Avoid Raising a Serial Killer

[vern_humphrey]

A while back we had a heated debate on the use of graphic images of aborted children in the pro-life cause. Some made the point that their children would be traumatized, others pointed out that children react to adults’ behavior.

Here’s an interesging article from men.msn.com/articlemh.aspx?cp-documentid=1014007&GT1=10416

Avoid Raising a Serial Killer
When Junior does something disturbing, fixing it depends on your actions and reactions.

Temper your reactions
When something disturbs you about your child—a drawing, an attraction to guns, a violent fantasy—don’t outwardly freak. “It’s instinctive to respond to images of violence with fear and anger, and to have a desire to suppress them,” says Gerard Jones, a media-studies advisor for MIT and author of Killing Monsters: Why Children Need Fantasy, Super Heroes, and Make-Believe Violence. “Think past that knee-jerk reaction and poke a little bit at what’s going on. And don’t make kids feel that they can’t speak up. When you have an angry adolescent, you don’t want to make him feel cut off and disliked.”

Remember, your kids are not you
Some parents wonder, If these violent images disturb me, why don’t they disturb my child? “We want to believe that kids are more sensitive and innocent than we are,” says Jones. “Accept that kids go through a callous period, acting tough and insensitive. Just because they’re in a different place now doesn’t mean they’re not going to grow up to share your core values later. A 10-year-old doesn’t think like a 30-year-old. We shouldn’t ask him to.”

 

[KarenNC]

A while back we had a heated debate on the use of graphic images of aborted children in the pro-life cause. Some made the point that their children would be traumatized, others pointed out that children react to adults’ behavior.

Here’s an interesging article from men.msn.com/articlemh.aspx?cp-documentid=1014007&GT1=10416

Did you happen to notice that the article deals with make-believe violence and images of make-believe violence generated by the child? I don’t see anywhere in the article that even addresses exposing children to real photographs of real actual violence, much less advocates doing so.

The article has nothing to do with the topic of whether it is appropriate to parade tractor trailer sized graphic bloody photos of real recognizable dead babies and baby parts where you know preschoolers will be viewing them.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Did you happen to notice that the article deals with make-believe violence and images of make-believe violence generated by the child? I don’t see anywhere in the article that even addresses exposing children to real photographs of real actual violence, much less advocates doing so.

Did you happen to notice that children have difficulty distinguishing between “make-believe” and reality?

Did you happen to notice that pictures of aborted children are not pictures of violence – real or imagined (except by you)? They are only pictures of the aftermath.

The article has nothing to do with the topic of whether it is appropriate to parade tractor trailer sized graphic bloody photos of real recognizable dead babies and baby parts where you know preschoolers will be viewing them.

Thank you for showing everyone else the relevance of this article and over-wrought parents’ reaction to graphic images of aborted children.

 

[rayne89]

I was pro-life long before I actually saw a picture of an aborted child. Infact I was pro-life before I was even religious.
As a parent I have the right to protect my child’s innocence. Whether it’s photos of aborted children or photos of piles of dead bodies in Nazi Germany. You don’t need to either to know it’s wrong -I didn’t.

The shock and awe mentality is what is desensitizing our children to violence. Peaceful prayerful demonstrations show prolifers as caring, concerned people. Photos of chopped up children and angry shouting is what gets prolifers dismissed as as religious nut jobs.

What scared pregnant woman is going to reach out to an angry protester declaring her a murderer, for help?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I was pro-life long before I actually saw a picture of an aborted child. Infact I was pro-life before I was even religious.
As a parent I have the right to protect my child’s innocence. Whether it’s photos of aborted children or photos of piles of dead bodies in Nazi Germany. You don’t need to either to know it’s wrong -I didn’t.

The shock and awe mentality is what is desensitizing our children to violence. Peaceful prayerful demonstrations show prolifers as caring, concerned people. Photos of chopped up children and angry shouting is what gets prolifers dismissed as as religious nut jobs.

What scared pregnant woman is going to reach out to an angry protester declaring her a murderer, for help?

This implies a very strange theory – that women form their basic values very differently from men.

In fact, however, that’s not true. Women, like men, form their basic values at an early age. They don’t wait until they** after** get pregnant before forming their character.

Therefore, they must be informed long before they are “scared pregnant women.”

Of course, if the parents have hysterics when they see what abortion really is, it does affect the child. But that’s not the fault of the ones displaying the pictures – it’s poor parenting.

 

[Elric]

This implies a very strange theory – that women form their basic values very differently from men.

In fact, however, that’s not true. Women, like men, form their basic values at an early age. They don’t wait until they** after** get pregnant before forming their character.

Therefore, they must be informed long before they are “scared pregnant women.”

Of course, if the parents have hysterics when they see what abortion really is, it does affect the child. But that’s not the fault of the ones displaying the pictures – it’s poor parenting.

I cant believe that you are being serious, poor parenting?

By that logic it would be ok to hand out porn books in sunday school, in fact people could wave pictures of couples copulating at the front of schools and churches. They would be seeing what sex really is. The gay movement could really have a field day with this logic.

It is not poor parenting to not want your children to see such images, at best it is poor judgment on the part of the person with such images to expose a child to them against the parents wishes. It is up to the parent to decide when their child is ready to understand about such things (they would have a better idea), not a complete stranger waving around a graphic picture who has never met the child.

 

[Pug]

I do agree that whenever parents totally freak out, the kid remembers this and perhaps is traumatized by it. I was, anyway. It doesn’t have to be pictures; it can be anything. My general response if I didn’t understand what the adults were so rattled about was to think I had done something wrong or to engage in various types of avoidance behavior.

I don’t know why the title of the article mentions serial killers, though.

 

[mapleoak]

Did you happen to notice that the article deals with make-believe violence and images of make-believe violence generated by the child? I don’t see anywhere in the article that even addresses exposing children to real photographs of real actual violence, much less advocates doing so.

What does make believe or real have to do with anything? Pre-school children are limited in their ability to discern make believe from reality.

The article has nothing to do with the topic of whether it is appropriate to parade tractor trailer sized graphic bloody photos of real recognizable dead babies and baby parts where you know preschoolers will be viewing them.

It doesn’t specifically mention photos of aborted children, however, there is no good reason to believe that because a photo is that of an aborted baby or otherwise, all of a sudden different criteria applies.

 

[mapleoak]

Peaceful prayerful demonstrations show prolifers as caring, concerned people. Photos of chopped up children and angry shouting is what gets prolifers dismissed as as religious nut jobs.

Angry demonstrators is a whole different topic. There is no reason to equate showing the reality of abortion with that of an angry mob.

 

[rayne89]

Do you know anyone who changed their mind about abortion because they saw a chopped up baby on sign being held by a stranger? I don’t. It makes people angry, it’s gives those against us reason to brush us off as irrational religious nut jobs. The media already loves to show prolifers as the lunatic fringe.

I am 100% prolife and it upsets me that these types of protests don’t give me the option to shield my child from these graphic images. I am a parent and as a parent I should have that right. I’ve talked to prochoicers and these types if demonstrations are very off putting to them. They don’t see Christ’s love -they see condemnation and self righteousness even though that is not the intent.

Could these same images change the mind of a young woman at a crisis pregnancy center -quite possibly, but it’s a different setting. It’s not impersonal, it’s in the midst of counseling. I think the image of the child on ultrasound would be a better choice though. I think it’s better to draw people out with love rather than with fear.

 

[rayne89]

This implies a very strange theory – that women form their basic values very differently from men.

In fact, however, that’s not true. Women, like men, form their basic values at an early age. They don’t wait until they** after** get pregnant before forming their character.

Therefore, they must be informed long before they are “scared pregnant women.”

Of course, if the parents have hysterics when they see what abortion really is, it does affect the child. But that’s not the fault of the ones displaying the pictures – it’s poor parenting.

People demonstating in front of abortion clinics are trying to inform the “scared pregnant women”, are they not?

You think it is the right of strangers to form another person’s child basic values by showing graphic images of dead babies against the parents wishes?

 

[hasikelee]

Do you know anyone who changed their mind about abortion because they saw a chopped up baby on sign being held by a stranger? I don’t. It makes people angry, it’s gives those against us reason to brush us off as irrational religious nut jobs. The media already loves to show prolifers as the lunatic fringe.

I am 100% prolife and it upsets me that these types of protests don’t give me the option to shield my child from these graphic images. I am a parent and as a parent I should have that right. I’ve talked to prochoicers and these types if demonstrations are very off putting to them. They don’t see Christ’s love -they see condemnation and self righteousness even though that is not the intent.

Could these same images change the mind of a young woman at a crisis pregnancy center -quite possibly, but it’s a different setting. It’s not impersonal, it’s in the midst of counseling. I think the image of the child on ultrasound would be a better choice though. I think it’s better to draw people out with love rather than with fear.

There is an abortion provider downtown that we frequently visit to counsel women. I have yet to see a poor child accidentally wander by the clinic and accidentally stumble across the images of aborted pre-born children.

The only children around are those being taken inside to be killed and those standing with their parents, counseling the women.

I suppose there might be one or two in the cars that pass us. I’ve looked and never seen one myself. Been going to this clinic for almost 4 years now.

I’m curious: for those of you that are concerned about your children viewing these images, where is your local abortion provider? Near a mall or playground?

P.s., as someone who has counseled hundreds of women and men, images of aborted preborn children happen to be the strongest testimony. You can talk, you can beg, you can inform, name off statistics, reason with them, etc. But the second that mommy to be sees what she is about to do, she hesitates. These images cross religious lines, they cross racial lines, they cross gender lines. The men are the big justifiers. Yet show them a picture and it makes sense to them.

Rayne, have you considered using these images when trying to counsel women at your local clinic? I’ve never been thanked so many times by women considering abortion then when I use these.

 

[rayne89]

Growing up there was one directly across the junior highschool and right behind it was a movie theater. It shared the office space with a dentist office. Next door was a Lutheran church. The other one I was aware of was in a strip mall that also had a 7/11 convience store, a Subway (sandwich shop), a hair salon, a Chinese restaurant and a chiropractor’s office. There is one I noticed recently noticed across from a local hospital next to a family restaurant.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

This implies a very strange theory – that women form their basic values very differently from men.

In fact, however, that’s not true. Women, like men, form their basic values at an early age. They don’t wait until they** after** get pregnant before forming their character.

Therefore, they must be informed long before they are “scared pregnant women.”

Of course, if the parents have hysterics when they see what abortion really is, it does affect the child. But that’s not the fault of the ones displaying the pictures – it’s poor parenting.

Vern, I don’t think your tone is very charitable – nor is it good support for your position.

I, for one, am a fella who became pro-life long before I ever saw a picture of an aborted child. I don’t agree that such images are necessary for spreading the pro-life message, though they can certainly be useful for the right audience.

Who is that audience? Well, it’s probably not rabid pro-choicers; most of them are fully aware of what they advocate. “Frightened pregnant women”? Perhaps. Teens who are on the fence? Possibly.

Young children? Certainly not. Parents have an obligation to protect their children’s innocence.

Peace,
Dante

 

[KarenNC]

I’m curious: for those of you that are concerned about your children viewing these images, where is your local abortion provider? Near a mall or playground?

Well, this past weekend, the people holding up large posters of these pictures here were placed in front of the Chic-Fil-A, across the street from the busiest mall in the region along the short stretch of road between the interstate exit and the mall entrance (on the side of the folks going into the mall). The mall has numerous shops aimed at parents of young children, as well as places that parents take children for activities like birthday parties, mini golf, etc or out to eat, and gets over 17 million visitors a year. There are no abortion providers at all within miles of this place (certainly not at the Chic Fil A).

This is a place where, on a busy weekend afternoon, it can take cars 10 minutes to get from the interstate exit to the mall entrance because traffic is so slow and there is not an opportunity to turn off of that road in that stretch. People coming off the interstate do not have an option to turn around or go another direction if they see these photos up ahead, nor can one use the argument that the car passes by so quickly that the child can’t see the image anyway. The only possible place to turn off is directly beside the place where the posters are being held up, into the parking lots on that side of the street for the many businesses (including the Toys R Us, Babies R Us, the McDonalds with the big playspace, etc) that are directly behind the Chic Fil A.

Kind of hard to argue that holding up these posters in front of the turn into the parking lot of the the Toys R Us (which doesn’t have another entrance from that direction, btw) and across from the busiest mall in the region on a busy Saturday afternoon is only “unintentionally” allowing young children to see these posters or is only aimed at women going into abortion clinics. There are no medical clinics of any description in either the mall or the shopping area across the street from it or on that side of the interstate in that area.

 

[vern_humphrey]

People demonstating in front of abortion clinics are trying to inform the “scared pregnant women”, are they not?

They are trying to inform the public in general.

You think it is the right of strangers to form another person’s child basic values by showing graphic images of dead babies against the parents wishes?

Are you telling me what I think? Are you a mind-reader?

The use of such images is a stong affective strategy, and children should know about the world before they are forced to deal with it on their own.

The First Amendment was created sepcifically to deal with controversial issues – and therefore those who publicly display such images have a right to do so…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, I don’t think your tone is very charitable – nor is it good support for your position.

Do you think your tone is charitable – when you attack those who are trying to educate the public on the evils of abortion?

I, for one, am a fella who became pro-life long before I ever saw a picture of an aborted child. I don’t agree that such images are necessary for spreading the pro-life message, though they can certainly be useful for the right audience.

Others have different opinions – and have as much right to them as you have to yours.

Who is that audience? Well, it’s probably not rabid pro-choicers; most of them are fully aware of what they advocate. “Frightened pregnant women”? Perhaps. Teens who are on the fence? Possibly.

The audience is those still in their formative years.

Young children? Certainly not. Parents have an obligation to protect their children’s innocence.

And that’s the theme of this thread!

Parents don’t “protect their children’s innocence” by throwing a hissy fit when they see such posters. They protect the children by calmly explaining what those pictures are and why they are displayed.

To do otherwise is bad parenting.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Before talking about “protecting children,” think about this child, the helpless victim of a grisly crime.

“Mary Rose Doe”
April 28, 1983
“A perfect little bud - clipped before she blossomed.”

In memory of those lives lost through abortion.

On April 28, 1983, a baby girl was found, legally aborted, and tossed into a drainage ditch in Little Rock. She weighed 5 pounds, was 7 months in gestation, 16 inches long, had a full head of auburn hair, brown eyes, and ivory skin. Given a Christian burial by North Pulaski Right to Life, Chapter of Arkansas Right to Life, Mary Rose has touched our hearts, and none of us will ever forget her.

I suggest those who get so upset about seeing the pictures are really upset with themselves – they don’t want to know that things like this happen, and resent being reminded of it.

 

[KarenNC]

It doesn’t specifically mention photos of aborted children, however, there is no good reason to believe that because a photo is that of an aborted baby or otherwise, all of a sudden different criteria applies.

It doesn’t mention photos at all, it mentions drawings done by the children themselves. I certainly don’t equate my child drawing with a crayon a picture of a dragon or the dragon biting a knight, even if she includes red dots for “blood,” as the equivalent of showing her a bloody tractor trailer sized picture of a dismembered baby.

You are precisely correct. I don’t believe that “because a photo is that of an aborted baby, all of a sudden different criteria apply.”

I apply exactly the same criteria to these photos that I apply to similarly graphic photos of murder victims, war casualties, victims of natural disasters or accidents, victims of genocide, beheadings, etc. They reflect reality, they have a place in the discussion and education process, but that place is not on the side of a tractor trailer driving around the city indiscriminately, flown behind airplanes over cities, or blown up to poster size and held up by the entrance to a toy store or any other venue in which you are fully aware young children will be present.

 

[estesbob]

Before talking about “protecting children,” think about this child, the helpless victim of a grisly crime.

I suggest those who get so upset about seeing the pictures are really upset with themselves – they don’t want to know that things like this happen, and resent being reminded of it.

For many the problem is trying to explain to their children why they support what the pictures depict.