Avoid Raising a Serial Killer

[DanteAlighieri]

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

My tone was not the issue – you are the one throwing people’s words back at them, a tactic that generally is employed out of contempt – not charity.

I am attacking nobody – I merely point out that your tone was, since it lacked charity, costing you credibility.

For what it’s worth, I agree with you about this:

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.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Elric]

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

When you accuse people of being bad parents in an attempt to justify your ignoring their rights to raise their own children?

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

Does that include the right to expose a child to graphic images against their parents wishes?

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.

It is not bad parenting to not want total strangers to expose their child to graphic images, no matter how truthful they are.

Its not a good idea for a parent to " throw a hissy fit" in front of their children, they have to show by example how you behave in society and be the primary role-model in their childrens life. It is also not a good idea to force a parent into that situation in the first place.

I can certainly understand why a parent would be peeved at you, especally when you hide behind this “bad parenting” ****.

 

[vern_humphrey]

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

Or perhaps explaining to themselves why they are not on the picket line. It’s often a matter of “out of sight, out of mind.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

When you accuse people of being bad parents in an attempt to justify your ignoring their rights to raise their own children?

Who’s “ignoring their rights?”

Do I have to be censored – give up my rights – in order to protect their rights?

Does that include the right to expose a child to graphic images against their parents wishes?

A child is a duty, an obligation, not a right. Sadly there are parents who do not live up to their obligations.

It is not bad parenting to not want total strangers to expose their child to graphic images, no matter how truthful they are.

Yes, it is. Children must be prepared for the world before they have to face it alone.

Its not a good idea for a parent to " throw a hissy fit" in front of their children, they have to show by example how you behave in society and be the primary role-model in their childrens life. It is also not a good idea to force a parent into that situation in the first place.

And when they do that, how could a child be harmed by seeing a picture of Mary Rose Doe and being told her story?

I can certainly understand why a parent would be peeved at you, especally when you hide behind this “bad parenting” ****.

And what about those who would deny that Mary Rose Doe ever existed? Who would want her and her image wiped out?

 

[Elric]

Who’s “ignoring their rights?”

You are.

Do I have to be censored – give up my rights – in order to protect their rights?

It looks that way, but dont worry you are not alone.

A child is a duty, an obligation, not a right. Sadly there are parents who do not live up to their obligations.

You didnt answer the question.

Yes, it is. Children must be prepared for the world before they have to face it alone.

Aside from making a huge judgment on parents that is akin to claiming that you can read minds, it is not your decision to make. Its the parents job to decide when they are ready, not yours.

And when they do that, how could a child be harmed by seeing a picture of Mary Rose Doe and being told her story?

What being forced into a position where their child is exposed to graphic images against their wishes?

And what about those who would deny that Mary Rose Doe ever existed? Who would want her and her image wiped out?

What about them?

That is not every parent who walks down the street. You are judging every person with the same brush to justify what you are doing and that is wrong.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Despite your claim ot be above criticism:

My tone was not the issue – you are the one throwing people’s words back at them, a tactic that generally is employed out of contempt – not charity.

You are no holier than anyone else, and have no right to censor other people.

You didnt answer the question.

Quite the contrary, I anwered it fully. Let me recapitulate: The right to freedom of speech is an enumerated right. Those who use such images have a Constitutional right to do so.

Those, who for whatever pretext want to censor them are wrong.

Aside from making a huge judgment on parents that is akin to claiming that you can read minds, it is not your decision to make. Its the parents job to decide when they are ready, not yours.

The decisions of those who work to end the grisly crime of abortion are theirs to make.

What being forced into a position where their child is exposed to graphic images against their wishes?

I love how you use these loaded words. Who is “being forced into a position where their child is exposed to graphic images against their wishes?”

Is someone holding a gun to their heads? And are they also being “forced” not to prepare their children for dealing with the horrors of this world?

That is not every parent who walks down the street. You are judging every person with the same brush to justify what you are doing and that is wrong.

And you are using a handfull of people who seem to confuse their child’s welfare with their own desires (note the persistant use of the word “my right”) to attack others who are working to end a grisly crime.

 

[KarenNC]

Do I have to be censored – give up my rights – in order to protect their rights?

As was repeatedly pointed out in the 45+ pages of this discussion we had a few weeks ago, no one’s right to anything exists in total isolation nor can such rights be exercised without consideration of societal norms. American society has a norm that sheltering young children from graphic scenes of violence and sex are not appropriate and that parents should be warned in advance of such content.

The use and sale of marital aids such as sex toys, fetish gear, etc to adults is perfectly legal. The right of a store that sells such marital aids to advertise does not extend to the unfettered right to post graphic pictures of their use on every street corner, in front of a church building on a Sunday morning without permission or in front of children’s toy stores. This does not mean that such activities are illegal or do not exist or that they are universally approved as moral.

There is no legal barrier to making very graphically violent movies (fiction or documentaries) and video games, but the right to make or to advertise them to the public does not extend to putting the most bloody graphic scene possible on billboards or putting them on the side of tractor trailers and parking them outside of people’s houses without permission in an effort to “inform.” The makers of such are expected to show common restraint and discretion in the images that are on the cover of the movie, in the print and tv ads, to give such media a rating that indicates their content in advance so that individuals can make an informed decision as to whether they want their children seeing or buying these.

 

[vern_humphrey]

As was repeatedly pointed out in the 45+ pages of this discussion we had a few weeks ago, no one’s right to anything exists in total isolation nor can such rights be exercised without consideration of societal norms. American society has a norm that sheltering young children from graphic scenes of violence and sex are not appropriate and that parents should be warned in advance of such content.

As was repeatedly pointed out in the 45+ pages of this discussion we had a few weeks ago, you’re wrong.

 

[rayne89]

Vern your accusations are ridiculous. I am prolife and I am raising my daughter to be prolife. I have stood on “Life Chains” on several occasions none of which needed graphic depictions to get the point across.

Abortion was never even discussed in my home growing up, nor had I ever seen graphic abortion pictures (probably until I was about 25 or so) and I have been prolife since I was 14. Why is showing a butchered child better than showing a 4D image of a child in uetero?
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/4D-Ultrasound-pictures/images/photo1.jpg

This is an 8 week gestation baby.

In your face, gruesome dipictions hurt the prolife movement because it turns people off. Who is going to be angry about seeing the above picture? Who can deny that is a child?

I am not wrong. You can insist on your position until you are blue in the face.

Showing the beauty of life is a better evangelization tool that showing the horror of death. Why? Because it’s positive. Positive attracts people. Negative repels people.

 

[vern_humphrey]

As was repeatedly pointed out in the 45+ pages of this discussion we had a few weeks ago, no one’s right to anything exists in total isolation nor can such rights be exercised without consideration of societal norms. American society has a norm that sheltering young children from graphic scenes of violence and sex are not appropriate and that parents should be warned in advance of such content.

I thought this post was worthy of revisiting. Again and again, opposition to the use of graphic images has been presented as “protecting the children.” But in this post (note the bolded section" we see the real reason, en clair. It is about censorship. It is about censoring people with whom the poster disagrees.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern your accusations are ridiculous. I am prolife and I am raising my daughter to be prolife. I have stood on “Life Chains” on several occasions none of which needed graphic depictions to get the point across.

Abortion was never even discussed in my home growing up, nor had I ever seen graphic abortion pictures (probably until I was about 25 or so) and I have been prolife since I was 14. Why is showing a butchered child better than showing a 4D image of a child in uetero?
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/4D-Ultrasound-pictures/images/photo1.jpg

This is an 8 week gestation baby.

In your face, gruesome dipictions hurt the prolife movement because it turns people off. Who is going to be angry about seeing the above picture? Who can deny that is a child?

I am not wrong. You can insist on your position until you are blue in the face.

Showing the beauty of life is a better evangelization tool that showing the horror of death. Why? Because it’s positive. Positive attracts people. Negative repels people.

If simple persuasion worked, how do you explain the 48 millioon abortions to date since Roe v Wade?

Remember, no one is attacking your tactics. No one is trying to censor you. All we are saying is there are several different approaches – as one would expect in any complex issue – and others have the same freedom to pursue their methods as you have.

 

[Bennie_P]

As was repeatedly pointed out in the 45+ pages of this discussion we had a few weeks ago, no one’s right to anything exists in total isolation nor can such rights be exercised without consideration of societal norms. American society has a norm that sheltering young children from graphic scenes of violence and sex are not appropriate and that parents should be warned in advance of such content.

The use and sale of marital aids such as sex toys, fetish gear, etc to adults is perfectly legal. The right of a store that sells such marital aids to advertise does not extend to the unfettered right to post graphic pictures of their use on every street corner, in front of a church building on a Sunday morning without permission or in front of children’s toy stores. This does not mean that such activities are illegal or do not exist or that they are universally approved as moral.

There is no legal barrier to making very graphically violent movies (fiction or documentaries) and video games, but the right to make or to advertise them to the public does not extend to putting the most bloody graphic scene possible on billboards or putting them on the side of tractor trailers and parking them outside of people’s houses without permission in an effort to “inform.” The makers of such are expected to show common restraint and discretion in the images that are on the cover of the movie, in the print and tv ads, to give such media a rating that indicates their content in advance so that individuals can make an informed decision as to whether they want their children seeing or buying these.

You know Karen in many ways I agree with your post, except if the intent to do what is right for our children is to have any meaning then we must start protecting them in the womb first. Personally I have mixed feelings about such images being used, but my feelings on abortion are not mixed. It was the use the graphic images of what the NAZIs did in the concentration camps before the world understood the horror of such policies of genocide and racism. Though pro-abortion citizens see abortion as right, it is a horror that needs to be stopped. It is a policy of genocide aimed at minorities and the poor. WWII taught us how to white wash the horror, but not stop it. In many ways the ideas and policies of the NAZIs live on.

 

[KarenNC]

I thought this post was worthy of revisiting. Again and again, opposition to the use of graphic images has been presented as “protecting the children.” But in this post (note the bolded section" we see the real reason, en clair. It is about censorship. It is about censoring people with whom the poster disagrees.

What you are calling censorship most people in our society call exercising reasonable judgement. Is it censorship when someone suggests that a preschool library does not need a copy of the Kama Sutra or that the preschool might not want to show “Natural Born Killers” or a documentary on Charles Manson or even Mel Gibson’s “The Passion”?

Certainly my opposition to these photos is to the use of these images in settings where it can be reasonably assumed that young children–under the age of 7–will see them without their parents’ permission. To the extent that you choose to deliberately use these images in this precise manner, I certainly disagree with your choice of tactics.

Does this mean that I disagree with your overall goal of reducing abortions? No, it doesn’t. Abortions are terrible and tragic and have long lasting repercussions for all involved. The ending of a human life should never be done cavalierly or for the sake of convenience.

You continue to frame this argument as “opposition to the use of graphic images” with the very strong implication that it is opposition to any and all uses of them when what we are saying is that there appropriate and inappropriate venues in which to use these photos. They can be very effective in the proper venue and for the proper audience. It is not censorship to say that there is a time and place for everything rather than everything in all times and in all places.

 

[KarenNC]

You know Karen in many ways I agree with your post, except if the intent to do what is right for our children is to have any meaning then we must start protecting them in the womb first. Personally I have mixed feelings about such images being used, but my feelings on abortion are not mixed. It was the use the graphic images of what the NAZIs did in the concentration camps before the world understood the horror of such policies of genocide and racism. Though pro-abortion citizens see abortion as right, it is a horror that needs to be stopped. It is a policy of genocide aimed at minorities and the poor. WWII taught us how to white wash the horror, but not stop it. In many ways the ideas and policies of the NAZIs live on.

The concentration camps and Nazis were not stopped by showing photographs of their horrors to 4 and 5 year olds. They were stopped by showing them to adults, to people who were actually involved in choices that affected these atrocities. In everything I have read, they managed to reach those adults and to stop the atrocities without the indiscriminate plastering of those photos on the sides of trucks and on street corners.

I will reiterate what I have said in other threads. If you or anyone feels that your 4, 5 or 6 year old will benefit from seeing huge bloody graphic photographs of dismembered babies or that they require such to understand that hurting others is wrong, by all means show them to those children. It is your choice. Let others, however, also exercise their best judgement and choice in what and when they choose to show such things to their children.

This argument is in no way pro-abortion vs. pro-life. I have yet to see a single poster say “you shouldn’t show these photos to anyone because abortion is a great and wonderful thing and should not be hindered”. Everyone who is objecting to them that I have seen is saying “use them, but do so with discretion and reasonable judgement”.

If four and five year olds were out seeking abortions, then I would say, by all means, require them to look at the pictures so that they understand what they are planning to do and understand the actual consequences. However, they are not. There are a million other ways to teach someone of that age to value life and not to hurt others.

If the only ages at which such photos made an impression were 4, 5 or 6 years old and had no effect if shown at 9, 10 or 11 or later, I would say there may be some justification for using them with 4, 5 and 6 year olds, but they are not.

Use the images, but use them in ways that can reasonably be expected to reach the intended audience rather than preschoolers and spare the born children just as you would the unborn.

 

[KarenNC]

Remember, no one is attacking your tactics. No one is trying to censor you. All we are saying is there are several different approaches – as one would expect in any complex issue – and others have the same freedom to pursue their methods as you have.

Vern, the fact that people disagree with you doesn’t automatically make you right. The argument that everyone should have the complete and total freedom to do any and everything they can possbily think up in pursuit of a goal is nothing more than saying that the end justifies the means. There are plenty of means that could possibly be used to stop a particular abortion (and that have been used in the past) that cannot be justified and I will agree that in comparison to some of those, this one is not the worst possible. That still doesn’t make it appropriate.

 

[gam197]

originally posted by** hasilee**
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?

This is something I have struggled with. The clinic that I use to go to had a major childrens’ museum right near it but I never once heard anyone complain that a children’s museum should not have been built near an abortion clinic when it was being put in. When the question was raised, no one wanted to discuss it.The attack was always against the holder of the pictures even though the clinic protestors were there for many years prior to the childrens’ museum.

originally posted by** vern humphrey**
If simple persuasion worked, how do you explain the 48 million abortions to date since Roe v Wade?

**34 years **of legal abortion plus the early years when it was legal in a number of states like NY, Calif, etc.

34 times 1-1/2 million abortions a year equally around** 51 million plus legal abortions**

**51 million plus dead children **and we are still arguing whether it is OK to hold a sign showing what is going on inside the clinic.

 

[Bennie_P]

The concentration camps and Nazis were not stopped by showing photographs of their horrors to 4 and 5 year olds. They were stopped by showing them to adults, to people who were actually involved in choices that affected these atrocities. In everything I have read, they managed to reach those adults and to stop the atrocities without the indiscriminate plastering of those photos on the sides of trucks and on street corners.

I will reiterate what I have said in other threads. If you or anyone feels that your 4, 5 or 6 year old will benefit from seeing huge bloody graphic photographs of dismembered babies or that they require such to understand that hurting others is wrong, by all means show them to those children. It is your choice. Let others, however, also exercise their best judgement and choice in what and when they choose to show such things to their children.

This argument is in no way pro-abortion vs. pro-life. I have yet to see a single poster say “you shouldn’t show these photos to anyone because abortion is a great and wonderful thing and should not be hindered”. Everyone who is objecting to them that I have seen is saying “use them, but do so with discretion and reasonable judgement”.

If four and five year olds were out seeking abortions, then I would say, by all means, require them to look at the pictures so that they understand what they are planning to do and understand the actual consequences. However, they are not. There are a million other ways to teach someone of that age to value life and not to hurt others.

If the only ages at which such photos made an impression were 4, 5 or 6 years old and had no effect if shown at 9, 10 or 11 or later, I would say there may be some justification for using them with 4, 5 and 6 year olds, but they are not.

Use the images, but use them in ways that can reasonably be expected to reach the intended audience rather than preschoolers and spare the born children just as you would the unborn.

No, they were not stopped with the use of photos, but with arm conflict. Is that how you propose the issue should be settled? I hope not. But the scenes of the conncentration were used to warn us of the horror of genecide following the war. I do remember seeing those concentration camp photos over and over and over since early childhood. Didn’t we learn the lesson being presented? Personally I have mixed feelings about the use of the graphic images of aborted babies and you will not see me on the streets holding one of the signs as a form of protest, but the issue is free speech and opposition to the use of the photos is aimed to silence the message of what abortion is, cold blooded murder. Where is the outrage for the killing of innocent life?

 

[gam197]

originally posted by Bennie P
No, they were not stopped with the use of photos, but with arm conflict.

My brother said to me in the beginning “We should have a Civil War.” I thought that that was not a good idea. But when I compare maybe 600,000 deaths in a Civil War to the deaths of over 50 million, I think I was very wrong. It would have ended it very quickly unlike what has happened with abortion.

 

[Elric]

Quite the contrary, I anwered it fully. Let me recapitulate: The right to freedom of speech is an enumerated right. Those who use such images have a Constitutional right to do so.

Wow you are quite evasive arnt you?

I really didnt think that it was such a hard question to answer.

Those, who for whatever pretext want to censor them are wrong.

Of course they are, how dare they want to protect their children from graphic images. How dare they decide that their children are not ready to understand the implications of abortions.

The decisions of those who work to end the grisly crime of abortion are theirs to make.

Good answer, its just a pity its not relevent to what you replied to.

I love how you use these loaded words. Who is “being forced into a position where their child is exposed to graphic images against their wishes?”

So the images are not graphic?

Parading the images in public gives parents the choice of not exposing their children to them?

How exactly are the words loaded?

Is someone holding a gun to their heads? And are they also being “forced” not to prepare their children for dealing with the horrors of this world?

Yes of course, no gun must mean free choice.

Wow you will try any sort of argument, even if it doesnt make a lot of sense. Yet you seem to evade the part about it being a parents decision for when their child is ready, since they know the child best.

Whats with these judgment calls about parents not preparing their children for the world?

And you are using a handfull of people who seem to confuse their child’s welfare with their own desires (note the persistant use of the word “my right”) to attack others who are working to end a grisly crime.

LoL, no Im not.

Where did I say that you couldnt protest?

Where exactly have I attacked you or anyone else for opposing abortions?

The answer of course is that I havent.

 

[hasikelee]

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.

See, that would make me scratch my head. I guess maybe the organizers chose the location based on traffic numbers?