Avoid Raising a Serial Killer

[rayne89]

I wonder the same about you.

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.

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

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?

So now you are the mind reader. I am not using my child as an excuse. I have a sensitive child and no I did not make her this way.

When my daughter was younger and getting ready to make her first confession I had to teach her the form of the Act of Contrition that does not say “the pains of hell” because her just speaking the word hell would put her into a panic. As she has grown older she has over come that but it took time and I saw no reason to force her. Things frighten her easily and I’m sure she’s not the only child like that out there. God gave me this sensitive soul and I am doing my best to raise her with compassion and understanding. As she matures she is able to handle more and more but in her time. I am not hiding behind my child or using her an an excuse.

Now besides all that -why do we have R ratings on movies or M ratings on videogames? To protect children from graphic violence (also bad language and sexual themes). The more I read on this thread the more I feel the focus of some of the prolifers has become so narrow they only seem to care for the preborn children and not the children who have already been born. Who cares if young children are affected by the graphic nature, they’ll get over it. It’s collateral damage.

If there is a better way, that causes less harm why not use it?

Instead of looking at it, you brush off people as those who don’t walk the walk or don’t care which is garbage. Nice assumption on your part but wrong. Instead of having an ABORTION IS MURDER bumper sticker on my car I have one that gives an 800 number for those contemplating abortion on where they can get help. Instead of a dismembered baby bumper sticker I have a one of beautiful baby with a bow on it that says “Life is God greatest gift”. Instead of participating in protests that have graphic signs of dead dismembered children I have participated in one that have positive, affirming messages.

When I was 17 I drove my best friend to a crisis pregnancy center to get her the help she needed to keep her baby against the enormous pressure from her family to abort. I stood by her, I helped her as best as 17 year old can and I watched that baby graduate from highschool this year.

I donate money and clothes to crisis pregnancy centers. I recently was able to lead an old school friend back to the church after she revealed to me she had an abortion in college. When we first talked she was pro-choice defending her choice. Within a week she had been confession, given a name to her child, and was greatful someone was there to listen to her. Don’t tell me I don’t walk the walk.

You want to hide behind the excuse that these graphic, gory images on public sidewalks where young children are exposed to them are good for the cause, you go ahead and do that. But to pretend you know what I do and don’t do.

I’m done here -I can see your acting like a kid with fingers it their ears going “la la la, I can’t hear you.” You don’t want to listen. You already know you’re “right” so it doesn’t matter what anyone else says.

God Bless.

 

[vern_humphrey]

So now you are the mind reader. I am not using my child as an excuse. I have a sensitive child and no I did not make her this way.

Of course not. Your child in no way reflects your reactions to things you consider outrageous.

When my daughter was younger and getting ready to make her first confession I had to teach her the form of the Act of Contrition that does not say “the pains of hell” because her just speaking the word hell would put her into a panic.

And you don’t see a connection here?

 

[Elric]

I wonder the same about you.

Right thankyou.

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.

Really?

Ok, prove it. Prove that is exactly what every person disagreeing with you is doing.

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

I will partly give you that one. The parents get upset because of the thoughtless and inconsiderate actions of people exposing their children to graphic images against their wishes.

Would you be ok with primary schools giving their students porno books or letting the students watch x-rated movies and snuff films?

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?

Im sorry, thats not even an argument. Thats just being childish.

This is really getting no where. I dont even see the point of starting this thread.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Interesting how this thread is going – it confirms that children’s reactions are reflections of the parent’s reactions. Note that no one says, “I’m okay with graphic images, but my children aren’t.” The parents who report bad reactions from their children are the same ones who have bad reactions themselves.

And note how they use the children as the excuse for censoring those with whom they disagree.

 

[KarenNC]

Interesting how this thread is going – it confirms that children’s reactions are reflections of the parent’s reactions. Note that no one says, “I’m okay with graphic images, but my children aren’t.” The parents who report bad reactions from their children are the same ones who have bad reactions themselves.

What exactly do you mean by “I’m okay with graphic images”?

 

[mapleoak]

Interesting how this thread is going – it confirms that children’s reactions are reflections of the parent’s reactions. Note that no one says, “I’m okay with graphic images, but my children aren’t.” The parents who report bad reactions from their children are the same ones who have bad reactions themselves.

And note how they use the children as the excuse for censoring those with whom they disagree.

Come to think of it, I think you’ve got something there.

I suppose there’s a lot to “Like Father, like son, like Mother, like daughter”.

 

[estesbob]

Come to think of it, I think you’ve got something there.

I suppose there’s a lot to “Like Father, like son, like Mother, like daughter”.

You know whenever anyone tells me they are doing something “for our children” I get very suspicious!

 

[vern_humphrey]

You know whenever anyone tells me they are doing something “for our children” I get very suspicious!

Some of the worst crimes against humanity have been committed “for our children.”

 

[KarenNC]

Some of the worst crimes against humanity have been committed “for our children.”

Heinous crimes have been committed by those who believed that their goal justified using any means they might deem desirable or necessary in pursuit of it. They believed that their goal placed them outside the realm of normal societal expecatations of reasonable and acceptable behavior, the laws of their society, and the expectations of the majority of their co-religionists or co-supporters.

We have all seen where such deluded thinking has lead some in the pro-life movement: murder, shootings, arson, clinic bombings, bioterrorist threats, vandalism, etc. All of these were done “for our children.”

Now let’s return to your statement "Note that no one says, “I’m okay with graphic images, but my children aren’t.”"

Please clarify exactly what you are expecting people to mean when they say “I’m okay with graphic images”.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Heinous crimes have been committed by those who believed that their goal justified using any means they might deem desirable or necessary in pursuit of it.

And most especially by those who wanted to censor those who disagreed with them.

 

[KarenNC]

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

Do you have any data on the specific context in which these women saw these photos? The argument is not against the use of these photos at all, it is against the use of these photos in indiscriminate ways that are basically guaranteed to expose preschool children to them without their parents’ consent. The vast majority of the anecdotes that have been presented in other threads about this were from women who saw these photos on a website—not a venue where there were substantial numbers of preschoolers seeing them without parental intention.

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

Effectiveness is not the only question. Shooting a person effectively stops him from an action, but it is very rarely a moral action. Sending fake bioterrorist threats will disrupt the functioning of a clinic, as will arson or bombing. These are also not morally desirable actions.

Again, the anecdotal evidence I have been given has certainly indicated effectiveness of these images on a website or outside an abortion clinic, but I have not seen similar evidence of effectiveness from the trucks running randomly around the city or the protestors who for some reason choose Toys R Us as their venue.

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.

The driveway is designed to get wet. Preschool children are not designed to be audiences to graphic pictures of dismembered dead babies.

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

There is a world of difference between having the occasional unintended member of an audience and presenting your material in such a way that any reasonable person would be well aware that there will be such members in large quantities.

Example A: A parent chooses to bring a 4 year old to an R-rated movie despite the rating and publicity around the movie. Yes, that child is clearly an unintended audience for that movie. The makers, distributors, theatre owners, media, etc all made reasonable efforts to be sure that that parent was informed of the content ahead of time.

Example B: A group of people choose to stand on a Saturday afternoon with large posters of bloody dismembered babies beside a section of road at the entrance to a toy store, a baby goods store and across from the entrance to a major mall which contains several popular birthday party venues. A section of road where the driver is coming off of the interstate and cannot see the signs ahead of time and has no option to turn off. A section of road where the traffic is very slow so that the posters are seen for the maximum amount of time and that is miles from the nearest abortion provider. In this case it is absurd to say that the young children are only an “unintended” audience. They are an “I don’t give a flip” audience. Not only did this group not make a reasonable effort to avoid venues with large numbers of children, they went out of their way to position themselves in such a venue.

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.

I have provided information from psychologists, child education specialists, pediatricians, communications programs at the university level, etc that are all in agreement that young children should be sheltered from exposure to violent graphic images, particularly those that involve real human beings in real situations. We have societal norms that parents should have the opportunity to shelter their young children from graphic images and other inappropriate material, as shown by TV, movie, video game ratings, separation of material by child and adult in libraries and bookstores, etc. I would say that it is a pretty informed opinion.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

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

This is precisely what I meant when I called you out about your tone, Vern. You are not answering what people are saying; you merely throw their own words back in their faces with (at best) disdain or (at worst) contempt dripping from every word.

Can’t you at least be kind if you’re going to avoid answering people’s arguments?

Peace,
Dante

 

[KarenNC]

And most especially by those who wanted to censor those who disagreed with them.

Ok, Vern, you have twice now avoided clarifying your statement “Note that no one says, "I’m okay with graphic images, but my children aren’t.”"

If you mean that you are looking for folks who say that they are okay with the use of these graphic images for teens and adults (including themselves) even though the images are disturbing, but not for young children, look no further. You have several right here on this thread, including me. I have looked at these images a great deal.

I am fully aware of the reality of the abortion process and I am all in favor of anyone who is of an age or in a position to be seeking an abortion also fully understanding that reality. Four and five year olds don’t seek abortions.

If you believe you should be displaying these images to people who don’t mind them (ie don’t find them disturbing), I am at a loss to understand your reasoning. I would hope you are not meaning that you are looking for someone who thinks these images are wonderful, beautiful and great. I don’t really want to ever meet such a person.

 

[Pug]

DH 7:

In the use of all freedoms the moral principle of personal and social responsibility is to be observed. In the exercise of their rights, individual men and social groups are bound by the moral law to have respect both for the rights of others and for their own duties toward others and for the common welfare of all. Men are to deal with their fellows in justice and civility.

I, too, am confused by talk about responding to pictures of violently dismembered corpses. Are some saying we are supposed to have a flat lack of response to these? I don’t mean a pretend flat lack of response, but really have no significant response.

Oh, and my quote above is just part of my thought process about the idea that seems to be on this thread concerning the exercise of rights or freedoms. So I shared the quote.

 

[Elric]

Interesting how this thread is going – it confirms that children’s reactions are reflections of the parent’s reactions. Note that no one says, “I’m okay with graphic images, but my children aren’t.” The parents who report bad reactions from their children are the same ones who have bad reactions themselves.

And note how they use the children as the excuse for censoring those with whom they disagree.

I think most were talking about parents in general and avoiding making it a personal preference.

Truth be told, I am not upset by such graphic images and can put them into perspective. They dont offend my senses (which is possibly a bad thing). I dont think saying that your ok with them is the right thing to say, considering what is intended by them.

I dont think that my children are ready to view such things and at least one of them would be definatly distressed by them. Saying that I am a bad parent for objecting to having them exposed to such things when they are not ready is simply wrong.

I have noticed the total avoidance to questions about exposing children to graphic images of sex. This strongly suggests that there is a double standard in practice.

 

[vern_humphrey]

This is precisely what I meant when I called you out about your tone, Vern. You are not answering what people are saying; you merely throw their own words back in their faces with (at best) disdain or (at worst) contempt dripping from every word.

And I call you about your tone.

Can’t you at least be kind if you’re going to avoid answering people’s arguments?

Peace,
Dante

There are those who are dying of criminal acts. There are those working to save those innocent children, and there are those who attack the ones who try to save them.

There have been many threads on this. Let me show you some of the previous debate related to this issue:

Linyo’s accusation

They are doing what they consider to be their duty. They are pointing out that by doing damage to children who are born is sinful too. And traumatizing them is damage. Short term for most but long term for a few. And it isn’t right when there are other ways such as showing the pictures at an appropriate age (childbearing age) Or showing pictures of babies living within the womb. Prayer, financial support for people who don’t have the network for raising children, providing support networks etc.

Out of interest, are you the type that blows up clinics to prevent abortions? Do you consider that to be an acceptable way to save babies? That would save babies but have harmful consequences. I am curious - would you go that far?

Do you know what Vern? You are not worth the words. I am pulling out. I am sick of your extremism. You are not any better than a pro-choicer - just different in your approach! BTW you aren now on ignore and there to stay! Good riddance!

ElectricMayhem’s comment

Once again, you are forcing me to have a conversation with my four year old about something that she does not have the experience or knowledge to comprehend.

“Why did the mommy not want her baby?”

“Because she was gang-raped, honey.”

“What’s gang-rape?”

So, you see, abortion is that act that you are portraying, but I am left with trying to explain all the actions that preceed the abortion.

Unless you want to make it easy for me and post gang-rape pictures.

Seekerz

5yr old: “Eek; ugh”
Bus attendant: “What’s wrong honey?”
5yr old pointing toward ad: “Did a monster get that baby? Is it dead?”
Bus attendant: “Shh, honey. Don’t be scared. It’s just a picture”
5yr old crying:“My mommy has a baby in her tummy, I don’t want monsters to get it!”
Bus attendant: “Shh, honey. You’ll be home soon and Mommy can explain it to you then.”
5yr old hysterical now: “Waah, waah, I want my Mommy. I want to go home…”

Originally Posted by seekerz

Oooh…it’s an attack, by scary green posters with slimy keyboards who dare to have a different opinion and have the audacity to actually post their opinions where others can read…shiver, shiver, shake, shake, shake…somebody heeellllp…It’s an attaaack…they’re actually using their heads and thinking…I can’t staaand it…

Edit: Ok, I admit that was childish, but so difficult to resist doing…

 

[estesbob]

Food for thought:

priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/graphicspraise17.htm

prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/02/whats_wrong_wit_1.php

anchorrising.com/barnacles/cat_abortion.html

operationrescue.org/?p=370

 

[KarenNC]

And I call you about your tone.

There are those who are dying of criminal acts. There are those working to save those innocent children, and there are those who attack the ones who try to save them.

There have been many threads on this. Let me show you some of the previous debate related to this issue:

Guess you have changed your mind?

Vern Humphrey, Aug 17, 2007 in response to the use of quotes from one thread on the use of graphic images of abortion in another thread on the use of graphic images of abortion
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=170857&page=5
:
If someone outside this thead said something to you, that is no justification for attacking people here.

It might also be helpful for those of you who did not participate in the previous 60+ pages of debate with Vern on this topic to ask him to give hyperlinks to the quotes he is pulling out of other threads so that you can read them in the context in which they were written. Reading his responses to those can be quite instructive.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes – he uses actual statistics to refute some claims.

 

[KarenNC]

Food for thought:

priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/graphicspraise17.htm

Yep. Case in point. Not one of these mentions seeing these photos in a venue where preschoolers are going to be seeing them. The ones that do mention locale mention the website. No one has argued at all against showing them on a website.

prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/02/whats_wrong_wit_1.php

Nary a bloody dismembered corpse in sight. Also, even if the photos had been graphic, these ads are suggested for a newspaper. Last time I looked, weren’t many 4 or 5 year olds purchasing their own newspapers, nor do newspapers in boxes and on shelves typically have ads above the fold on the front page where children walking by are likely to see them.

anchorrising.com/barnacles/cat_abortion.html

The article, while interesting, has absolutely zip to do with whether it is appropriate to show giant bloody pictures of dismembered babies to preschoolers.

operationrescue.org/?p=370

Amazing! Operation Rescue is capable of using material that doesn’t feature graphic photos of dismembered babies?

So, basically, none of these links is relevant to the issue at hand—showing giant bloody pictures of dismembered babies in ways that guarantee preschoolers will see them without their parents’ permission.