Anti-abortion protest signs - how far is too far?

[KarenNC]

The subject is abortion, therefore we must explain that abortion was wrong.

Actually I think I can manage to get across the idea that hurting other people or murdering them is wrong without listing every possible way in which one person can harm or end the life of another. I believe I can also do it without “eight-by-ten colour glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was.”

Her mother explained it to her when she was about 3, saying, “Some people kill babies before they are born,”

Babies being born is not related to sex education? Yours must have been different than mine.

Out of curiosity, any particular reason she chose three?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Actually I think I can manage to get across the idea that hurting other people or murdering them is wrong without listing every possible way in which one person can harm or end the life of another. I believe I can also do it without “eight-by-ten colour glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was.”

And therefore all people who know murder is wrong also believe abortion is wrong?

Got any cites to back that up?

Babies being born is not related to sex education? Yours must have been different than mine.

No more than filling a gas tank is related to geology.

Out of curiosity, any particular reason she chose three?

Probably because that’s when the instinctive knowledge of language structure kicks in.

 

[KarenNC]

And therefore all people who know murder is wrong also believe abortion is wrong?

Got any cites to back that up?

Nope, nary a one. Of course, as I did not claim that I was talking about all people, I don’t see any reason that I should.

No more than filling a gas tank is related to geology.

Yep, your definition of sex education is apparently quite different than mine.

Probably because that’s when the instinctive knowledge of language structure kicks in.

Care to elaborate?

I was primarily wondering if she had the option to choose when and how she introduced the topic or if someone else did it for her. Were the photos helpful?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Nope, nary a one. Of course, as I did not claim that I was talking about all people, I don’t see any reason that I should.

You’re not chief cook at the Waffle House, are you?

Yep, your definition of sex education is apparently quite different than mine.

Obviously.

Care to elaborate?

I was primarily wondering if she had the option to choose when and how she introduced the topic or if someone else did it for her. Were the photos helpful?

There is an underlying structure to language – something that is not taught but seems “wired in.” It kicks in at about 3 and children at that age suddenly become much more verbal and able to communicate.

You may have heard the phrase “the Terrible Twos” – children of that age undergo intense frustration because of their inability to communicate.

 

[KarenNC]

There is an underlying structure to language – something that is not taught but seems “wired in.” It kicks in at about 3 and children at that age suddenly become much more verbal and able to communicate.

You may have heard the phrase “the Terrible Twos” – children of that age undergo intense frustration because of their inability to communicate.

Very familiar with the terrible twos, though in our experience threes were much more intense overall.

So she basically chose to introduce the concept of abortion as soon as the child was able to communicate. Cool if that is in line with her parenting strategy and family values, more power to her. Glad that she was able to choose the timing and means that she felt was appropriate.

Managed to do it without the pictures, then?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Very familiar with the terrible twos, though in our experience threes were much more intense overall.

So she basically chose to introduce the concept of abortion as soon as the child was able to communicate. Cool if that is in line with her parenting strategy and family values, more power to her. Glad that she was able to choose the timing and means that she felt was appropriate.

Managed to do it without the pictures, then?

What difference does it make?

Why are you so hipped on pictures?

 

[KarenNC]

What difference does it make?

Why are you so hipped on pictures?

First, because the topic of this thread is “anti-abortion protest signs–how far is too far?” and I contend that showing these graphic photos in venues where young children are exposed to them without the permission of their parents is way too far. I contend that it should be up to the parents to choose when and in what manner to introduce this topic.

It makes a difference because one of the arguments that keeps being brought forward to justify children seeing these images without their parents’ permission is that without the pictures, no one could possibly be convinced or ever has been convinced (no, not once) that abortion is wrong or that it kills a baby. That means that the end of showing the pictures to someone who might have an abortion is so essential and crucial that we have to show them as frequently as possible, even where we know young children will be exposed to them because no other method can possibly work.

Amazingly, it seems that your 3 year old granddaughter has found it possible to make that connnection (abortion is wrong, abortion kills babies) without the use of these pictures. This would seem to knock this theory out of the running. I am at a loss to explain why some of the posters seem to believe that the majority of the general population are totally unable to do what your granddaughter has done.

 

[vern_humphrey]

First, because the topic of this thread is “anti-abortion protest signs–how far is too far?” and I contend that showing these graphic photos in venues where young children are exposed to them without the permission of their parents is way too far. I contend that it should be up to the parents to choose when and in what manner to introduce this topic.

So what does that mean? We should not use the pictures because somewhere some mother might object?

It makes a difference because one of the arguments that keeps being brought forward to justify children seeing these images without their parents’ permission is that without the pictures, no one could possibly be convinced or ever has been convinced (no, not once) that abortion is wrong or that it kills a baby.

Strawman!

No one ever said, “without the pictures, no one could possibly be convinced or ever has been convinced (no, not once) that abortion is wrong or that it kills a baby.”

That means that the end of showing the pictures to someone who might have an abortion is so essential and crucial that we have to show them as frequently as possible, even where we know young children will be exposed to them because no other method can possibly work.

You’re back to your mindreading act again, are you?

Because no one here ever made such a statement.

Amazingly, it seems that your 3 year old granddaughter has found it possible to make that connnection (abortion is wrong, abortion kills babies) without the use of these pictures. This would seem to knock this theory out of the running.

What “theory” is that? Who advanced it?

Give us a cite, please

I am at a loss to explain why some of the posters seem to believe that the majority of the general population are totally unable to do what your granddaughter has done.

You have an unfortunate habit of making things up and ascribing them to other people.

 

[mapleoak]

First, because the topic of this thread is “anti-abortion protest signs–how far is too far?” and I contend that showing these graphic photos in venues where young children are exposed to them without the permission of their parents is way too far.

I contend that it is not way to far. Further, it is a valuable tool in bringing the plight of the unborn to public attention.

I contend that it should be up to the parents to choose when and in what manner to introduce this topic.

Then it would be wise to choose to introduce this topic early on as we diligently promote the pro-life cause to the general public. Children should understand within their ability to reason under the proper guidance of their parents.

It makes a difference because one of the arguments that keeps being brought forward to justify children seeing these images without their parents’ permission is that without the pictures, no one could possibly be convinced or ever has been convinced (no, not once) that abortion is wrong or that it kills a baby.

Who actually said this anyhow? I tried to find such a quote in previous postings and came up short. In fact it has been stated a number of times on this and other threads that it is one of many tools, however a very effective one at that.

That means that the end of showing the pictures to someone who might have an abortion is so essential and crucial that we have to show them as frequently as possible, even where we know young children will be exposed to them because no other method can possibly work.

Not because no other method can possibly work, but because this is in itself a highly effective method of raising public awareness. Your whole objection to displaying them is that babies will ‘die’ from fright or something, but a weak argument at that.

Amazingly, it seems that your 3 year old granddaughter has found it possible to make that connnection (abortion is wrong, abortion kills babies) without the use of these pictures. This would seem to knock this theory out of the running.

If I eat a slice a bread I derive energy from it. If I drink a glass of milk I derive energy from it. Deriving energy from milk doesn’t cancel out the ability to derive energy from eating bread.

I am at a loss to explain why some of the posters seem to believe that the majority of the general population are totally unable to do what your granddaughter has done.

Which posters? In fact, going back to the preaching to the choir bit, a child brought up in a solidly pro-life family setting can and may very well do just fine without seeing such photos. It is the parents who are either lukewarm when it comes to pro-life issues or more sadly, those who are pro-choice who benefit the most from these images. What theory does this debunk?

 

[KarenNC]

So what does that mean? We should not use the pictures because somewhere some mother might object?

Actually I was of the opinion that one would choose not to use these photos in this manner because they had as much compassion for children who were already born as they did for before they were born and realized that they were inappropriate.

Strawman!

No one ever said, “without the pictures, no one could possibly be convinced or ever has been convinced (no, not once) that abortion is wrong or that it kills a baby.”

You’re back to your mindreading act again, are you?

Because no one here ever made such a statement.

Post 154 MonicaO2
*If there are in fact a very small number of children who do truly get traumetized by the photos then that is sad. However these images are nowhere to be found on TV news, in the papers or in school textbooks - basically the child will NEVER know the truth unless his parents decide to show it to him. Because of this the Truth Tours are sadly necessary. *

Post 174 bmmckinney
*"For 35 years and longer we have tried other arrows to defeat the beast but we have found they are unable to pierce the armor of the beast.

However I will argue to you that most people probably don’t use this arrow correctly. There is only one group who seems to get it right: abortionNrg."*

Post 176 bmmckinney
“What is really sad Karen is that if you were in charge of the abortionNrg group, not a single baby of the hundreds if not thousands who have been saved from abortion would be alive today, not a 1! Can you honestly live with that fact? That your selfishness is so great that it would have led to lives being lost just because you want to shelter a 4 year old?”

“Don’t try to argue that its just because of the website, I’ve witnessed and saved babies with these photos in public on large trucks where everyone can see these images, those lives are worth more then Karen’s or anyone else’s closeminded overprotectiveness. Those lives are more important then your child’s feelings or nightmares or tears. Those lives are more important then your foolhearted opinions. And with every last breath I have in my life I will promote the truth about abortion and I won’t let people like yourself help increase abortions in the world because you are unwilling to do what is moral and legal that saves those babies lives.”

post 178 bmmckinney
*"Karen what you aren’t getting the understanding is that your 4 year old seeing these photos is an unintended positive effect of trying to reach the public at large. The reason it is beneficial is because it puts you as a parent in a position to explain that love is good and violence is wrong when a child would react to these photos.

If I and these folks COULD miraculously sheild those children from these images but not their parents at the same time we would. But we can’t.

You didn’t address the issue that none of the babies saved from abortion would be alive today if you had your way in that organization. Guess what? People just like you are in power in the state and national right to life groups and they are responsible in part for the babies who were lost because they didn’t show the truth."

There is a reason that prolife people have lost confidence in those groups because they simply aren’t making any difference. Abortion is worse today then it has ever been and instead of you spending your energy trying to save babies you are complaining about children seeing these photos, you are responsible as well for the good you might have done that God wanted you to do if you are indeed prolife if you had only put your current energy into saving lives instead of saving feelings.

This isn’t an issue for you or people like you. No one like you or those who think like you have ever been victorious in any previous injustice, the proof is in the pudding as it were and you should consider this. And the fact that you are also responsible for those you might guilt trip into not doing what is necessary to save babies because of your falicious and foolish arguments about children’s feelings. I do care about the feelings that are upset by young children by these photos I really do, but they mean nothing compared to the lives that would be saved but weren’t simply because people are too risk adverse to show these photos which would lead to more unborn babies being saved and souls saved as well."*

 

[vern_humphrey]

Actually I was of the opinion that one would choose not to use these photos in this manner because they had as much compassion for children who were already born as they did for before they were born and realized that they were inappropriate.

How are they “inappropriate?”

Post 154 MonicaO2
*If there are in fact a very small number of children who do truly get traumetized by the photos then that is sad. However these images are nowhere to be found on TV news, in the papers or in school textbooks - basically the child will NEVER know the truth unless his parents decide to show it to him. Because of this the Truth Tours are sadly necessary. *

Post 174 bmmckinney
*"For 35 years and longer we have tried other arrows to defeat the beast but we have found they are unable to pierce the armor of the beast.

However I will argue to you that most people probably don’t use this arrow correctly. There is only one group who seems to get it right: abortionNrg."*

Post 176 bmmckinney
“What is really sad Karen is that if you were in charge of the abortionNrg group, not a single baby of the hundreds if not thousands who have been saved from abortion would be alive today, not a 1! Can you honestly live with that fact? That your selfishness is so great that it would have led to lives being lost just because you want to shelter a 4 year old?”

“Don’t try to argue that its just because of the website, I’ve witnessed and saved babies with these photos in public on large trucks where everyone can see these images, those lives are worth more then Karen’s or anyone else’s closeminded overprotectiveness. Those lives are more important then your child’s feelings or nightmares or tears. Those lives are more important then your foolhearted opinions. And with every last breath I have in my life I will promote the truth about abortion and I won’t let people like yourself help increase abortions in the world because you are unwilling to do what is moral and legal that saves those babies lives.”

post 178 bmmckinney
*"Karen what you aren’t getting the understanding is that your 4 year old seeing these photos is an unintended positive effect of trying to reach the public at large. The reason it is beneficial is because it puts you as a parent in a position to explain that love is good and violence is wrong when a child would react to these photos.

If I and these folks COULD miraculously sheild those children from these images but not their parents at the same time we would. But we can’t.

You didn’t address the issue that none of the babies saved from abortion would be alive today if you had your way in that organization. Guess what? People just like you are in power in the state and national right to life groups and they are responsible in part for the babies who were lost because they didn’t show the truth."

There is a reason that prolife people have lost confidence in those groups because they simply aren’t making any difference. Abortion is worse today then it has ever been and instead of you spending your energy trying to save babies you are complaining about children seeing these photos, you are responsible as well for the good you might have done that God wanted you to do if you are indeed prolife if you had only put your current energy into saving lives instead of saving feelings.

This isn’t an issue for you or people like you. No one like you or those who think like you have ever been victorious in any previous injustice, the proof is in the pudding as it were and you should consider this. And the fact that you are also responsible for those you might guilt trip into not doing what is necessary to save babies because of your falicious and foolish arguments about children’s feelings. I do care about the feelings that are upset by young children by these photos I really do, but they mean nothing compared to the lives that would be saved but weren’t simply because people are too risk adverse to show these photos which would lead to more unborn babies being saved and souls saved as well."*

Ah, so the fact they’re effective is your concern?

Because that’s what these posts show – that they are effective, and may be the best way in many cases.

But that doesn’t back up your claim that everyone who uses them says they are the only way.

 

[KarenNC]

I contend that it is not way to far. Further, it is a valuable tool in bringing the plight of the unborn to public attention.

I have agreed it can be a valuable tool…if used appropriately. When one is only willing to use a hammer, every problem suddenly looks like a nail.

Then it would be wise to choose to introduce this topic early on as we diligently promote the pro-life cause to the general public. Children should understand within their ability to reason under the proper guidance of their parents.

I introduced the topic of where babies come from, what they look like before they are born, that it is our responsbility to protect them, etc by the time she was three. That is what I believe is appropriately within a young child’s ability to reason, unless they have the misfortune to grow up in the middle of a war-torn or high crime area. I fail to see that tractor-trailer sized photos of decapitated and dismembered dead babies should be part of that, regardless of what you attempt to try to inflict on children.

Not because no other method can possibly work, but because this is in itself a highly effective method of raising public awareness. Your whole objection to displaying them is that babies will ‘die’ from fright or something, but a weak argument at that.

Again, how do you know it is any more effective than anything else? Apparently no one in the movement has any sort of statistical information on whether your efforts work at all.

No, my whole objection is no that “babies will die from fright or something.” It is that you are choosing to act in diametric opposition to the societal consensus of the appropriate protective role of adults in regards to young children as evidenced by the various laws and practices regarding ratings, warnings and separation of graphic images of violence and young children. You are also acting in opposition to the writings from the Vatican on the appropriate role of those other than parents in regards to the education of young children in matters pertaining to sexuality.

If I eat a slice a bread I derive energy from it. If I drink a glass of milk I derive energy from it. Deriving energy from milk doesn’t cancel out the ability to derive energy from eating bread.

Very true. And you could choke and die from the bread if you are given it too early, before you are developmentally ready for solid foods and have the teeth and muscle control to properly chew it. When it is introduced to you, it is usually softened and given a bit at a time, not crammed whole down your throat. There are things that are appropriate at one stage of development that are not appropriate at another.

 

[KarenNC]

How are they “inappropriate?”

Let’s try this one more time—because we do not, in any other circumstance have practices that say “it is okay to show young children graphic images of violence or the bloody dismembered aftermath of such.”

Truly, guys, what is so hard about this concept. Even that bastion of moral rectitude, Hollywood, seems to understand it and puts ratings on its movies, shows trailers that are rated for all audiences, and puts trailers for movies likely to be appropriate for the audience in with any given movie. They don’t put unedited trailers for “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” in with “The Muppets.”

Ah, so the fact they’re effective is your concern?

Because that’s what these posts show – that they are effective, and may be the best way in many cases.

Wouldn’t know if they are actually effective or not. I know that these folks think they are effective and produce testimonials to that end. I also know that I can turn on any infomercial or advertisement and get the same level of accurate, objective data about the effectiveness of the product.

But that doesn’t back up your claim that everyone who uses them says they are the only way.

If you are going to the trouble to quote it and respond to it, you might try actually reading it as written (emphasis added to hopefully clarify):

“It makes a difference because **one of the arguments **that keeps being brought forward to justify children seeing these images without their parents’ permission is that without the pictures, no one could possibly be convinced or ever has been convinced (no, not once) that abortion is wrong or that it kills a baby.”

 

[djoseph]

I disagree and think they SHOULD NOT be shown in a public place where small children can’t avoid seeing them. There is already so much in the world thrown in their little faces - their innocence is robbed way too early and if LARGE GRAPHIC PICTURES of murdered babies bother me, I can only imagine what it does to a small child.

I say that as a 100%, no compromise, pro life supporter.

I think they SHOULD be allowed to display the pictures, as it is their right in this country under the First Amendment.

I say that as a pro-choice, card carrying conservative.

 

[KarenNC]

I think they SHOULD be allowed to display the pictures, as it is their right in this country under the First Amendment.

I say that as a pro-choice, card carrying conservative.

In what way is saying that it should be reasonable to expect them not to show such graphic images of violence in areas where small children cannot avoid coming into contact with them without warning or their parents’ permission a violation of the First Amendment?

Hollywood can and does make as many graphic gory slasher flicks or sexually explicit films that they like as well as put them out for the public who wants to see them to do so----but they are expected to put a rating on them to warn parents that the content is inappropriate for young children and trailers have to be acceptable for all audiences. It requires an active choice to go to the theatre and buy a ticket and enter the theater or to purchase or rent the dvd. That choice is not available when one of these trucks featuring bloody corpses of dismembered babies pulls up beside you at a stoplight.

Plays featuring nudity, graphic sex, graphic violence, etc can be and are put on all the time----but parents can find out ahead of time and choose whether or not to go with their young children. Again, it requires a conscious act of will and intent to attend such plays. That choice is not available to the parent on the road to the mall who passes unwarned a string of folks holding up posters featuring bloody piles of baby parts.

Museums and art galleries can and do display graphic photograph or artwork of intense violence, including that which actually happens—but it is usual for such to put up a warning ahead of time and publicize it as such so that parents of young children are not caught unawares. It requires an act of will to go to these exhibits and pay one’s entrance fee to see them—they are not plastered to your car in the grocery store parking lot or laying on the table at McDonalds.

People are free to publish huge coffee table books with the most graphic scenes of violence that you can imagine, including those that are historically accurate and choose to do so----but they don’t put them wide open in areas where preschoolers are likely to be and in the library they are put in the adult section. Nor do they blow up those images to the size of tractor trailer trucks and ride down the public highway.

Television shows can and do show footage of beheadings, bodies of soldiers and civilians dismembered by war----but they usually reserve those images for a specific and identified time period ( the news broadcast itself or a show where the topic is obvious) and, in my experience, have a tv rating or other information available in advance so that audiences have a choice to watch or not. To watch the television is an act of will and intent—you have to choose to turn it on, choose to watch a program, choose not to turn the channel if something comes on you don’t want to see or you don’t want your children to see. You can’t do that to a tractor trailer sized image of a decapitated and dismembered dead baby parked in your neighborhood.

Despite the virulent and repeated claims to the contrary, no one has ever suggested that these images never be shown anywhere to anyone. I have actually stated multiple times that there are appropriate public venues where I can fully see the justification for showing them, appropriateness and their potential usefulness in this campaign. However, I find incredibly disingenuous any argument that says that they either must be used where large numbers of young children can reasonably be expected to see them or they cannot be used in any way, shape or form. Do so in places and ways that adults have some option to protect their children.

 

[mapleoak]

Hollywood can and does make as many graphic gory slasher flicks or sexually explicit films that they like as well as put them out for the public who wants to see them to do so----but they are expected to put a rating on them to warn parents that the content is inappropriate for young children and trailers have to be acceptable for all audiences.

And when hollywood says something is acceptable for all audiences…

…but they don’t put them wide open in areas where preschoolers are likely to be and in the library they are put in the adult section.

Gonna get harder and harder to find areas where preschoolers might be if the abortion trend isn’t reversed.

Hollywood can and does make as many graphic gory slasher flicks or sexually explicit films that they like as well as put them out for the public who wants to see them to do so----but they are expected to put a rating on them to warn parents that the content is inappropriate for young children and trailers have to be acceptable for all audiences. It requires an active choice to go to the theatre and buy a ticket and enter the theater or to purchase or rent the dvd.

For one, slasher flicks are disordered displays of violence for the purposes of entertainment. Not reality. It is silly to say graphic photos of the realities of abortion are the same as slasher flicks.
Are you suggesting a movie be made out of the abortion procedure and charge people money to ‘watch’. This would seem disordered to me.

 

[iamrefreshed]

After reading this thread, I am saddened by the number of times numerous posters (they know who they are) have subtly accused those who disagree with the displays of graphic pictures as being not as committed to ending abortion.

What makes your methods and ideas the only “right” way?

What right do you have to imply someone has less love in their heart for the unborn than you because of how they think their children should learn about it?

I wonder what those who would take violent actions, such as burning clinics, would think of your “feeble” attempts flashing pictures all over the place?

Karen, I respect your opinion and whether I agree or not does not really matter.

 

[KarenNC]

Gonna get harder and harder to find areas where preschoolers might be if the abortion trend isn’t reversed.

Which trend would that be? According to the CDC, abortion rates have been falling for a number of years.
cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm

"Overall, the annual number of legal induced abortions in the United States increased gradually from 1973 to 1990 (peak point) and then generally declined thereafter (Figure 1). In 2003, a total of 848,163 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC by 49 reporting areas. This change represents a 0.7% decline from 2002, for which 49 areas reported 854,122 legal induced abortions (Tables 1 and 2).

The national legal induced abortion ratio increased from 196 per 1,000 live births in 1973 (the first year that 52 areas reported) to 358 per 1,000 in 1979 and remained nearly stable through 1981 (Figure 1, Table 2). The ratio peaked at 364 per 1,000 in 1984 and since then has demonstrated a generally steady decline. In 2003, the abortion ratio was 241 per 1,000 in 49 reporting areas and 243 for the same 47 reporting areas for which data were available since 1998 (Table 2).

The national legal induced abortion rate increased from 14 per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years in 1973 to 25 per 1,000 in 1980. The rate remained stable at 23–24 per 1,000 during the 1980s and early 1990s and at 20–21 per 1,000 during 1994–1997. The abortion rate remained unchanged at 17 per 1,000 during 1998–1999 and at 16 per 1,000 during 2000–2002, both overall and in the same 47 reporting areas. In 2003, the abortion rate remained unchanged overall at 16 per 1,000 and decreased to 15 per 1,000 in the 47 reporting areas. "

For one, slasher flicks are disordered displays of violence for the purposes of entertainment. Not reality. It is silly to say graphic photos of the realities of abortion are the same as slasher flicks.

They also put ratings on documentaries. Personally, I wouldn’t want my preschooler seeing graphic images of mutilated and dismembered bodies in either fiction or documentary form. It is unnecessary and inappropriate. There’s a reason most kindergarten classes don’t have units on the Holocaust or the effects of war, terrorism, landmines, etc with graphic visuals either.

Are you suggesting a movie be made out of the abortion procedure and charge people money to ‘watch’. This would seem disordered to me.

Why would anyone pay money to watch when there are plenty of prolife organizations offering it up for free on websites? How would such an idea (assuming I had actually ever proposed such) be less disordered than showing such and asking for donations to support your cause?

bmmckinney has been promoting on this list the one he has apparently done. Google “abortion video” and see—but be warned to not do so where your preschooler can see as the images are very graphic even in the thumbnails.

I suppose we should be grateful that to the best of my knowledge, they haven’t found a way to play those on the sides of tractor trailer trucks parked in neighborhoods and riding through the streets.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Let’s try this one more time—because we do not, in any other circumstance have practices that say “it is okay to show young children graphic images of violence or the bloody dismembered aftermath of such.”

Let’s try this one more time – who is “we?”

Have “we” voted on this? Have “we” passed a resolution in this matter? Have “we” deputized you to speak for “us?”

 

[Mark_Leakos]

A friend of mine was taking her child (age 4 maybe?) into the Millwaukee Zoo on a Saturday. Pro life protesters were there with HUGE signs at the enterance - apparently a large hospital was having it’s family picnic zoo day. There were TONS of children that had to walk right past the signs - no avoiding it. I know my friend’s daugher asked what they were? Too graphic and gory for small eyes. And reagarding the 9 year old who had an abortion… that cerainly wouldn’t be typical I’m sure. I wouldn’t want my 9 year old looking at the signs. I want her to be oblivious of the evil that Mothers kill their babies and throw them in the garbage for as long as possible. It’s no different from a holocost movie - I wouldn’t let her see that either. Just like I don’t let her watch the news. I want my children to be children and not carry the burdens of an adult and to have someone else THRUST that in our face without my permission is shameful.

Actually, what is really shameful is that we allow the killing of innocent babies. But, I think all such graphic displays should be prefaced with a warning sign ahead of the display to protect children.