K
KarenNC
Guest
Link right ahead to every statistic you have ever provided on this issue. Then we can discuss them.Yes – he uses actual statistics to refute some claims.
- Status
E
estesbob
Guest
Of course it’s relevant to the issue at hand. They makes two points- one is that women have been convinced by these pictures not to have an abortion Two that pro-abortion advocates do everything they can to stop even the most benign of images. As we amply see in this thread.
In all the posts on this topic you have yet to show any evidence that children are traumatized by these pictures. So it seems to come down to a choice between a proven fact that women have been convinced not to have an abortion by these pictures and Karen’s contention that is better her children don’t get offended than to save these children’s lives
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Let’s face it, Bob. It’s not about the pictures. It’s about some people’s desire to censor those who disagree with them.
It’s not about the children – if it were, parents would calmly and properly deal with these pictures and all the other disturbing things children might see or hear. It’s about people throwing hissy fits which affect their children, and then wanting to blame someone else.
It’s not about the children – if it were, parents would calmly and properly deal with these pictures and all the other disturbing things children might see or hear. It’s about people throwing hissy fits which affect their children, and then wanting to blame someone else.
E
estesbob
Guest
Agreed. We have the most pampered generation of children in the history of mankind. And we will be paying the price for this for years to come.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
And it is not the pre-schoolers who might see these images who are the most pampered generation.
K
KarenNC
Guest
Elric, since the others won’t answer, I can give you what the Vatican has to say about graphic images of sex. Since abortion and sex are intimately connected, I don’t see any possible reason that the same standards should not apply to graphic images of mutilated babies
We can also go on to the THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE FAMILY: THE TRUTH AND MEANING OF HUMAN SEXUALITY to see what the Church says should be taken into consideration when providing information related to sexuality to young children:
vatican.va/roman_curia/po…uality_en.html
Children’s Principal Stages of Development
- It is important for parents to take their children’s needs into consideration during the different stages of development. Keeping in mind that each child should receive individualized formation, parents can adapt the stages of education in love to the particular requirements of each child.
- The Years of Innocence
- It can be said that a child is in the stage described in John Paul II’s words as “the years of innocence” from about five years of age until puberty — the beginning of which can be set at the first signs of changes in the boy or girl’s body (the visible effect of an increased production of sexual hormones). This period of tranquility and serenity must never be disturbed by unnecessary information about sex. During those years, before any physical sexual development is evident, it is normal for the child’s interests to turn to other aspects of life. The rudimentary instinctive sexuality of very small children has disappeared. Boys and girls of this age are not particularly interested in sexual problems, and they prefer to associate with children of their own sex. So as not to disturb this important natural phase of growth, parents will recognize that prudent formation in chaste love during this period should be indirect, in preparation for puberty, when direct information will be necessary.
- Nonetheless, in the context of moral and sexual information, various problems can arise in this stage of childhood. In some societies today, there are planned and determined attempts to impose premature sex information on children. But, at this stage of development, children are still not capable of fully understanding the value of the affective dimension of sexuality. They cannot understand and control sexual imagery within the proper context of moral principles and, for this reason, they cannot integrate premature sexual information with moral responsibility. Such information tends to shatter their emotional and educational development and to disturb the natural serenity of this period of life. Parents should politely but firmly exclude any attempts to violate children’s innocence because such attempts compromise the spiritual, moral and emotional development of growing persons who have a right to their innocence.
- A further problem arises when children receive premature sex information from the mass media or from their peers who have been led astray or received premature sex education. In this case, parents will have to begin to give carefully limited sexual information, usually to correct immoral and erroneous information or to control obscene language.
- Finally, as a general guideline, one needs to bear in mind, that all the different methods of sexual education should be judged by parents in the light of the principles and moral norms of the Church, which express human values in daily life. The negative effects which various methods can produce in the personality of children and young people should also be taken into account.
- In fulfilling a ministry of love to their own children, parents should enjoy the support and cooperation of the other members of the Church. The rights of parents must be recognized, protected and maintained, not only to ensure solid formation of children and young people, but also to guarantee the right order of cooperation and collaboration between parents and those who can help them in their task. Likewise, in parishes or apostolates, clergy and religious should support and encourage parents in striving to form their own children.
G
gam197
Guest
There is no double standard. To purposed expose a child to sex, or violence for no reason would be wrong. Do we not all remember the visual movie of accidents that we had to view because we were learning to drive. TV news is pretty graphic.
Children see violence all the time. Have you not watch Lion King, Bambi, Land Before Time Movies. It is pretty traumatic to think your mom or dad died?
For one thing most states rarely have these photos on the streets. There are only a few states that do this on a regular basis. It is being done more on college campuses.
How does one put it into perspective? Each time I see these pictures and I have seen them so many times I am still outraged that this is happening. Words like corpse or image even bothers me.
This is a real photo taken of a baby found in a dumpster. Joe Scheidler and Monica Miller collected 3000 bodies from dumspters in Michigan. When I watched the movie “Unborn in the USA” the most dramatic scene for me was when they actually held up the small real arms or legs of the child. They did this on public TV in 1987. I had never seen this footage.
According to the movie, in Wisconsin where they are held on a regular basis abortion has gone down by 41% where in the other states, it has only gone down by 14%.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Now there’s the usual political spin. Read the post carefully and tell us where “the Vatican” says graphic images should not be used to combat abortion.
Indeed, it would be just as fair to say it is wrong for parents to communicate their own distress to their children and cause them to become upset in matters like this.
Indeed, it would be just as fair to say it is wrong for parents to communicate their own distress to their children and cause them to become upset in matters like this.
E
estesbob
Guest
Excpet for the fact the vatican did not say one word about graphic abortion pictures. Since we know that these prictures help reduce the number of abortions I see no reaon why the vatican would oppose them
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
That doesn’t matter – any argument, no matter how far off point – is enough for those who wish to attack and censor others.
E
estesbob
Guest
I wonder if Karen agrees with the Vatican on contraception?
K
KarenNC
Guest
No, but then there are a multitude of issues on which I do not agree with the Vatican. That would be the reason I am not Catholic. However, as this is a Catholic board I thought it would be germane.
I would presume those that are Catholic, like you, Vern and others, would consider that what the Vatican has to say about protecting the innocence of children might bear some weight. I could, of course, be wrong.
E
estesbob
Guest
Well thats is interesting-so the Vatican is an Authroity ONLY when they agree with you?
K
KarenNC
Guest
No, if you read the rest of the post (which I added within seconds of realizing I had hit the wrong button), I would expect that you, as a Catholic would recognize it as an authority. Just looking for a little consistency between what you are saying and what the authoritative pronouncements of your stated religion say about protecting the innocence of children.
K
KarenNC
Guest
What is your basis for claiming that showing these photos in ways that preschoolers have access to them without their parents’ permission reduces the number of abortions?
E
estesbob
Guest
Well the document didnt say a word about the topic at hand so that was a waste. I find it humorous that you used them as an authrity but reject much of what they teach.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I’m not sure what “the Vatican” means. What the Magisterium says does have weight – but your interpretation of it does not.
E
estesbob
Guest
I have posted several testimonials of women who said such photos kept them from having an abortion. The photos were being shown in public. Lives were saved. Nough said,
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
The longer this goes on, the more clear it becomes that it is an attack on Catholicism for daring to oppose “a woman’s right to an abortion.”
It has nothing to do with the children, and everything to do with that offense.
It has nothing to do with the children, and everything to do with that offense.
E
Elric
Guest
Nice choice of words there “For no reason”. Do children contemplate having abortions?
Yes those movies a quite graphic, arnt they?
As long as it isnt being done where children are being exposed to them, there isnt a problem. I have not been arguing a total ban.
Well that is one way to put it into perspective.
I thought it was a better thing to say than “Im ok with these images”, especally when these images are designed to cause a reaction.
- Status