Avoid Raising a Serial Killer

[Bennie_P]

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.

Are not these protest with the use of images usually done as organized campaigns that are accompanied with press releases to the news media prior to the actual protest? Thus the protestors are giving prior warning to the public, even though the news media may ignore those prior warnings? In order “not” to promote the pro-life movement?

 

[rayne89]

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.

You are not the parent of my child. You don’t get to decide what is harmful and what is not to my child.

Blowing up abortion clinics saves babies from murder and has drove some abortionists out of the business out of fear but it is still wrong.

Just because it’s effective doesn’t make it right. The media already does a good job painting prolifers as irrational, offensive extremists. Extremists are easily dismissed, not taken seriously. Why should they be? Can you reason with an extremists?

A 4D image of a whole living baby at the age of gestation when abortion is usually done isn’t extreme. It isn’t offensive and doesn’t make people turn away. But it is reality, it shows there is LIFE, that is not a blob of tissue. Can someone be called irrational or extreme by showing an ultrasound picture? Does it offend anyone? Is it violent?

We need dialogue, we need to reach these people, we need to change hearts. We need to love these people, be Christ to them.

You don’t think it makes me sick what they’ve done to these poor innocent children? Ofcourse it does.

There are two issues here 1) how effective the graphic, violent images are in helping the abortion movement at a sidewalk protest compared to 4D ultrasound images of babies in uetero at the age where most abortion takes place
and 2) do parents have the right to sheild their children gory images of chopped up, aborted babies?

 

[KarenNC]

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.

Proven how? Proven more effective than any of the other methods that do not “unintentionally” expose children to these consequences?

In what way are young children not part of the “intended audience” when these pictures are run up and down city streets and by the entrances to toy stores on a Saturday afternoon??? One makes one’s choice of “intended audience” when one chooses the venue and method of communication.

Unintentional exposure: handing an adult a flyer, it falls and the young child picks it up

Intentional exposure: standing with huge posters outside the main access point to a toy store miles from the nearest possible abortion provider on a very busy road on a Saturday afternoon

No, it is correct.

Evidence supporting this assertion?

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.

Just so that we all understand what we are discussing, here are examples of the “innocent display of photos” that are not deemed harmful or inappropriate for children under age 6 (warning: they are very graphic, so be aware of whether your children are in the room when you view them)

abortionno.org/RCC/truck_signs.html
abortionno.org/RCC/trucks_highway.html
flickr.com/photos/operationsaveamerica/1278165002/
flickr.com/photos/operationsaveamerica/1277784226/
flickr.com/photos/operationsaveamerica/1276905161/http://www.flickr.com/photos/operationsaveamerica/1277764150/
flickr.com/photos/operationsaveamerica/1207142206/

There are plenty more, but this should give you an idea. The last 5 are examples of the pictures that are used by the group that was outside the driveway to the toy store along the stretch of road with very slow traffic on a Saturday afternoon in our area.

The question is “whose example of behavior are you following”? Are these really the sorts of thing that Jesus would have considered appropriate visual aids for children to get His point across to their parents?

 

[estesbob]

I bleive many want to raise their children like this:

http://incontext.blogmosis.com/see no evil.jpg

 

[Elric]

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.

Looks like I made a typo, I did mean “pro-life”.

Thanks for politly pointing that out.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, the fact that people disagree with you doesn’t automatically make you right.

Karen, 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.

The argument that everyone should have to give up their rights because you disapprove 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.

Then go out and use those means and stop attacking people whoi use other means.

 

[Elric]

I bleive many want to raise their children like this:

http://incontext.blogmosis.com/see no evil.jpg

Things like that dont really help your argument.

It just shows that you are not prepared to listen, which has the effect of people not wanting to listen to you.

 

[vern_humphrey]

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.

One of the reasopns so many “talk the talk but don’t walk the walk” is because they have concealed from themselves what a horrible crime abortion really is.

That’s why they get so upset about the images – seeing them breaches their comfortable little cocoon.

 

[Bennie_P]

Looks like I made a typo, I did mean “pro-life”.

Thanks for politly pointing that out.

I thought you did, I appoligize taking the liberty to being ‘smart’ about it.
Do you have a news link for this “recent” shooting?

 

[KarenNC]

Karen, the fact that people disagree with you doesn’t automatically make you right.

Well aware of that. That would be why I prefer to use concrete evidence and cited sources to support my arguments.

The argument that everyone should have to give up their rights because you disapprove is nothing more than saying that the end justifies the means.

Vern, if everyone had to stop doing something only because I alone disagreed with it, the world would be a very different place This is not just about a single person or a couple of people disagreeing. This is flying in the face of well established and long held societal norms of appropriate behavior towards young children.

Care to explain exactly how saying that it is inappropriate to show graphic pictures of dismembered babies to preschoolers and that those same graphic pictures should be used only with teens or adults is the same as “everyone should have to give up their rights”?

Rights don’t exist in isolation. They come along with responsibilities in exercising them, including responsibilities to all the other members of the society in which you live (not just your “intended audience”) and the responsibility to exercise them with reasonable judgement. No one has entirely free reign in their behavior.

Freedom of speech no more entitles you to do anything and everything in any way you want without criticism or being held accountable for the results of that speech than the right of freedom of the press entitles the press to print any and everything they make be able to think of without anyone else being able to object to it.

Then go out and use those means and stop attacking people who use other means.

I find it interesting that you are the one who has chosen to bring the topic back up and start this thread, not anyone who considers this particular application of this method wrong. After a total of well over 60+ pages of this very discussion in the last few weeks, it is a bit disingenuous to start a thread on this particular topic then cry “Stop attacking me!” when people post who disagree with you.

 

[estesbob]

Things like that dont really help your argument.

It just shows that you are not prepared to listen, which has the effect of people not wanting to listen to you.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well aware of that. That would be why I prefer to use concrete evidence and cited sources to support my arguments.

Nothing you cite gives you the power to censor the pro-life movement.

 

[mapleoak]

You are not the parent of my child. You don’t get to decide what is harmful and what is not to my child.

Nobody can decide what is harmful to your child. It either is or it isn’t. If it is a matter of whether or not your child will BE harmed by something harmful, that is entirely a matter of proper parenting.

Blowing up abortion clinics saves babies from murder and has drove some abortionists out of the business out of fear but it is still wrong.

That is 100% correct.

Just because it’s effective doesn’t make it right.

It doesn’t make it wrong either. In fact if it is effective and without undesirable consequence, why shouldn’t it be used.

The media already does a good job painting prolifers as irrational, offensive extremists. Extremists are easily dismissed, not taken seriously. Why should they be? Can you reason with an extremists?

Extremist itself is a media term. The media cares about making money, period. Not sure that the media would call someone carrying a sign with nothing but words on it anything other than an extremist.

A 4D image of a whole living baby at the age of gestation when abortion is usually done isn’t extreme.

Neither is a photo of the reality of abortion extreme. You are welcome to your opinion of what is extreme and what isn’t. Others likewise.

 

[Elric]

I thought you did, I appoligize taking the liberty to being ‘smart’ about it.
Do you have a news link for this “recent” shooting?

Unfortunatly no. It happened in East Melbourne though.

 

[Elric]

One of the reasopns so many “talk the talk but don’t walk the walk” is because they have concealed from themselves what a horrible crime abortion really is.

That’s why they get so upset about the images – seeing them breaches their comfortable little cocoon.

Its comments like this that make me wonder if you are actually reading what people post in this thread, or if this is some sort of joke to you.

We are talking about children, not ourselves. Not once has anyone stated that they object to the images in question because of themselves, they are saying that they object exposing children to these images especally without the parents conscent.

Making these kind of baseless accusations doesnt help your argument in the slightest. Why on earth should I or anyone else listen to your opinion when you throw these kinds of things at people?

 

[mapleoak]

Proven how?

Proven by actual testimony from women who decided not to abort after seeing these photos.

Proven more effective than any of the other methods that do not “unintentionally” expose children to these consequences?

It was not stated that it is “more effective” than anything, only that it IS effective. It saves lives.

In what way are young children not part of the “intended audience” when these pictures are run up and down city streets and by the entrances to toy stores on a Saturday afternoon???

I can wash my car and the drive will get wet. The ‘intention’ is to clean the car, not to get the drive wet. Getting the drive wet is an ‘unintended’ side effect, though foreseeable and tolerable.

One makes one’s choice of “intended audience” when one chooses the venue and method of communication.

Yes, and within an “intended” audience, there will likely also be members that are “unintended” though foreseen and tolerated.

Unintentional exposure: handing an adult a flyer, it falls and the young child picks it up

No, rather carelessness. If the intention is purposely to avoid having a child see something, this is carelessness.

Intentional exposure: standing with huge posters outside the main access point to a toy store miles from the nearest possible abortion provider on a very busy road on a Saturday afternoon

There are both intended members and unintended members.

Evidence supporting this assertion?

It is an opinion that children are harmed by these images. You are saying they shoudn’t be displayed reasoning that children are harmed by them. That is nothing but an opinion not supported by study or survey, etc.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Its comments like this that make me wonder if you are actually reading what people post in this thread, or if this is some sort of joke to you.

I wonder the same about you.

We are talking about children, not ourselves.

If you read the posts, you see that is not true. Those who object to using the images are talking about themselves, their own feelings, their “rights” and using the children as a subterfuge.

Not once has anyone stated that they object to the images in question because of themselves, they are saying that they object exposing children to these images especally without the parents conscent.

Because it upsets the adults – who in turn upset the children.

Making these kind of baseless accusations doesnt help your argument in the slightest. Why on earth should I or anyone else listen to your opinion when you throw these kinds of things at people?

Making these kinds of baseless accusations and taking a holier-than-thou position doesn’t help your argument in the slightest. Why on earth should I or anyone else listen to your opinion when you throw these kinds of things at people?

 

[gam197]

o

riginally posted by rayne89
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.

First of all you have to follow the pro-life movement from early on. People protested at the clinics and what did they get but jail time for trying to block access.

Next they held the pictures from Life magazine(Lennart Nilsson’s photographs-posted one below but there were many others) and the Anne Geddes pictures and were told by the police that they couldn’t even have pictures outside the clinics. It took going to the state law agencies to confirm it was OK to even hold a healthy baby picture.

Then they decided that since the mind-set seem to be that abortion was gaining acceptance and normalization, they went to the abortion pictures to try to persuade teens and adults not children that abortion was not a good thing. Most of these pictures originally were held near clinics where teens and college kids were coming in for family planning service, abortions etc.

Yet this country today still is in favor of abortion and still does 4000 abortions a day. When they tried to get a vote in South Dakota, the most likely state to bring a case forth to the Supreme court, the people of the state voted to keep abortion legal by a small margin.

Here is an interesting article mentioning John Rock (one of the men who pioneered the birth control pill.)

Rock, a gynecologist and a devout Catholic, together with Arthur Hertig, a medical pathologist, working at what was to become part of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, recruited women who were to undergo elective hysterectomies. They asked them to chart their unprotected sexual activity in the weeks and days leading up to the operation. Afterward, Hertig searched the uterus for a fertilized egg. When he found one he delivered it to the Carnegie collection in Baltimore. Between 1938 and 1952, the team reaped 34 embryos from the uteri of 211 women. The youngest embryo was 36 hours old.

eric-goldscheider.com.hosting.domaindirect.com/id21.html

 

[KarenNC]

Nothing you cite gives you the power to censor the pro-life movement.

Vern, the only “right” that you and others are arguing for here is the “right” to show inappropriate photographs to preschool children without their parents’ consent at any place and in any manner you so choose without being criticized for doing so simply based on the fact that you want to do so.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, the only “right” that you and others are arguing for here is the “right” to show inappropriate photographs to preschool children without their parents’ consent at any place and in any manner you so choose without being criticized for doing so simply based on the fact that you want to do so.

Karen, the only “right” that you and others are arguing for here is the “right” to censor those who disagree with you.