his hand on the burning stove – it might also give him a little fright. I suppose the ends justify the means in that case. What a ridiculous argument.
To be clear – YES, 100%, absolutely, offending a few by passers is completely and totally justifiable if it will save human lives. When we denounce consequentialism, we are really denouncing the commission of evil for the sake of good. In this case, you are denouncing the commission of a minor inconvenience at best, or perhaps embarrassment, for the sake of an immesurable good. No one is hurt by these displays, and many people are affected for the better.
“an innocent bystander should be unmoved by the display”
An innocent bystander? There are no innocent bystanders. If you are doing nothing while an atrocity is being committed before your eyes, you are not innocent, though a bystander you may be. If you are a child, and not in a position to do anything, you will be exposed to the shocking and horrifying truth, which is surely preferable to the comfortable lies that our society would rather have them learn – that abortion is a “safe” and morally acceptable choice, a benign medical procedure.
“We have seen countless photos of the effects of war, but we still have war.”
Thanks for that information. But don’t you think that seeing images of war has contributed to the development of anti-war movements? Everyone hated the journalists who went to Vietnam and took pictures and film of US soldiers committing war crimes – why? Because they inspired outrage and caused the anti-war movement to grow.
Surely a man of your enlightened and rational sensibilities is opposed to war, and I would be surprised indeed if you have ever advocated for the censorship of war-time images to keep people from getting upset about, and politically opposing, war.
Abortion is a war on the most innocent and vulnerable members of society. It is immeasurably worse than any combat between men. It is the systematic slaughter of the weak and unwanted by the strong and the proud.
Your moral cowardice is appalling and I will pray that the burden is one day taken from you by God.
Living about ten miles from the scene of Jim Pouillon’s murder, I have driven many times past Mr. Pouillon standing on the street holding up for all to see his big obscene pictures of aborted fetuses.
He wasn’t showing us anything that was rhetorically dishonest or a distortion of the truth; he was showing us the stark reality of abortion, which people making decisions on this issue (whether in their personal lives or in the voting both) need to face head-on.
As a person who does not believe that a blanket legal ban on elective abortions makes sense, I still think that what Jim Pouillon did was a legitimate form of expression and, in the end, a life-affirming act.
In contrast the Jim Pouillon’s straightforward and honest approach, consider the following from Joe Hargrave:
“Abortion is a war on the most innocent and vulnerable members of society. It is immeasurably worse than any combat between men. It is the systematic slaughter of the weak and unwanted by the strong and the proud.”
This is a description of the situation that to me fundamentally distorts reality. In brief, the war analogy is absurd, we are not looking at anything at all “systematic,” and the would-be-mothers who choose abortion, I would venture to say, are usually not very “strong and proud.”
Are you accusing me of dishonesty, then? Thanks.
“we are not looking at anything at all “systematic,””
Of course we are. Abortion is an profitable industry. Planned Parenthood is organized and systematic. So are the pro-abortion political forces. Or do you think they do thinks randomly and arbitrarily?
“and the would-be-mothers who choose abortion, I would venture to say, are usually not very “strong and proud.””
Compared to their unborn children, they certainly are.
But I was, again, referring to the abortion industry and political lobby.
I won’t accuse you of dishonestly or stupidity for not granting me that relatively easy and obvious assumption.
I meant to type “things” instead of “thinks” obviously. Perhaps the moderator can fix that typo for me.
Joe,
Your claim that these pictures have demonstrably saved lives does address my first concern. I have never seen such evidence myself however. Could you refer me to something concrete?
And, of course the complaints about offended sensibilities, even the legitimate sensibilities I point out, pale in comparison with the atrocity that is abortion. I’m not sure I said anything that would indicate I believe the contrary. I don’t think that saying this evil is greater than that evil helps to solve this issue for me.
Brett,
As a matter of fact I can; Randy Alcorn documents it in his book.
Amazon.com: Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (9780880704724): Randy Alcorn: Books
I also know from personal experience. I would see these displays at my university campus and ask the presenters about them. One of the people I ended up talking to was a volunteer at a crisis pregnancy center who shows up when the exhibit is here because some pregnant women are moved enough by the posters to seek out their services.
I’ll add one more example I know of: in the Soviet Union, which was the first modern state to legalize abortion, there were many doctors that were opposed for various reasons (most claimed it was because the procedure was unsafe for women at the time, though they could have hardly claimed anything else without getting a bullet to the brain). So what some of these doctors did, to discourage abortion, was to take women claiming they wanted to one to actually see one that was scheduled to occur. They said that 9 times out of 10, the woman changed her mind. She was horrified, yes – but her child lived. No emotional discomfort could even possess a measurable weight next to that.
Secondly, I don’t believe that this is, in any way, shape or form, an “evil”. It is at most an uncomfortable, unpleasant experience. I see no evil involved whatsoever. The real evil, if there is any to be found here, is the astonishing indifference to the potential these exhibits have for saving human lives and turning the tide of public opinion against abortion.
I’ll also add that when I was in Catholic high school, we all had to watch a video of a surgical abortion. I’m glad I saw it and I think it should be shown once a year, at the minimum. Everyone needs to see what this really is. Everyone needs to see that one minute there is a healthy, vibrant human being, and the next there is a pile of bloody limbs, that this is the consequence of “choice”.