You might want to talk to Karen about that – she wants such images controlled by law.
Really? Please link to the post in which I said such.
Funny how no one uses the word “responsibility” when discussing the children. They always claim some sort of “right.”
I’ve used it many, many times in these threads. I am continuing to participate
only because I feel a responsibility toward children even
after they are born.
Some would make it illegal – Karen has said she would.
Again, please give me the post number in which I said such.
Does it strike you those aren’t “bloodied/dismembered infant corpses?” They are the only images of tragically murdered children and those children are
real people. They have no other memorial but those pictures.
No, it strikes me that that is precisely what they are.
Bloodied===covered in blood
Dismembered===limbs and head separated from their bodies
infant====baby human
corpse====body of a dead human being
What the heck are they if not that? Have you even
looked at one of these pictures? Based on that comment I begin to doubt it.
From the person who told me that if I would just stop using the word “indiscriminate” that the entire issue would go away, I find this amusing. Talk about trying to use euphemisms to make things seem to be less than they are…
No, thanks, Vern. I will continue to call them exactly what they are. It is precisely because they are images of “tragically murdered real people” in the form of “bloodied dismembered infant corpses” that I object to showing them to young children.
We do not consider it appropriate as a society to show young children images of “tragically murdered real people” in any other circumstance. I don’t recall seeing any campaigns that feature a young child’s head crushed beneath the tire of a car, blood and brains spattered about, eyeballs forced from their sockets, as a means of teaching kids that you shouldn’t play in traffic—and that is at least something that is of immediate concern to them.
We don’t have sex abuse prevention campaigns that show the bloodied mangled bodies of babies and young children who have died as the result of being raped to teach other young children about “good touch/bad touch”. We don’t show children with their faces half blown away and brains exposed to teach children about gun safety or with their hands and faces burned off to teach fire safety. We don’t show photos of young children torn apart by viscious dogs to teach them not to go up to strange animals.
All of these things happen in the real world. All of the children to whom they happen are real people. All of their deaths were tragic.
But when you use the phrase, “bloodied/dismembered infant corpses” you show what your reaction would be to a picture of Mary Rose Doe – and that reaction communicates itself to your child.
Maybe you should post your picture of Mary Rose Doe (can’t be any worse than any of the others I have seen) and we can talk about reactions and whether those words apply. Interesting that though Vern, Mapleoak and Estesbob are all in such favor of these images and consider them to indeed be beneficial for all audiences that we don’t see them actually posting them as part of the discussion, though they are free with other graphics and photos. I wonder if such is against the forum rules?
