Avoid Raising a Serial Killer

[vern_humphrey]

Originally Posted by vern humphrey
No. Several posters have said there is no right to show such images.

Please cite the specific posts in this thread that say such.

Just a quick sample, by no means exhaustive:

Originally Posted by vern humphrey
Do I have to be censored – give up my rights – in order to protect their rights?

Response by Elric: It looks that way, but dont worry you are not alone.

Posted by KarenNC; 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. 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.

Posted by KarenNC;
What you are calling censorship most people in our society call exercising reasonable judgement. Is it censorship when someone suggests that a preschool library does not need a copy of the Kama Sutra or that the preschool might not want to show “Natural Born Killers” or a documentary on Charles Manson or even Mel Gibson’s “The Passion”?

QED

 

[estesbob]

Interesting.

I, on the other hand, should not be allowed to post quotations from a religion’s Scripture or official writings which are freely available, with links to the original sources of such so that they can be seen in context and folks can judge for themselves whether or not they say what I see that they say, because I don’t follow that religion. I should not be allowed to call into question whether a particular action on the part of a follower of a particular religion is in line with the known teachings of that religion.

I see.

Sure you can, But dont expect anyone to take you seriously. As I said you reject the book and you reject the man. The idea that you then get to tell those of who beleive in both what they mean is the heigth of arrogance.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Sure you can, But dont expect anyone to take you seriously. As I said you reject the book and you reject the man. The idea that you then get to tell those of who beleive in both what they mean is the heigth of arrogance.

Apparently she believes she has the power and “right” to establish Catholic dogma.

I think she’s taken all the “rights” and left none for us mere mortals.

 

[KarenNC]

It is against forum rules. It is also against forum rules to discuss canidates. Does that mean it should be illegal to do that in public?

Perhaps it should give one a second of pause in their insistence that these images are totally neutral at worst and beneficial for instruction to all ages and people at best in the eyes of one’s fellow Catholics.

BTW, which particular rule addresses these pictures? Could you link to it? I only found the following:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=132576
*To achieve this, it is necessary to ban certain topics, content, and posting techniques…

Sexually explicit or graphically violent material or content that is inappropriate for non-adult members or might offend adult members*

 

[KarenNC]

Just a quick sample, by no means exhaustive:

Let’s see, we have you, we have one or two from Elric that have mentioned “rights” and a couple of quotes from me that do not contain the word at all in reference to a “right” not to see these pictures, but rather to the right to freedom of expression and its application.

OK, that gives a reasonable context in which to judge your objections.

 

[Writer]

I was pro-life long before I actually saw a picture of an aborted child. Infact I was pro-life before I was even religious.
As a parent I have the right to protect my child’s innocence. Whether it’s photos of aborted children or photos of piles of dead bodies in Nazi Germany. You don’t need to either to know it’s wrong -I didn’t.

The shock and awe mentality is what is desensitizing our children to violence. Peaceful prayerful demonstrations show prolifers as caring, concerned people. Photos of chopped up children and angry shouting is what gets prolifers dismissed as as religious nut jobs.

What scared pregnant woman is going to reach out to an angry protester declaring her a murderer, for help?

I agree… It is the parents’ responsibility to keep their kids sheltered and innocent as long as appropriate. I know there are great Catholics who think the photos should be displayed at every opportunity, but I’d suggest they are hurting their own cause. We don’t need to see murder in order to understand murder.

 

[KarenNC]

Sure you can, But dont expect anyone to take you seriously. As I said you reject the book and you reject the man. The idea that you then get to tell those of who beleive in both what they mean is the heigth of arrogance.

Interesting that you continually refer to Jesus as “the man.” Not what I would have expected from a Christian, really. Oh, well.

Anyone is free to take the exact same links and show me where they do not say what it is apparent to me that they say. That is why it is called a discussion. If people choose not to take the words from their own Scriptures or the official pronouncements of their own Church seriously because of the religion of the person who linked to such, I am afraid I cannot help them in that area.

Which parts in particular have you found incorrect and I will be glad to discuss those with you.

 

[Pug]

red mine

The use of the words corpse or image just mind me of the use of the word fetus not baby. The angry even for adults seems to be directed at the picture holder not the fact that someone is being killed inside… I would wonder if someone was holding a dead baby that they found at the abortion site if you would say "Shame on you for holding that dead baby."

Gam, thank you. The lights are more on in my head now. I am using the word “corpse”, but the reason I chose it was not to deny that it is a baby. Rather, it was to affirm that the horror is just as bad as any other dead human being. The word “corpse” for me brings to mind a dead human being, most likely an adult. I consider the baby human being dead just as important as the adult human being dead. So I used the word to indicate that it is just as distressing as a dead adult to me. I have indelible images in my head of piles of dead adult Jewish corpses in trenches. The baby is like the Jew, both dead humans, equally tragic.

I realize now that my choice of words was taken as perhaps trying to dehumanize the baby or demote it to a lower status, but that is precisely the opposite of how I meant it.

I’m not sure that I understand what you are saying about carrying a dead baby outside a clinic. Most likely, I would take the dead baby corpse for proper burial immediately.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Let’s see, we have you, we have one or two from Elric that have mentioned “rights” and a couple of quotes from me that do not contain the word at all in reference to a “right” not to see these pictures, but rather to the right to freedom of expression and its application.

OK, that gives a reasonable context in which to judge your objections.

And a reasonable context to judge your claims that you aren’t advancing censorship.

 

[vern_humphrey]

red mine

Gam, thank you. The lights are more on in my head now. I am using the word “corpse”, but the reason I chose it was not to deny that it is a baby. Rather, it was to affirm that the horror is just as bad as any other dead human being. The word “corpse” for me brings to mind a dead human being, most likely an adult. I consider the baby human being dead just as important as the adult human being dead. So I used the word to indicate that it is just as distressing as a dead adult to me. I have indelible images in my head of piles of dead adult Jewish corpses in trenches. The baby is like the Jew, both dead humans, equally tragic.

I realize now that my choice of words was taken as perhaps trying to dehumanize the baby or demote it to a lower status, but that is precisely the opposite of how I meant it.

I’m not sure that I understand what you are saying about carrying a dead baby outside a clinic. Most likely, I would take the dead baby corpse for proper burial immediately.

Thank you for explaining that – and please accept my apologies for my remarks.

 

[Pug]

Thank you for explaining that – and please accept my apologies for my remarks.

Of course, apology accepted.

 

[gam197]

originally posted by Pug
I’m not sure that I understand what you are saying about carrying a dead baby outside a clinic. Most likely, I would take the dead baby corpse for proper burial immediately.

It was probably a bad example but the signs are only a photo. Can you imagine what it must be like to see the real thing? To me, the reason abortion has lasted so long is that we are not seeing the real death. We somehow don’t believe one abortion is equal to one fully developed human. What else makes sense? If someone killed one two-year old on the street, we’d show it all over the news and be outraged. We would not allow it. I just don’t sense this outrage.

In the film"Unborn in the US", the second thing that stuck me was that Dr. Tiller of Kansas who does the second and third trimester abortions has a clinic building that measures 10,000 feet on one level. When they showed how long this building was, it brought to my mind how many abortions this one man must do.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It was probably a bad example but the signs are only a photo. Can you imagine what it must be like to see the real thing? To me, the reason abortion has lasted so long is that we are not seeing the real death.

And that is one reason why so many people are determined that “graphic images” not be allowed.

We somehow don’t believe one abortion is equal to one fully developed human. What else makes sense? If someone killed one two-year old on the street, we’d show it all over the news and be outraged. We would not allow it. I just don’t sense this outrage.

The outrage runs the other way – instead of being directed against the killers, it is directed against those who dare to show pictures of the results.

In the film"Unborn in the US", the second thing that stuck me was that Dr. Tiller of Kansas who does the second and third trimester abortions has a clinic building that measures 10,000 feet on one level. When they showed how long this building was, it brought to my mind how many abortions this one man must do.

Joseph Mengle comes to mind – the Nazi doctor who did “experiments” in the concentration camps. But I don’t think even Mengele killed as many children as this ghoul.

 

[Bennie_P]

Bennie P;2794184:

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?

Karen, you are going to have speak up I cannot hear your answer to this (these) question(s)? I now they look rhetorical but really they are not.

Anybody else?

 

[Elric]

You might want to talk to Karen about that – she wants such images controlled by law.

I was asking you.

Funny how no one uses the word “responsibility” when discussing the children. They always claim some sort of “right.”

You dont believe that parents have that right then?

You haven’t been following the thread, then – you, yourself claim “rights” militate against using these images.

Some would make it illegal – Karen has said she would.

Se said that she would make it illegal to protest against abortion?

Read the first post and the cited material. It is the **parents’ **reaction to such things that colors the child’s reaction

Which is why parents have a duty to deal with such things responsibly, and not to have a hissy fit in the presense of the child…

Actually that article is refering to fictional images, images that children create themselves.

It isnt suggesting anything about real life imagery or graphic imagery. So the article in question doesnt support your idea.

Pardon me if I disagree – all the evidence is that children can see virtually anything with no adverse reaction if the parents react properly.

That is not true. You are going by one article that mentions nothing about real or graphic imagery.

Having not met my son (or me for that matter), you are not really in a position to make such judgments or to suggest that I am a liar.

Taking it personally is a dishonest debating tactic.

Making personal attacks, particularly when they are unfounded, is a dishonest debating tactic. I was asking you to cease doing so.

Again, their “rights” trump everyone elses’ rights – and no one wants to talk about parental responsibility.

No, that does not suggest “trumping everyone elses rights” and actually I have talked about parental responsibility.

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.

They are not images of bloodied/dismembered infant corpses?

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.

By stateing what the images are of, shows what my reaction would be?

What would that be exactly?

Wait, let me guess. Even though I have stated the opposite, I would have to react in a distressed manner and “throw a hissy fit”.

 

[Pug]

It was probably a bad example but the signs are only a photo. Can you imagine what it must be like to see the real thing? To me, the reason abortion has lasted so long is that we are not seeing the real death. We somehow don’t believe one abortion is equal to one fully developed human. What else makes sense? If someone killed one two-year old on the street, we’d show it all over the news and be outraged. We would not allow it. I just don’t sense this outrage.

You are right, the outrage is just not there. I always marvel that no one I talk to outside of my computer understands my comparison to the holocaust.

In addition to your comments about not seeing the real death, I would like to add a thought. Maybe whether in images or in real life, seeing the living become the dead is different somehow from just seeing the dead. When a woman goes to have an abortion, I doubt the process shows her the living and then the dead. Probably this is not highlighted.

 

[KarenNC]

Karen, you are going to have speak up I cannot hear your answer to this (these) question(s)? I now they look rhetorical but really they are not.

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?

As I am not a member of this group, nor will ever be because of their choice of tactics, I have no way of knowing if they send out press releases or not, whether they send them out effectively or not if they do, etc. I believe you are asking if they are sending out things like the location of where they will be holding up the signs, or the route of the trucks or the flight path of the airplanes? I have never heard anyone in our community mention that they have seen or heard any such information.

I do not have cable or commercial television access and my daughter and I usually listen to books on tape/cd in the car. I receive both our local and regional newspaper daily and read both of them thoroughly (have for over 25 years) and have never seen any “advance notice” in them about any such. I have linked to their site often enough on this thread—you could certainly contact them if you are interested and ask.

The lack of such notices in the media does not prove a bias on the part of the news agencies or a conspiracy “not to promote the pro-life movement,” it only proves that there is a lack of such notices.

 

[KarenNC]

It was probably a bad example but the signs are only a photo. Can you imagine what it must be like to see the real thing? To me, the reason abortion has lasted so long is that we are not seeing the real death. We somehow don’t believe one abortion is equal to one fully developed human. What else makes sense? If someone killed one two-year old on the street, we’d show it all over the news and be outraged. We would not allow it. I just don’t sense this outrage.

I am at a loss to understand where you get the impression that anyone on this thread who is objecting to the indiscriminate use of these photos around young children has in any way indicated that they “don’t believe one abortion is equal to one fully developed human.” As far as I can see, everyone has been at pains to convey just the opposite.

 

[KarenNC]

In addition to your comments about not seeing the real death, I would like to add a thought. Maybe whether in images or in real life, seeing the living become the dead is different somehow from just seeing the dead. When a woman goes to have an abortion, I doubt the process shows her the living and then the dead. Probably this is not highlighted.

Please, please tell me that you are not planning to advocate that preschoolers should go and witness an actual abortion or watch a video of one in order to “educate” them adequately “before its too late and their values are formed” …

 

[Pug]

Please, please tell me that you are not planning to advocate that preschoolers should go and witness an actual abortion or watch a video of one in order to “educate” them adequately “before its too late and their values are formed” …

I am not advocating any such thing. As I have previously stated on the thread, I would not show the types of pictures we are discussing to young children.