V
vern_humphrey
Guest
If nothing else, it sure makes your arm tired.The animal wasn’t a dd he was it? :getholy: I think beating dd h**es is discouraged.
If nothing else, it sure makes your arm tired.The animal wasn’t a dd he was it? :getholy: I think beating dd h**es is discouraged.
There are more efficient ways…The animal wasn’t a dd he was it? :getholy: I think beating dd h**es is discouraged.
Hey now, that might be a little too graphic!
Yeah. Little children might see it!!Hey now, that might be a little too graphic!![]()
As you said you did not understand what I meant, I expalined, including exactly what I was replying to and why. As you seem more interested in making jokes than actually responding to either the original point or the explanded explanation, I will be glad to try again in simpler terms if you still don’t understand.Before you presume to tell me what I think, have the courtesy to put on your turban and gaze into your crystal ball.
You’re not clear because you presume to tell me what I think. You’re arguing with your own ideas, not with mine.
Once again, you presume to tell the rest of us what we think.
Note that no one is ascribing motive to you. No one is presuming to tell you what you think.
Can you not extend the same courtesy to others?
How does showing graphic photographs of piles of the blood-covered mangled body parts of mutilated dead babies do a better job of teaching children ages 2-7 (or anyone, for that matter) what children look like at different stages of development than showing them what intact, living children look like at the same stages? My daughter has had books since she was 4 with very detailed pictures of babies at various stages of development before birth. They are some of her favorite books. She is well aware that they are babies and not “clumps of cells.” I didn’t have to show her pictures of bloody body parts to make that message abundantly clear.Here in Ireland there is a group that make postcard size graphic pictures that disturb, they do change hearts.
Sadly out of sight is out of mind, I could scarcely believe that I posted a picture to a nurse in Illinois and she didn’t know that babies were so well formed before they were cruelly torn from their mothers.
Have to say she was pro-choice, but after seeing the pictures she is pro-life, so they do work.
She thought it was a clump of cells, so yes out of sight is out of mind, we need to show the world these graphic images, HELL will be the reward for this unrepented sin.
And you seem determined to make this personal.As you said you did not understand what I meant, I expalined, including exactly what I was replying to and why. As you seem more interested in making jokes than actually responding to either the original point or the explanded explanation, I will be glad to try again in simpler terms if you still don’t understand.
How in the world do you know whether or not someone “gets hot” toward abortion providers based on what they say about the tactics of certain prolife activists on this board?I won’t ascribe motive to anyone – but I wonder why some people get so hot against those who show pictures of aborted babies, but not against those who killed the babies?
Babies that you believe are acceptable to kill under certain circumstances. How do you explain that to your child?How does showing graphic photographs of piles of the blood-covered mangled body parts of mutilated dead babies do a better job of teaching children ages 2-7 (or anyone, for that matter) what children look like at different stages of development than showing them what intact, living children look like at the same stages? My daughter has had books since she was 4 with very detailed pictures of babies at various stages of development before birth. They are some of her favorite books. She is well aware that they are babies and not “clumps of cells.” I didn’t have to show her pictures of bloody body parts to make that message abundantly clear.
Then I suggest that you and mapleoak and vernhumprhey and philothea all get together to put together a curriculum involving these photographs of piles of bloody baby body parts for preschoolers and present it to your local Sunday School and Catholic school preschool curriculum committees.I don’t get it. What are we protecting children from again? Their own valid emotional responses to a manifest evil which they recognize because moral law is already written on their hearts?.. I believe we cannot protect children from life but we can give them the tools to make their own preliminary forays into the world of choice. Without information children don’t learn to make choices.
My best friend btw had a nervous breakdown many years later. Her mother said that she had carried the weight of the world too heavy on her shoulders. I don’t think so. I think that her shoulders were never given a chance to strengthen themselves for adult life.
In what way have I tried to “avoid talking about the horror that goes on in these clinics” to anyone other than preschoolers and young elementary children? What have I said that gives you the indication that I believe abortion is anything but a terribly tragic situation or that I support abortion in all and every case for all and every reason? Have I even said that you should never show these pictures to anyone ever? No, I have specifically said that I believe these photos do indeed have a place in the discussion, just not in front of very young children.The only way one can rationalize supporting abortion is to discuss it only in the abstract. Usually this entails talking about reproductive rights or “choice”. When pressed on the issue they generally resort to attacking the pro-life position on the fringes. They trying change the subject to a discussion on very rare estopic pregnancies , equally rare pregnancies that directly imperil the life of the mother or question our compassion for rape and incest victims. Anything but talk about the horror that goes on these clinics.
What makes you think I was talking about you?In what way have I tried to “avoid talking about the horror that goes on in these clinics” to anyone other than preschoolers and young elementary children? What have I said that gives you the indication that I believe abortion is anything but a terribly tragic situation or that I support abortion in all and every case for all and every reason? Have I even said that you should never show these pictures to anyone ever? No, I have specifically said that I believe these photos do indeed have a place in the discussion, just not in front of very young children.
While pregnancy in any young girl is tragic, there is a difference between talking about pregnant 14 year olds and pregnant 9 year olds, whatever the outcome of the pregnancy. Just like there is a difference in talking about appropriate sexual education strategies for a 4 year old and a 12 year old. Statistics about pregnancy and abortion rates in girls under 15 do not tell us how many of those girls were 9, 12 or 14. None of these statistics are related to whether the practice of showing graphic photos of piles of mangled bloody baby parts to the 2-7 year olds that I am discussing is appropriate.guttmacher.org/presentations/abort_slides.pdf
Here is a sickening compilation of facts from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood. While you have to wade through these pages of facts according to AGI on how ‘safe’ abortion is and the selfish, self-serving reasons women give for killing their unborn children, you can see on page 23 that Guttmacher reports <1% of abortions are done on girls younger than 15 years of age. The website has changed - they removed reference to the pre-teens having abortions that they used to have (gee, imagine that). There used to be clear reference to babies having babies - when it suited their purpose. I won’t do any more research for you,…
But, doing the math, 1% of 1.3 million abortions per year (down from a high of 1.5 million) is 13,000 babies of pregnant girls younger than 15 years old are killed every year . Again with the math, that’s 442,000 babies killed since 1973 of pregnant little girls.
I am not sure how to respond to a question that you asked me directly about not understanding something that I posted in response to a comment you made without making it “personal” by directing the response to you.And you seem determined to make this personal.
I totally Agree with this!Getting back on topic of this THREAD. I have seen the “graphic images” and I have no problem with showing them to adults and possibly even teens.
However I don’t like it when it could be easily exposed to a 4 year old. At that age they can distinguish between real and fake and showing an unspeakable atrocity (which abortion certainly is) to a 4 year old is not good.
I am not suggesting we pack up and not use it at all but perhaps we could show it places where young children are not likely to see it.
Our children’s innocence is being lost through the crud of the Internet and TV.
Oh no I must believe that abortion is okay, b/c I never saw images like this until I became an adult…If you dont explain to them in detail the horror of abortion the culture they live in will convince them its not.
I will and have explained to my child those of my views that she has the need and developmental ability to understand. I will continue to do so.Babies that you believe are acceptable to kill under certain circumstances. How do you explain that to your child?
If you dont explain to them in detail the horror of abortion the culture they live in will convince them its not.
Hi Karen,Education is a process. What is appropriate for adults, highschoolers, even middle schoolers, is not automatically, therefore, appropriate for preschoolers.
They do get the message across however horrifying, as per example above.How does showing graphic photographs of piles of the blood-covered mangled body parts of mutilated dead babies do a better job of teaching children ages 2-7 (or anyone, for that matter)
A little too graphic Bob, come on tighten up…