Avoid Raising a Serial Killer

[KarenNC]

That’s a funny thing. Those who argue against using “graphic images” turn the full force of their anger on the people who display the images – but not on the people who actually killed the children in those images.

And they keep harping on their “rights” – and never mention their responsibilities, either to prepare their children for the real world, or to help stop this gruesome massacre of the innocent.

It is a puzzlement.

I see a new commercial: “Got omniscience?”

BTW, have you ever found anything to back up your accusation that I said that showing these images should be illegal?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I see a new commercial: “Got omniscience?”

BTW, have you ever found anything to back up your accusation that I said that showing these images should be illegal?

You’re not paying attention – I’ve already posted a sample in that vein.

But if you now say you don’t want them censored – why are you still complaining about them?

 

[KarenNC]

Simply put. If you are concerned about the images, then why not help put a stop to the murder of innocent children? And the expoitation of women? Then there would be no justifiable reason for the further use of the images, wouldn’t you agree?

Joining Vern in his attempt at omniscience?

Simply put, you have absolutely no way in the world to know absolutely what other people do or do not do based on what they post on an internet forum. They could claim anything or simply not mention something.

If you do not believe me when I say that I do not support either abortion on demand or the exploitation of women, why would you believe anything I would write about what I do? Why would giving you a laundry list of social activisim in which I am engaged to impress you be more virtuous than keeping my activities to myself? Are they therefore less real than those of someone who trumpets theirs from the rooftop at the drop of a hat? Matthew 6:1-4 does happen to spring to mind (even if Estesbob and Vern seem to think I manage to somehow pervert the Scripture simply by looking at it ). I hold a similar view.

I refused on the other threads to enter into a numbers contest and I will continue to do so here because it is irrelevant.You are free to accept my word or not on my views. I have given you the benefit of accepting that you mean what you say.

The actions we are discussing (showing huge photos of dismembered bloody babies in places that one can be reasonably certain substantial numbers of preschoolers will be exposed to them without their parents’ consent) either are or are not appropriate on their own merits.

Person A does 10 things to end abortion and the exploitation of women and advocates a particular action
Person B does 9 things to end abortion and the exploitation of women and decries as wrong a particular action

Does this make the action automatically right? If person B does two more things is the action suddenly now wrong? Will it flip back to right if person A adds on other activities? Is the number of actions to determine who is in ascendance cumulative or only at a particular time? Who gets to determine which things qualify?

 

[KarenNC]

You’re not paying attention – I’ve already posted a sample in that vein.

But if you now say you don’t want them censored – why are you still complaining about them?

Trying the “when did you quit beating your wife” tactic?

No, you have failed utterly to show anything that I have said that says I believe showing these images should be banned by law. I have said that it is wrong and in violation of societal norms of decent, responsible behavior of adults toward young children.

Of course, you have been saying that I said it—maybe the bulk of your own words is what you are remembering.

 

[mapleoak]

I’m not sure what you are saying here----I was speaking of protestors against pornography using these images. I asked "Would it be okay and appropriate if those who oppose pornography, for instance, started driving tractor trailer trucks with graphic pictures of such around towns as a means of educating everyone of the reality of what is going on?"

And I said “NO”. If what you are saying is ‘is it okay to display pornography as a means of ending pornography?’ Some things are so silly I can only wonder if they even merit a response.

Are you really saying that protesting pornography is “intriniscally immoral and derogatory to society and the public good”?

No, I am saying the display of pornography is immoral and derogatory to society and the public good. The ‘act’ of displaying pornography in and of itself is immoral. Cannot use an INTRISICALLY immoral method as means for accomplishing anything, period. This includes publishing pornography for the sake of (even if intentions were good) ending pornography.

Or are you saying that abortion is “not intrinsically immoral and seeks to better society”?

I also wonder why when you refer to your example of pornography vs abortion you switch your position. When talking about trying to end pornography, you ask if ‘protesting pornography is immoral’, but when talking about abortion you switch from asking whether it is the means to end the act to asking whether it is the act itself: ‘are you saying that abortion is not intrinsically immoral’.
Here is the answer:
Pornography is intrinsically disordered;
Abortion is intrinsically disordered;
Displaying pornography is intrisically disordered;
Displaying effects of abortion is NOT intrisically disordered;

Therefore, having trucks driving around with pornographic images on it, for whatever reason, is intrisically disordered and immoral.
I can’t believe I had to answer that, but whatever it takes.

In what way would protestors against pornography driving tractor trailer sized photos of the reality of pornography around city streets and parking them in front of churches on a Sunday morning without the church’s permission in order to show folks the reality of pornography be “immoral and derogatory to society and the public good” according to your standards?

Because in and of itself, pornography is an intrinsic evil, and therefore is “immoral and derogatory to society and the public good”. Therefore should be censored.

Would not ending pornography be “to the public good” or “seeking to better society”?

Yes.

It is “intrinsically immoral” to try to end pornography or show people what really goes on even though they seek to deny it or use euphemisms to describe it?

Same as above, but worded different. Same silliness.

Should not everyone who believes pornography is immoral stand up ahd cheer at such and request, no, demand, that these trucks be parked on their beaches, in their neighborhoods, drive in their parades, cruise their highways, be outside their churches every Sunday morning when families are bringing their children to Sunday School, or by the side of the road at the mall and the toy store?

No.

Don’t you want to end pornography?

Yes.

Why aren’t you outraged by the devastating effects of pornography on families and innocent children?

I am.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Trying the “when did you quit beating your wife” tactic?

I’ve already posted your words on this.

No, you have failed utterly to show anything that I have said that says I believe showing these images should be banned by law. I have said that it is wrong and in violation of societal norms of decent, responsible behavior of adults toward young children.

I concede you never used the word “law.”

:
Of course, you have been saying that I said it—maybe the bulk of your own words is what you are remembering.

No, I posted yours.

 

[jmcrae]

There is an abortion provider downtown that we frequently visit to counsel women. I have yet to see a poor child accidentally wander by the clinic and accidentally stumble across the images of aborted pre-born children.

The only children around are those being taken inside to be killed and those standing with their parents, counseling the women.

I suppose there might be one or two in the cars that pass us. I’ve looked and never seen one myself. Been going to this clinic for almost 4 years now.

I’m curious: for those of you that are concerned about your children viewing these images, where is your local abortion provider? Near a mall or playground?

Ours is right across the street from an elementary school and its playground. (When I was involved in protesting, we never used graphic images on posters. We had tracts that we handed out, and some of the tracts had violent images on them, but we were careful never to leave any of these behind where kids could find them.)

 

[KarenNC]

I concede you never used the word “law.” .

Bingo! And exactly how do we get from your admission that I never used the word “law” to

Vern, post #189:
You might want to talk to Karen about that – she wants such images controlled by law…Some would make it illegal – Karen has said she would.

If I am not involving the law, exactly how am I advocating " making it illegal" (notice the “it” is not specified) and that I “want such images controlled by law”?

Perhaps the same way we get from:

Karen’s actual position: “It is against the norms of our society to show huge pictures of dismembered bloody babies to young children without the permission of their parents—use the images, but do so in a targeted way that reasonably reduces the chance that young children will see these”

to

Vern’s interpretation of Karen’s position: “you want to censor all use of these images everywhere, deny the truth of abortion, attack people who fight against abortion and want to deny everyone their First Amendment rights just because you don’t want to have to see them–has nothing to do with children.”

No, I posted yours.

Which you yourself acknowledge did not say what you claimed I said.

 

[KarenNC]

Ours is right across the street from an elementary school and its playground. (When I was involved in protesting, we never used graphic images on posters. We had tracts that we handed out, and some of the tracts had violent images on them, but we were careful never to leave any of these behind where kids could find them.)

Thank you. The juxtaposition of the clinic to the school and playground definitely raise some challenges that require more consideration and a somewhat different approach than a clinic in a different setting. Actually (and thankfully), I think the majority of the prolife protestors I know would act in the same way. I applaud your efforts and your willingness to acknowledge that different situations require different approaches.

This is an example of how one can reasonably and responsibly take precautions to avoid exposure of these images to young children while still getting the information to the people at whom it is appropriately (and more effectively) aimed.

 

[Elric]

That’s a funny thing. Those who argue against using “graphic images” turn the full force of their anger on the people who display the images – but not on the people who actually killed the children in those images.

Thats a cheap shot, its not relevent to this particular topic, but its still a cheap shot.

This thread isnt about opposing abortion or not opposing abortion, its about children and graphic imagery. If you want to discuss being angry at people who perform abortions, then you will have to start another thread.

And they keep harping on their “rights” – and never mention their responsibilities, either to prepare their children for the real world, or to help stop this gruesome massacre of the innocent.

It is a puzzlement.

Wow, you have not been reading this thread.

Such responsibilities have in fact been mentioned by people opposed to exposing graphic images to children. It has been agreed that parent do in fact have that responsibility, its also been stated that it is up to the parent to decide when their child is ready for such things rather than a complete stranger who has not met the child. Its also been agreed that you do have a right to oppose and protest abortions.

I dont actually understand how you could make such an untrue statement.

In fact its people who keep “harping on” about their “right” to display graphic imagery that dont mention, or completly ignore, the responsibilties that come with it. Instead they choose to lay blame elsewhere, shout people down, make accusations of “poor parenting” amongst other things, try to divert debate/attention with things not related to what is being discussed and set double standards.

 

[KarenNC]

And I said “NO”. If what you are saying is ‘is it okay to display pornography as a means of ending pornography?’ Some things are so silly I can only wonder if they even merit a response.

If it is not okay under the auspices of the First Amendment to show the results of an intrinsically disordered act in any and all situations in any and all ways to any and all audiences without let or hindrance in the cause of preventing a repetition of said act, then it is not okay.

Period.

End of sentence.

Full stop.

 

[jmcrae]

If it is not okay under the auspices of the First Amendment to show the results of an intrinsically disordered act in any and all situations in any and all ways to any and all audiences without let or hindrance in the cause of preventing a repetition of said act, then it is not okay.

Period.

End of sentence.

Full stop.

I agree with this completely.

I believe that it is the parent’s job, as first educator of the child, to censor whatever needs to be censored, and to provide whatever needs to be provided, for the proper moral upbringing of their particular child. Censorship is often a good thing - it’s part of a civilized society. This very Forum is censored - there are many things that we cannot write on this Forum - and that’s also a good thing; it keeps the discourse civilized.

Personally, I would not bring any child under the age of 16 to an abortion protest that had graphic images of aborted babies in it. (I also wouldn’t let anybody under the age of 16 watch CSI, even though I enjoy that show myself.)

If parents of children under 16 are not in attendance at these kinds of protests, it could be that they are not willing to expose their children to senseless nightmare imagery, rather than because they somehow favour abortion.

 

[KarenNC]

I agree with this completely.

I believe that it is the parent’s job, as first educator of the child, to censor whatever needs to be censored, and to provide whatever needs to be provided, for the proper moral upbringing of their particular child. Censorship is often a good thing - it’s part of a civilized society. This very Forum is censored - there are many things that we cannot write on this Forum - and that’s also a good thing; it keeps the discourse civilized.

Personally, I would not bring any child under the age of 16 to an abortion protest that had graphic images of aborted babies in it. (I also wouldn’t let anybody under the age of 16 watch CSI, even though I enjoy that show myself.)

If parents of children under 16 are not in attendance at these kinds of protests, it could be that they are not willing to expose their children to senseless nightmare imagery, rather than because they somehow favour abortion.

Actually, it is only and specifically those protestors who insist on bringing these graphic images to places where our young children are known to be to which we are objecting.

As I said in my early post, a local group (one who is very fond of the “Truth Trucks” that ride around the highways and park in various public spots) chose to mount such a display on a Saturday afternoon in front of the Chic Fil A beside the drive leading to a Toys R Us and a Babies R Us, across from a large mall, in a place where it was impossible for folks coming in off the interstate to see the signs ahead of time and no other roads to turn on, where traffic is so slow a child strapped in a car seat could easily spend 5 minutes staring straight at one of these photos of blood-covered butchered babies as they head to Build-A-Bear or a birthday party at one of the various mall businesses --and the parent driving would be able to do nothing other than say “close your eyes, dear, the Christians are out again showing things children ought not see”. There is not a medical clinic of any kind in that particular area to my knowledge—the closest is an urgent care across the other side of the interstate and they do not provide abortions.

They have also slapped these images on my car in a grocery store parking lot during the middle of the day (also nowhere near an abortion clinic) despite the fact that I have a clearly visible booster seat in the back and could be reasonably expected to have my child with me. They have left these images in the restrooms at the McDonalds with the largest playspace in the area.

In other areas they park on or fly over (with planes ) public beaches, park outside churches on Sunday morning without permission, outside of apartment complexes, in residential neighborhoods, etc. Hard to predict and avoid a plane flying by when you are at the beach.

The one and only thing any of us are asking is that they do exactly what you did. Show the images to those for whom they are appropriate----people of an age to be seeking an abortion or making the choice to engage in behavior that can lead to unwanted pregnancy. Use websites, flyers, brochures, etc. Target their efforts with these huge posters to publicized rallies and marches, college campuses, clinics that are not near gathering places for young children. Allow parents the opportunity to exercise their parental responsibilities in sheltering their young children’s innocence. Even Hollywood does that.

 

[mapleoak]

If it is not okay under the auspices of the First Amendment to show the results of an intrinsically disordered act in any and all situations in any and all ways to any and all audiences without let or hindrance in the cause of preventing a repetition of said act, then it is not okay.

Period.

End of sentence.

Full stop.

Thump uch:

And the truth finally comes out. You do want it censored and illegal.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Bingo! And exactly how do we get from your admission that I never used the word “law” to

If I am not involving the law, exactly how am I advocating " making it illegal" (notice the “it” is not specified) and that I “want such images controlled by law”?

Perhaps the same way we get from:

Karen’s actual position: “It is against the norms of our society to show huge pictures of dismembered bloody babies to young children without the permission of their parents—use the images, but do so in a targeted way that reasonably reduces the chance that young children will see these”

to

Vern’s interpretation of Karen’s position: “you want to censor all use of these images everywhere, deny the truth of abortion, attack people who fight against abortion and want to deny everyone their First Amendment rights just because you don’t want to have to see them–has nothing to do with children.”

Which you yourself acknowledge did not say what you claimed I said.

Go back and read your posts – you want people prevented from exercising their rights.

 

[KarenNC]

Thump uch:

And the truth finally comes out. You do want it censored and illegal.

Really? Specifics on how you got that out of what I said would be appreciated.

The “truth” that comes out is rather that you are not willing to see groups who are protesting other acts you consider intrinisically disordered and just as detrimental to society use exactly the same methods for exactly the same reasons that you are advocating for your cause. If you are going to believably argue that the First Amendment gives you the right to protest in a given way, then you must also allow that it gives everyone else the right to protest for their cause in the same way, whether you like it or not.

Censored? As I have said often, I am asking those who show these photos to use reasonable judgement based on established societal norms in their exercise of freedom of speech and show at least some lip service to the fact that rights do not exist independent of responsiblity for the way in which you exercise them.

This is no different than what our society expects of anyone who picks out material for the children’s section of the library, stocks the shelves of the local bookstore, displays the inventory at the local magazine shop, lays out photographs for the front page of the local newspaper, decides on the commercials to show during programs aimed at children, puts up billboards advertising a business, decides which trailers to show at G-rated movies, lives in a neighborhood, etc, etc, etc.

This is not some “conspiracy” singling your cause out to “oppress” you.

It is the exact opposite.

It is saying that you are expected to abide by the same standards of decent, appropriate behavior that everybody else is expected to observe toward young children regardless of your cause.

It is saying that you don’t get to decide unilaterally that you are in some way unique and above such petty things as consideration for and responsibility toward your fellow inhabitants of this planet, particularly the youngest ones, simply because you don’t want to be bothered with taking a few basic reasonable precautions to even make the least attempt to avoid showing these pictures to small children who are not engaging in the behavior you are protesting anyway.

 

[Elric]

Thump uch:

And the truth finally comes out. You do want it censored and illegal.

Mate re-read KarenNC’s posts, infact re-read that post you just replied to.

She has made it very clear that she does not want to make such images illegal, she believes that self “censorship” would be a responsible way of protesting. Self “censorship” meaning that you dont display these images where you know children will be (like toystores, schools, shopping malls) and you try to avoid exposing children to these images. She has agreed that such images can be shown to people who are going to a clinic to get an abortion, in an enviroment where children are not expected to be present and at rallies where prior notice has been given to make parents aware of what will be on display. Basically using your own judgement on what is socially appropiate.

I think it is unfair and unreasonable to accuse her of things that she has not stated. She is not against protesting against abortion, she has even stated that she is in fact against abortion, but some of the comments/insinuations towards her have been unkind to say the least.

You have a right to your opinion, as she does, I think it would be best if you debated those opinions in a reasonable way and stayed on the topic at hand.

 

[Bennie_P]

Joining Vern in his attempt at omniscience?

Simply put, you have absolutely no way in the world to know absolutely what other people do or do not do based on what they post on an internet forum. They could claim anything or simply not mention something.

If you do not believe me when I say that I do not support either abortion on demand or the exploitation of women, why would you believe anything I would write about what I do? Why would giving you a laundry list of social activisim in which I am engaged to impress you be more virtuous than keeping my activities to myself? Are they therefore less real than those of someone who trumpets theirs from the rooftop at the drop of a hat? Matthew 6:1-4 does happen to spring to mind (even if Estesbob and Vern seem to think I manage to somehow pervert the Scripture simply by looking at it ). I hold a similar view.

I refused on the other threads to enter into a numbers contest and I will continue to do so here because it is irrelevant.You are free to accept my word or not on my views. I have given you the benefit of accepting that you mean what you say.

The actions we are discussing (showing huge photos of dismembered bloody babies in places that one can be reasonably certain substantial numbers of preschoolers will be exposed to them without their parents’ consent) either are or are not appropriate on their own merits.

Person A does 10 things to end abortion and the exploitation of women and advocates a particular action
Person B does 9 things to end abortion and the exploitation of women and decries as wrong a particular action

Does this make the action automatically right? If person B does two more things is the action suddenly now wrong? Will it flip back to right if person A adds on other activities? Is the number of actions to determine who is in ascendance cumulative or only at a particular time? Who gets to determine which things qualify?

I’m not omniscience, nor do I claim to be. But you sure do a good side step to avoid the issue of importance. You may be appalled by the images and outraged about them, but there is an outrage that cries out to heaven that needs to be addressed. I know in other threads you you have taken “I’m against abortion but we need to keep it legal in order for it to be safe” stance. So what am I to believe? With a stance like that it appears you are against abortion and you are concerned about the welfare of women, but if you slip off that fence, you may wind up getting impaled. If not you then the millions of babies and the million of women that have and will because of people riding the fence.

 

[mapleoak]

Really? Specifics on how you got that out of what I said would be appreciated.

Okay, lets do some analysis.

If it is not okay under the auspices of the First Amendment to show the results of an intrinsically disordered act

It is okay under the first amendment to show the results of an intrisically disordered act. It does not give freedom to perform an intrisically disordered act.

in any and all situations in any and all ways to any and all audiences without let or hindrance in the cause of preventing a repetition of said act

Intrisically disordered actions are not freedom of the press, but a distortion of it. The state is well within in its authority to say that pornography is illegal. Note: this means ‘any and all situations’ doesn’t apply. It is making illegal an act which is detrimental to the moral well being of society, and the state has an obligation to ban such things as indecent. Graphic abortion photos of the results of an abortion are not detrimental to the moral well being of society. Just the opposite.

then it is not okay.

Since, as shown above, ‘any and all situations’ doesn’t work out, therefore this clause means, since it is not okay, we don’t have the right to display photos of the effects of abortion. If you say we don’t have the right to display them, that is the same as saying the state has the power to ban them.

Period.

End of sentence.

Full stop.

Point pounded further through emphasis.

Still wondering how you can make the comparison between the following:

1. Preventing abortion through the display of the effects of abortion. (deed fought with display of deed and/or its effects)
2. Preventing pornography through the display of pornography. (deed fought with deed itself)

Put on your thinking cap. Its not that difficult to see the falacy in comparing the two very different situations.

 

[mapleoak]

Mate re-read KarenNC’s posts, infact re-read that post you just replied to.

She has made it very clear that she does not want to make such images illegal, she believes that self “censorship” would be a responsible way of protesting.

That is not what I got out of it.

Self “censorship” meaning that you dont display these images where you know children will be (like toystores, schools, shopping malls) and you try to avoid exposing children to these images.

Why is that. It has been noted ad nauseam that it is the parents reactions to such photos that harm their children, not the photos themselves.

She has agreed that such images can be shown to people who are going to a clinic to get an abortion, in an enviroment where children are not expected to be present and at rallies where prior notice has been given to make parents aware of what will be on display.

So we need her agreement and approval to excercise our constitutional right to display these photos?

Basically using your own judgement on what is socially appropiate.

Okay then, it is judged to be socially appropriate.

You have a right to your opinion, as she does, I think it would be best if you debated those opinions in a reasonable way and stayed on the topic at hand.

Hmm, wonder how the off-topic of pornography came into the mix?