V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Because it doesn’t happen.
Or do you have another bogus study of newscasts to prove that crucifixes traumatize children?
- Status
Or do you have another bogus study of newscasts to prove that crucifixes traumatize children?
K
KarenNC
Guest
“It doesn’t happen” that there are crucifixes that I would consider inappropriate for showing to young children?
K
KarenNC
Guest
Wildly popular as appropriate viewing for 2-7 year olds?
netflix.com/Movie/CSI_Season_7/70054922?trkid=189530&strkid=2105310588_2_0
Netflix shows that CSI is rated TV-14: Parents Strongly Cautioned. This program contains some material that many parents would find unsuitable for children under 14 years of age.
Parents’ guides are out there to make sure that folks can make an informed decision about whether or not to watch, which clearly indicate that this show is not considered appropriate for children.
parentstv.org/ptc/shows/main.asp?shwid=346
Even sites that recommend CSI as a potential tool for learning more about forensics has the warning that there are things in it that are not for the very young or for all children
associatedcontent.com/article/65559/why_you_should_watch_csi.html
The last time I looked, no one was showing graphic blood covered mutilated or dismembered dead bodies from CSI on the sides of the public streets. The last time I looked, parents had to actually choose to turn on or rent an episode of CSI as well as choose to do so when their young children were in the room. The last time I looked CSI was not in the line up intermingled with Sesame Street and Barney, nor that ads for it are on these programs.
Do you have examples of scenes or ads from CSI featuring blood covered dismembered or otherwise mutilated bodies that are marketed in slots where preschool children are reasonably considered likely to be viewing?
Notice that it is not forbidden to show these. It is simply required and expected that parents are given a reasonable warning so that they can make a judgement as to when and how to view it if they so desire.
That’s what is being asked here. A reasonable attempt to keep these images in venues where it is not likely that parents with young children will have no option to avoid them.
T
TraderTif
Guest
blink blink Wow is this a long thread!! I finally gave up and just read the 10 most recent pages, lol. 
But, I’m curious…for those of you who do not support the use of graphic images of abortion…
-Back in the 1940’s, should graphic photos of the Holocaust not have been shown, because children might have seen them?
-Today, in the effort to prevent smoking, should photos of black, diseased lungs not be shown, because children might see them?
Or is it only abortion photos that are too graphic to show?
(I’m not trying to provoke anything, I’m sincerely curious)
But, I’m curious…for those of you who do not support the use of graphic images of abortion…
-Back in the 1940’s, should graphic photos of the Holocaust not have been shown, because children might have seen them?
-Today, in the effort to prevent smoking, should photos of black, diseased lungs not be shown, because children might see them?
Or is it only abortion photos that are too graphic to show?
(I’m not trying to provoke anything, I’m sincerely curious)
Tif
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
What you would consider inappropriate is irrelevant. Crucifixes – no matter how realistic – do not traumatize children.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
No. I saw them myself, in the Movietone News newsreel in the Majestic Theater in Lake Charles, LA, when I was about 3 1/2. And I saw the full monty – the gruesome half-burned remains in the crematoria, the naked bodies being dumped into a trench by Germans from nearby towns who were brought in to do that work, the emaciated survivors with their haunting eyes.
And it did me a world of good – I was never attracted by any “mass movement” or ideology thereafter.
No. Children should be shown graphically what smoking can do to them, and shown at an early age, before they start smoking.
That appears to be the case – notice that until some of us pointed it out, the gruesome, realistic crucifixes in most Catholic churches weren’t even noticed by those who are shocked – shocked, I tell you! – at pictures of aborted babies.
P
proudnifi
Guest
Arg. Breaking my plan to not post anymore. But your question seems to be genuine. Technically, you asked for opinions from those who don’t support the use of graphic pictures of abortion - I am in favor of disciminating use.blink blink Wow is this a long thread!! I finally gave up and just read the 10 most recent pages, lol.
But, I’m curious…for those of you who do not support the use of graphic images of abortion…
-Back in the 1940’s, should graphic photos of the Holocaust not have been shown, because children might have seen them?
-Today, in the effort to prevent smoking, should photos of black, diseased lungs not be shown, because children might see them?
Or is it only abortion photos that are too graphic to show?
(I’m not trying to provoke anything, I’m sincerely curious)
Code:Tif
I would not show young children graphic Holocaust photos. Some Holocause photos would be fine, some would not. Persons looking like prisoners standing in line (in the striped uniforms) might be ok; naked, distorted bodies probably would not be.
I don’t consider photos of black, diseased lungs shown by themselves to be particularly gruesome. So, I probably wouldn’t mind - but if they were also shown as being in fresh cadaver, I probably would mind.
When I was in Cologne over the summer there was an anti-war display in the public square across from the Cathedral. I wasn’t too happy to see some of the photos in such a public place - it was a topic of conversation between my husband and I. At that time, I was against the use of “shock tactics” to make a point (thinking people should make decisions using their heads), but having read some threads on this board related to abortion, I’ve changed my mind. But, not indiscriminate use.
So, no, I’m not objecting to graphic abortion photos because of the abortion topic, it’s the graphic violence aspect.
Hope that answers your question.
S
sprout
Guest
I haven’t seen anyone here who “does not support the use of graphic images of abortion”. The issue being hotly debated here is the **“indiscriminate” **use of these images. Specifically the large posters displayed where young children can be exposed i.e. on the sides of trucks in daily traffic, at sidewalk corners, busy streets, billboards, etc. These are all “indiscriminate” in that they fail to “discriminate” or exercise prudence in who will be exposed to these images.blink blink Wow is this a long thread!! I finally gave up and just read the 10 most recent pages, lol.
But, I’m curious…for those of you who do not support the use of graphic images of abortion…
-Back in the 1940’s, should graphic photos of the Holocaust not have been shown, because children might have seen them?
-Today, in the effort to prevent smoking, should photos of black, diseased lungs not be shown, because children might see them?
Or is it only abortion photos that are too graphic to show?
(I’m not trying to provoke anything, I’m sincerely curious)
Code:Tif
I don’t recall that holocaust or other images were made into large posters or placed on the sides of moving vans and carted about the country indiscriminately. If they were made into lifesize posters at all, it was placed in a museum somewhere. Other than that one would have to look in a book or magazine to view these images at their own discretion. I don’t have a problem with this whether it’s abortion, holocaust, lung cancer, you name it, as long as it allows some modicum of civility, charity and respect for the innocence of children and their parents rights to protect their child’s innocence.
Bottom line it’s the lack of and/or contempt of the use of discretion that is at issue here.
K
KarenNC
Guest
Back in the 40s were they putting the images of naked, dismembered bloody Holocaust victims on the sides of trucks and parking them outside baseball games? In people’s neighborhoods? Flying them overhead behind airplanes?blink blink Wow is this a long thread!! I finally gave up and just read the 10 most recent pages, lol.
But, I’m curious…for those of you who do not support the use of graphic images of abortion…
-Back in the 1940’s, should graphic photos of the Holocaust not have been shown, because children might have seen them?
-Today, in the effort to prevent smoking, should photos of black, diseased lungs not be shown, because children might see them?
Or is it only abortion photos that are too graphic to show?
(I’m not trying to provoke anything, I’m sincerely curious)
Code:Tif
It is a matter of reasonable care, not all or nothing. Vern mentions seeing the newsreels at 3 1/2. It was his parents’ choice that he attend those movies (as I doubt even the most precocious three year old is sneaking into movie theaters alone).
Pictures such as this shamash.org/holocaust/photos/images/Maidan02.jpg or shamash.org/holocaust/photos/images/MedExp01.jpg or this shamash.org/holocaust/photos/images/MedExp03.jpgor some of these cassiopaea.org/cass/warning1.htm (warning, all very graphic)? No, I don’t believe they should be on the front page of newspapers or magazines or held up on sidewalks where preschoolers are likely to see them in the reasonably anticipated course of their activities. Inside the paper or magazine aimd at adults, yes, they certainly have their place and value. In history books, materials and discussion groups for older children maybe–depends on the situation, older teens, college students, adults, yes.
I don’t consider graphic photos of real life violence on human beings to be either appropriate or useful for the education and information of children in the age range I am discussing—from ages 2-7. This is not just abortion photos, as I thought I had made abundantly clear (but you may have missed those pages).
I don’t favor showing them graphic photos of dead and brutalized rape victims, people dismembered in traffic accidents, half eaten by sharks, blown up in roadside bombings, riddled with shotgun blasts, smashed flat by being run over, beaten to a bloody pulp, naked starved and gassed in a gas chamber, etc. What does it truly benefit to show this to them in kindergarten rather than when they are old enough to put it in a workable perspective?
One poster in one of these two threads said that we should look on these photos as we would happening to run across a fatal traffic accident, as an opportunity to teach our kids not to play in traffic. Surely we as a society should be able to convey the message “it’s not good to play in the street” to a 4 year old without the need to show the body of a child laying in the street, face distorted and skull flattened under a tire, eyeballs popped out and hanging by the optic nerve, brains and blood covering everywhere still clutching a ball?
Likewise, I think we can manage to convey the message “babies are human before they are born and we should be nice to them” without these photos.
As to the graphic medical photos such as the smoking ones, no, I don’t see a point in them for 2-7 year olds, but I don’t think they are likely to be traumatic to young children as photos of recognizable human beings, especially photos of dead and dismembered babies and young children.
K
KarenNC
Guest
Could it be because the rest of us were discussing the topic of the thread, which is not, that I noticed “objections to the use of extremely violent and bloody religious art.”
I have definite opinions on the appropriateness of a lot of very graphically violent and bloody religious art, but as such is primarily used in your own schools and houses of worship or in museums rather than paraded up and down the street, I feel I can reasonably assume that it is unlikely most preschoolers are encountering it without their parents’ consent on any regular basis. Even Mel Gibson himself said that the “Passion of the Christ” was not appropriate for children under 13.
My objection is to the choice of presentation for this specific audience, not primarily the subject matter.
B
bmmckinney
Guest
They put the photos of naked, burnt, and mutilated bodies in the movie theatres and in the newspapers and on tv because the world wouldn’t have believed otherwise. Anyone attempting to cover up photos of the holocaust would be correctly labeled as an antisemite, anyone trying to cover up the reality of abortion is ignorant and probably not prolife and if they think they are they are foolishly supporting what abortion supporters and the devil want, a cover up.
S
sprout
Guest
First of all, asking for “discrimination” so that young children not be exposed in no way, shape, or form equals “trying to cover up the reality of abortion”.
I wasn’t born then so I will have to take your word for it that these graphic images of burnt, naked and mutilated bodies were plastered on the front pages of newspapers, tv, and movie theatres. However, that was what? the late 40’s early 50’s?
In this day and age even the “Lest We Forget” Auschwitz website auschwitz.dk/id19.htm posts this warning:
.
and this is on a website in the privacy of my own home!
Ya know, that’s all I’m asking, just a little consideraton, a little “discernment”, a little “discretion” and care be taken to try not to expose young children and their parents as modeled above for us by our Jewish brethren.
S
seekerz
Guest
Well, to use your own words then, in the era before use of such images the pro-life movement would have been guilty of being part of that cover-up.
For that matter, so would have all the Catholics who ever lived since photography was invented until the time some brave souls dared to show these graphic images!
(You know of course that legal or not, abortions have been performed for hundreds of years, so those who lived before the era of Roe v. Wade are not excluded).
Hey why stop at abortion? Let’s photograph the ugly effects of every sinful action and exhibit them to just anyone who walks by on the street! After all we wouldn’t want to cover up evil now would we?
E
estesbob
Guest
More trivlilization of the killing of 1.2 million children a year. Its all just a big game to you isnt it? Just menaingless numbers. Meanwhile 4,000 more children have been killed today. Why doesnt that offend you?
S
seekerz
Guest
Did you even read the two posts? I was only responding to bmmckinney’s logic. How would you even know what offends me?
Thankfully, I don’t need shock tactics or astounding numbers to oppose abortion and neither will the kids I raise if I can help it.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
No, they put them in the newsreels that ran just before the Disney cartoon and the main children’s feature.
Everyone went to the movies in those days, and they ran the same newsreel for children’s shows and adults.
J
joab
Guest
Vern,
You brougjht this up earlier in a post and I replied. I do not attend a church here that has any graphic crucifixes in them. We are part of a tri-parish and share also with two more parishes and I have yet to see any crucifix with even the color red on them. The statues are of Mary, Jesus and Joseph and are very serene to look at. I just don’t know where you are viewing such images.
As for CSI and the rest of the TV world, once again, as a parent I have the choice of allowing the children to see such things.
When our church decided on showing the Passion, it was restricted to adults and the confirmation class. The students had to have a parent with and a signed statement they could view it with our permission. Before that happened, the parents had to sit through a private viewing first and then we discussed it over in group with the priest.
It is wrong to show graphic abortion pictures to young children without the prior consent of their parents. Care should be taken to protect the born children as well as the unborn. I even wonder if it is a sin to violate their innocence, or cause damage to them. I think so.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
You’ve never been to a Catholic church with realistic depictions of the Crucifixion? You don’t believe such churches exist?
However, it is God, not any lay person who decides what sin is.
Some of those who are fighting against abortion find these images to be effective. It cannot be a sin to save innocent human lives. It may, however, be a sin to deliberately omit actions which could save lives.
J
joab
Guest
Where ever do you live? I do not see such pictures. Reality is enough as a past solider and a current EMT. However, are you saying, that a parent can not stop their children from going to the movies or watching tv or even buying the newspaper? Of course they can. So if I don’t think it is appropriate in the child’s life to see the pics, that doesn’t matter? Just what you think/believe is enough for you to make decisions for my children and countless others?
Side note: I have asked you several times in this thread when you accused me of hyprocracy to show me where. You don’t reply. I need to know where I committed this sin so I can correct it. You need to reply instead of just throwing around words.
J
joab
Guest
I believe in a lot of things. However, I thought you were implying that all Catholic churches have “realistic depictions of the Crucifixion” in them. I was making the point that most here do not.
How does showing Jesus’ love for us translate into my children being damaged by people carelessly showing graphic abortion pictures against my will?
As it is a sin to delibertly harm a child. By having prior knowledge of such pictures ability to harm children and showing them where children will be, that would be delibertly harming the children. Don’t even go there-where you once again say that my reactions harmed my child. You can have the 4+thousand dollar bills and counting. I have explained it twice. My child was harmed by the showing of graphic pictures of abortions on the roadside.
I am sorry folks, for sounding angry. I have just had to commit my child again over the abortion pictures. He cannot get them out of his mind and is once again, planning to kill anyone connected with abortions(electric company officials, construction owners, sewer companies}. He believes that you guys are going about it all wrong. In his words," If they(abortion providers) have no place to do their business, then thier business wouldn’t get done" Cut the power, sewer, building out of the picture and there would be a dramatic reduction in abortions. Does anyone want to give my the logical response so that I don’t have a serial killer in my future? I wish he’d never seen those pictures.
- Status