Avoid Raising a Serial Killer

[gam197]

Vern,

Many people on these forums have never protested an abortion. They don’t understand or don’t care. They talk the talk but don’t walk the walk when it comes to abortion. I’ve decided that to look for agreement in what prolifers have done to even raise the issue of what an abortion is probably useless. Prolifers have to continue to do what they feel is effective-sometimes it is the use of aborted pictures and other times it is the use of regular pictures. Often others will adamently disagree with their tactics and even get angry at them. That’s OK.

Many somehow don’t relate that the death of the pre-born baby is the same as the death of a two year old or a ten year old. Somehow it is diminished in their mind.

I can understand how a women gets an abortion because she is often young and in this culture the life of the pre-born is devalued.

 

[RenaissanceMare]

I am 100% against abortion, but I am still working out just what that means in terms of my social and political actions. I am conflicted at being a single issue voter when it comes to abortion, mostly because of the terrorist threat we are currently facing. But I think this is one area that the view that other people may call “extreme” causes no conflict within me.

Let me explain why I don’t have a problem with children seeing images of abortion with a little story from my own past:

I was about three or four years old when the anti-fur movement started coming full swing, which would be like 1985ish. There was a commerical on TV of these women walking the catwalk at a fashion store in these glorious fur coats. Then suddenly the coats start to bleed. Not a little bit, but gushing blood and when the women took the coats off they left huge trails of blood behind them on the white floor.

To this day, at the age of 25, I am still very aganist anyone wearing fur unless they are from an indigenious culture that needs to wear fur as means of survival. I’ve had this argument many times, but I just can’t seem to reconcile the practice in my head. And I honestly believe it stems back to seeing that commerical when I was so little.

So if that could make me anti-fur, even after I’m an adult and rational, who’s to say that it wouldn’t have the same effect on instilling a firm pro-life belief in a child?

It’s horrible and I understand why parents don’t want their kids to see those things. My parents definetly would never have showed me that commerical. But sometimes you have to see a horrible thing to really realise the evil behind an action.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Despite your claim ot be above criticism:

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

Vern, I make no claim of being “above criticism”, and certainly not of being “holier than anyone else”.

I do, however, have every right – in fact, one might say an obligation – to rebuke someone who is being uncharitable in a forum that demands charitability among its participants. So, I called you out – as charitably as I can, I might add – for using a scornful tone in your answers. I am not pretending to be better than you; I am merely indicating that your tone is disrespectful and, given the rules of this forum, not acceptable.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Bennie_P]

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.

Well, I oppose the idea of a civil war or the use of violence.Once I was one of those people that was against abortion, yet felt that I had to leave the choice to the people involved. But now I see that was wrong and I’m against abortion and I am pro-life 100%. Right now I can only decide for my family and myself and work toward a political solution. It will be God that judges our nation for this travesty and ultamitly we as a nation may have to pay like all the good “Germans”. Pray, speak out and envangelize. Pray for the conversion of the nation.

 

[KarenNC]

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.

No, that would be one of the other means that I mentioned that has also been tried and was even worse than this.

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?

I am perfectly capable of being outraged about more than one thing at a time. I can be outraged at the fact of abortion, fully state that abortion is the ending of a human life (I don’t think you will be able to find any post I have ever made that does not acknowledge that it is such), and object to showing graphic bloody pictures of dismembered babies in front of young children without their parents’ permission, all at the same time.

No one is trying to “silence the message of what abortion is”. We are simply saying use some reasonable judgement in the way in which one does so.

 

[rayne89]

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

Umm…what does that prove? Graphic images of abortion have been around for decades. 4D science is fairly new and if we could afford to get these machines into crisis pregnancy centers (even regular ultrasound works wonders) I think we could make a much greater impact. In a setting where their are counselors offering help to young mothers. Even on signs 4D images illustrating this is an 8 week gestation preborn child would not make make turn their heads in horror but look with wonder.

There are those that know it’s a child and don’t care or their fear is stronger than the conscience. Teenagers are killing newborns in plastic garbage bags after giving birth on their bathroom floor. Death has becomed desensitized and and life has lost it value. Parents of young children who don’t protect them see far more violent images in their living rooms. Chopped up babies just add to the desensitation.

Showing a living 8 week baby alive in the womb -**alive **is prolife. It shows a precious life. Those dead babies are someones’ children. Where is their dignity? Where is the respect for their precious bodies? We use them for our cause, we parade them around. “Look at all the dead children.”

A 4D image shows beauty, it shows God’s creation, it shows LIFE. Don’t we want people to see preborn babies as human life? Alive, in the womb, growing under their mother’s heart.

I rented “In The Womb” for my daughter to watch. It uses stunning images real and computer generated to show life from conception and it is amazing to watch. This to me is teaching my daughter the prolife message. channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/inthewomb/preview.html

My husband and I met on January 22 back in highschool. January 22 is the anniversary of Roe v Wade. My husband and I are both unplanned children born to young mothers in the early 70’s. If you think I don’t care about all those children who never got the chance that my husband and I did you are very mistaken.

A message of love, compassion and assistance draws people in. It draws people away from Planned Parenthood. Those who choose abortion almost always feel they have no choice. If their fear condemnation for prolifers how will we reach them? We need to love the mother and the child.

 

[mapleoak]

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.

Ahh, but see, so you do agree that is how YOU react to your child’s drawings? Surely if you panicked and became distraught at the “dragon biting a knight”, your child would pick up entirely different messages. No, rather you would probably be calm and take the time to instruct your child properly. The ‘criteria’ I was referring to, is that which causes you to react in an inappropriate manner before your child depending on whether it is make believe or real. It is this which would be the direct cause of trauma, not the aborted child in the photo, of which a four year does not fully comprehend.

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.”

So, you are saying that you either react inappropriately at all images, or selectively choose which ones to overreact in front of your children at.

 

[mapleoak]

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.

This right to freely excercise and direct ones efforts to end the slaughter of the human population is well within the limits of consideration of so-called societal norms. Societal norms happen to be perverse and Godless. Societal norms would not have any mention at all about the tragedy of abortion. No matter what is done in working towards ending this grisly crime is an affront to societal norms. Society’s desire to be undisturbed and not bothered with that which is discomforting and hidden no less, is a norm which is fully trumped by the right of the unborn. It is those who do not ever even get to experience such norms before they are mercilessly killed.

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.

Parents should be warned and made fully aware in advance of what is going to happen to their baby when it is brought under the doctor’s blade.

 

[mapleoak]

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.

Not only that, but over and over it is mentioned that the presentation of such graphic images are something that children should be shielded from out of consideration for societal norms. Alas, no evidence has ever been satisfactorily presented that children are in any way, shape, or form, harmed by viewing them. Quite the contrary, with proper parenting, these images may well be of great benefit to these children during their formative years.

 

[mapleoak]

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.

Well, praise be to God for all of this pro-life activity going on in your area all the time. I only wish we had such exuberance and dedication in my area.

 

[Elric]

Ahh, but see, so you do agree that is how YOU react to your child’s drawings? Surely if you panicked and became distraught at the “dragon biting a knight”, your child would pick up entirely different messages. No, rather you would probably be calm and take the time to instruct your child properly. The ‘criteria’ I was referring to, is that which causes you to react in an inappropriate manner before your child depending on whether it is make believe or real. It is this which would be the direct cause of trauma, not the aborted child in the photo, of which a four year does not fully comprehend.

Mate there is no getting around it, it is up to the childs parents to decide when they are ready to be exposed to such things. Not you or other complete strangers waving around graphic images.

Children do understand the difference between “cartoonish” violence and real life. Its easy to explain to them about the “dragon biting the knight” calmly without distressing them, its a lot harder to do the same about a real life bloodied corpse of an infant.

So, you are saying that you either react inappropriately at all images, or selectively choose which ones to overreact in front of your children at.

I dont think that raising your voice to people who are waving graphic images around and saying “Do you mind? there are children here. Could you show some respect please?” would be over reacting, how about you?

 

[Elric]

This right to freely excercise and direct ones efforts to end the slaughter of the human population is well within the limits of consideration of so-called societal norms. Societal norms happen to be perverse and Godless. Societal norms would not have any mention at all about the tragedy of abortion. No matter what is done in working towards ending this grisly crime is an affront to societal norms. Society’s desire to be undisturbed and not bothered with that which is discomforting and hidden no less, is a norm which is fully trumped by the right of the unborn. It is those who do not ever even get to experience such norms before they are mercilessly killed.

How about we keep this on topic?

This wasnt about trying to end abortions or justifying the pro-life stance. Nobody has even suggested that you shouldnt be able to protest against abortions.

This topic is about exposing graphic images to children and if its ok to do without the parents conscent.

Parents should be warned and made fully aware in advance of what is going to happen to their baby when it is brought under the doctor’s blade.

Are you still talking about abortion?

If you are, then that comment doesnt make any sense.

It seems pretty obvious that the parents didnt abort their children if they are sheltering them from graphic images.

 

[mapleoak]

Mate there is no getting around it, it is up to the childs parents to decide when they are ready to be exposed to such things. Not you or other complete strangers waving around graphic images.

Who are you to tell us we can’t work towards ending the grisly crime of legalized murder and in what manner we choose to do so.

Children do understand the difference between “cartoonish” violence and real life.

And are traumatized by neither, except when the parents overreact or don’t properly instruct them.

Its easy to explain to them about the “dragon biting the knight” calmly without distressing them, its a lot harder to do the same about a real life bloodied corpse of an infant.

Neither one is harder than the other. It would be well to explain to a pre-schooler in terms they understand and properly work to form their conciences properly.

 

[mapleoak]

How about we keep this on topic?

This wasnt about trying to end abortions or justifying the pro-life stance. Nobody has even suggested that you shouldnt be able to protest against abortions.

Sure it was mentioned that we have no right to fight against abortion in the manner of our choosing.

This topic is about exposing graphic images to children and if its ok to do without the parents conscent.

No, it was pointing out that parents reactions to images strongly affect the effect it will have on their children.

Are you still talking about abortion?

What else?

If you are, then that comment doesnt make any sense.

How so?

 

[Elric]

Who are you to tell us we can’t work towards ending the grisly crime of legalized murder and in what manner we choose to do so.

Well thats one way to respond I guess, defensivly.

Now I never stated that you cant “work towards ending the grisly crime of legalized murder”, so lets be very clear on that. The second part of “in what manner we choose to do so” concerns me.

Not long ago a pro-choice person shot and killed a security guard out the front of an abortion clinic near where I live. Obviously that was the manner the person chose to work towards ending the grisly crime of legalized murder. Now I have to say that I do in fact object to that.

As far as exposing graphic images to people goes, I dont really have a problem. But exposing graphic images to children, particulary without their parents conscent, is not the right thing to do.

So who am I?

Apparently someone who is reminding you of your sense of decency and sence of respect for other people.

You expect people to respect your opinion, it really works better when you do the same thing.

And are traumatized by neither, except when the parents overreact or don’t properly instruct them.

I dont know where exactly you got that idea from, but it is wrong.

Neither one is harder than the other. It would be well to explain to a pre-schooler in terms they understand and properly work to form their conciences properly.

Again, thats not correct.

Would you mind answering this question:

I dont think that raising your voice to people who are waving graphic images around and saying “Do you mind? there are children here. Could you show some respect please?” would be over reacting, how about you?

 

[Elric]

Sure it was mentioned that we have no right to fight against abortion in the manner of our choosing.

Dont try and confuse the issue.

No, it was pointing out that parents reactions to images strongly affect the effect it will have on their children.

Oh yeah, fictional images. An effort to justify exposing children to graphic images, you still need the parents conscent.

If you really want to go with that argument, it does open up a whole can of worms.

What else?

Who knows.

How so?

Well you seemed to ignore that last bit, about the parents children NOT being aborted.

Parents should be warned and made fully aware in advance of what is going to happen to their baby when it is brought under the doctor’s blade, when they have already given birth to the child?

It doesnt make sense.

 

[Ferdinand_Mary]

**PREEMPTIVE NOTICE: **Please ensure that the charity level of this thread does not deteriorate. All members are reminded to self-edit for tone/content prior to hitting the submit button.

Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary

 

[mapleoak]

Well thats one way to respond I guess, defensivly.

No, it the only appropriate response to “you have no right”.

Now I never stated that you cant “work towards ending the grisly crime of legalized murder”, so lets be very clear on that.

Good. Then what’s the hubbub about?.

The second part of “in what manner we choose to do so” concerns me.

Well within my constitutional discretion.

Not long ago a pro-choice person shot and killed a security guard out the front of an abortion clinic near where I live.

Murder.

Obviously that was the manner the person chose to work towards ending the grisly crime of legalized murder. Now I have to say that I do in fact object to that.

Good.

As far as exposing graphic images to people goes, I dont really have a problem. But exposing graphic images to children, particulary without their parents conscent, is not the right thing to do.

Children seeing them is a foreseeable consequence of presenting to an intended audience (children seeing them, though is not a harmful consequence btw), and has been proven to be effective in saving babies from murder. It most certainly is the right thing to do, though agreed not the only thing.

So who am I?

Apparently someone who is reminding you of your sense of decency and sence of respect for other people.

Thank you for being so considerate. I have a high sense of decency and highly respect the unborn and their plight.

You expect people to respect your opinion, it really works better when you do the same thing.

Nope, I don’t expect you to do anything. I don’t base my decisions on whether you will respect them or not.

I dont know where exactly you got that idea from, but it is wrong.

No, it is correct.

Again, thats not correct.

Yes it is.

Would you mind answering this question:

I dont think that raising your voice to people who are waving graphic images around and saying “Do you mind? there are children here. Could you show some respect please?” would be over reacting, how about you?

Yes I can answer that. To go shouting and yelling at someone because of an innocent display of photos is overreacting, sadly to the detriment of ones children.

 

[KarenNC]

med.umich.edu/1libr/pa/pa_rrmov_hhg.htm
How do children respond to violent movies?

comm.tamu.edu/research/commmatters/p7.html
Understanding the roots of violence and fear

capalert.com/violenceinentertainment.htm
Joint Statement on the Impact of Entertainment Violence on Children Congressional Public Health Summit

webmd.com/parenting/guide/violent-images-impact-kids-differently
Violent Images Impact Kids Differently

nctsnet.org/nctsn_assets/pdfs/edu_materials/talk_children_about_war.pdf
Talking to children about war and terrorism

mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/cmhs/TraumaticEvents/children.asp
Parent Guidelines for Talking with Young Children about War and Terrorism

naccp.org/associations/460/files/Little%20Listeners%20-%20handout.pdf
Little listeners in an uncertain world

All of these do discuss the need for calm reactions and talking about unintentional exposure to graphic images of death with young children ----as damage control not as a desirable educational strategy. They all also acknowledge that the original exposure is not a good or desirable or neutral thing for very young children (depending on the article that is defined as under 6 or under 8).

I pointed out on other threads that the Catholic schools and Catholic prolife groups sex ed curricula do not even mention the word abortion until around the 5th grade. They are not advocating showing these pictures in Sunday School to preschoolers.

Over and over it seems to me the justification for using these images indiscriminately is “we must show these images in every possible venue because we want to and what we want to do matters more than anything else”. Nowhere have any of the supporters of using this particular tactic in this particular way been able to provide any concrete evidence that this tactic used indiscriminately is more effective in reaching their goals than using the same tactic while showing a reasonable level of respect for young children.

I do not generally consider it the most morally desirable choice to intentionally expose young children to situations to which the best possible response is damage control as a means to achieve a goal, especially when other methods exist to reach the same goal.

As in the example I pointed out, it isn’t the occasional inadvertent exposure to a child that could not be predicted despite one’s best efforts that is the issue. It isn’t the showing of these images to children by their parents or with their parents’ support. It isn’t the showing of these images to teens and adults. It is the deliberate choice of venue and method that guarantees that large numbers of young children can reasonably be expected to be exposed to these images without their parents’ consent that is the problem.

 

[Bennie_P]

Not long ago a pro-choice person shot and killed a security guard out the front of an abortion clinic near where I live. Obviously that was the manner the person chose to work towards ending the grisly crime of legalized murder. Now I have to say that I do in fact object to that.

Wow!!! a “pro-choice”(1) person shot a security Guard? Do you have the news story link? I didn’t know “pro-choice” people were so violent and desperate, that they have to shoot thier way in to the abortion mills? must been going into labor and had to take of “it” before it became a person?

(1) Pro-choice (adj) origin - pagan-americana c1970s - American newspeak for pro-abortion.