S
seekerz
Guest
Since when is “chill” an insult? “Dense” certainly is.
- Status
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Then you’ve learned how to sing in the past few days.
It certainly is since it was you who consistently said that you were ‘not prepared’ to prepare your child and that maybe after a couple of years you might be prepared.
It certainly is since another poster used reductio ad absurdem inappropriately to refute my pov on not being prepared to prepare a child and I had to put up with a whole long list of silly frivolous questions.
I must add that my questions have YET to even be addressed let alone answered.
Then the question is how to teach a child about abortion.
Because, if these posters are being displayed where small children are able to view them and small children are not prepared to understand the posters because their parents are not prepared to teach them to understand the posters, then the question is not about displaying the posters. The question is about how to prepare parents to prepare their children to understand the posters.
They are upsetting to children because, as Fr Pavone has pointed out, children know that killing babies is wrong. They are upsetting to us because we know that killing babies is wrong.
However, just because the message is upsetting is no reason to kill shut down the messenger.
That’s your problem. Not ours. If you refuse to prepare yourself and therefore your child – and if you underline this refusal by refusing to read linked material provided to help you to help your children vis a vis the upsetting nature of abortion – then what right do you have to expect us to do your work for you?
Your responsibility is to prepare your child. If you can’t or won’t do that, then don’t blame us if your child is upset and has no way to understand why he/she is upset.
Yep. Now ask yourself this. How can you be sure you are doing the right thing if you flatly refuse to prepare yourself or to read any material which might be helpful to your understanding and assessment of the situation? Isn’t it true that you simply want your way because you want your way?
Let me explain something very elementary to you here. You are on a discussion thread. You have made claims without any supporting evidence. Moreover you have refused to read any of our linked evidence; that has been demonstrated by the absence of any reference in your posts to our linked evidence.
Having your point of view proved wrong is what you risk when you post on a discussion board.
What methods? You have not undertaken to use any methods. Your concept of method is how to get other people to limit their right of free speech.
Your methods should meet the standards of reason, reference, and the social contract. If you are unwilling to do that, then there is nothing we can do to help you with your little problem of upsetting images and there is no point in continuing the discussion with you.
If a parent’s method does not meet the standards of reason and reference and any harm ensues to a child then that parent may forfeit the right to have any say in the matter because the authorities may step in and enforce reason and reference so that harm no longer ensues to the child.
If a parent’s method does not meet the standards of the social contract, then good luck to that parent! Not only might they lose any say in the matter but they may also lose their own freedom.
Now a question to you: what is the social contract?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Why would you turn your children over to someone who wasn’t qualified to care for them?
That’s correct. The child’s response is conditioned by the adult’s response.
P
Philothea53
Guest
Was this a lame attempt at explaining one’s POV?
How about this one instead.
Four year old:
“Why did the mommy not want her baby?”
Caring parent:
“Oh, I’m sure she did, honey. But maybe she didn’t have any money to buy food for her baby(or didn’t think she could be a good mommy or she was sick and she didn’t have someone to help her take care of her baby).”
Four year old:
“How come, Mommy?”
Caring parent:
I don’t know, honey, but I sure am glad that I have you. You are the most important person in the world to me. I love you! (again big hug and raspberry kisses ilicit giggles and four year old is on to four year old things.)
So, you see, abortion is what that child may have seen but you instead turn it into a lesson that some people have less and set your child up for future lessons in caring for the less fortunate. You set him up for future lessons on what can be done to ensure that mothers can’t say that because they don’t have ______ they have to kill their child. You reassure him that even with everything else that goes on in the world you are there and love him. No mention of abortion. Parenting 101
B
boppaid
Guest
What’s your beef with me, lady? I was charitably reminding EVERYBODY (including myself)about the guidelines because people were not abiding by them. Including you. I don’t feel the need to go running to a mod, because we’re all adults here, and in the guidelines it did say that when things start to go against guidelines, they are usually unintentional, so, as fellow posters, a gentle reminder can be helpful. Sorry you disagree. I was posting it, truly, because I felt we were all getting emotional and all (again, including myself) needed a gentle reminder.
I’ve tried to be nice. See my last few posts. I’ve tried to see where you are coming from. YOu continue to be rude. Care to explain?
S
seekerz
Guest
Sorry but that ain’t what I said. Put another way, the onus i*s not *on those opposed to the indiscriminate use of graphic posters to prove their use is wrong, but on those who use them to prove that it’s the decent thing to do.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Begs the question doesn’t it? Why would the bus driver be having this going-nowhere conversation if the parent had prepared himself to prepare the child to understand abortion?
What do you thing this is a joke or something? Did you think this little dialogue between the busdriver and the child would get you a few chuckle/s?. I mean beyond the nod’s-as-good-as-a-wink kind of buffoonery?
S
seekerz
Guest
Your opinion, I suppose, based on your experience. All children are not the same and all are not constantly followed about by their parents. I reiterate, it’s not another caregiver’s responsibility to discuss abortion with a young child, regardless of how qualified they are and what terms the explanation is couched in.
S
seekerz
Guest
So if the child had been prepared, would we expect the bus attendant to explain what the picture was about?Begs the question doesn’t it? Why would the bus driver be having this going-nowhere conversation if the parent had prepared himself to prepare the child to understand abortion?
What do you thing this is a joke or something? Did you think this little dialogue between the busdriver and the child would get you a few chuckle/s?. I mean beyond the nod’s-as-good-as-a-wink kind of buffoonery?
You know, it’s truly sad that anyone would find something to chuckle about in that dialogue.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
You haven’t read the linked material I provided on what to tell children have you? Evidently what other people are going to be telling children as young as 5 about how to get abortions doesn’t faze you a bit? Yes or no please. Thank you.
Now, explain something to us. Is this ‘blob of tissue’ business what you have decided to explain to your child? Is this your idea of preparing yourself to prepare your child?
And you prefer your opinion to the one offered by Fr Pavone on preparing yourself to prepare your child? Uh-huh… the sound of crickets chirping in the distance…
What do they say about removing babies from wombs?
And my question remains. What if the child had not been prepared beforehand by his parent because the parent was ‘not prepared’ and declined to be prepared for another couple of years?
Who are you going to blame then? The busdriver?
[sign]Or yourself?[/sign]
Do you know what you are going to answer? If not, why not?
How do you respond to the string of 'why’s concerning babies in wombs and babies being removed from wombs?
Are you suggesting that any of us have suggested that babies would not – initially anyway – be upset by these pictures? As I have explained to you – numerous times now – children who have been prepared have quite a loving demeanour to the little babies depicted in the posters; they go up to them and fondle the photographs all the while talking babytalk to them as if the images were dolls.
P
Philothea53
Guest
No, a formed baby gets sucked into a suction machine and is ripped to shreds. Starts as a baby, becomes a ‘blob of tissue’ through choice.
Sure a baby in the womb looks like a baby. What else would it look like? That is a big part of the abortion industry’s argument against use of ultasound and 4-D.
All adults would and should give only vague answers to a child of 2 - 7 years when asked about a picture of a child dead by abortion. Just like you give vague answers to other questions a child asks that they aren’t old enough to know the answers too. Will you teach your 5 year old where babies really come from? Mommy’s tummy? Hardly the truth. Vague enough but gets you on to other things. And again, I would hope that you have chosen people to care for your child in your absence who would know how to respond to such questions.
Sure they are meant to evoke an emotional response - and it would be different emotions depending on the age and education of the person looking at it. For a young child they would probably give the requisite EWWW unless and until they were told it was a dead baby. For someone who has never seen the truth of abortion, emotions could run the gamut from sadness to anger to remorse. For those who know what they are looking at and are in the prolife struggle, looking at those pictures would probably confirm their commitment and make them ever more resolved to do what needs to be done. For a pro-abort/someone actively in the abortion industry, they would probably call a meeting to figure out how to better market CHOICE because they would realize the truth is out there now and their bank account balance is in jeopardy.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Rather than address a parsing of my sentences, I will just ask this question:
How hard are you willing to fight to stop the policy of permitting abortion?
Are you willing to pray the Rosary in front of an abortion mill?
If so, you will go to jail. And in the process, the police may use pain to arrest you.
Are you willing to risk being accused of hate speech?
Why not just show abortion for what it is? Namely, the chopping up of little babies and flushing them down the sewer.
What’s the harm in describing abortion for what it is?
We already are scaring little children half to death with movies such as “whatsname’s” film on Global Warming, which is fiction … “An Inconvenient Truth”.
Should we stop that film from being shown?
Compared with that film being shown to children in schools and being shown how polar bears are endangered (which they are not), a few billboards are nothing much.
How hard are you willing to fight to stop the policy of permitting abortion?
Are you willing to pray the Rosary in front of an abortion mill?
If so, you will go to jail. And in the process, the police may use pain to arrest you.
Are you willing to risk being accused of hate speech?
Why not just show abortion for what it is? Namely, the chopping up of little babies and flushing them down the sewer.
What’s the harm in describing abortion for what it is?
We already are scaring little children half to death with movies such as “whatsname’s” film on Global Warming, which is fiction … “An Inconvenient Truth”.
Should we stop that film from being shown?
Compared with that film being shown to children in schools and being shown how polar bears are endangered (which they are not), a few billboards are nothing much.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
To reinforce and comfort if necessary. If the child had been prepared, I doubt if the conversation would go beyond his seat mate.
You bet it is and sadder still that it was offered in such an offhand, flippant manner.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
I hope you are taking notes, seekerz.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Oh reiteration, seekerz, is what we have come to expect of your posts.
Answer us this:
[SIGN]
Whose responsibility
is it to discuss abortion
with young children?
[/SIGN]
S
seekerz
Guest
Let me cut through the repetitious stuff and deal with the “blob of tissue” argument which two posters here responded to in different ways.
According to my interpretation of Philothea53’s description of some abortion pics, they look like what comes out of the suction machine and not like a baby. My comment is, in that case, what’s the point of showing such photos? If someone already thinks they would be aborting a “blob of tissue” and they are shown a blob of tissue, how does that help convince them not to abort?
If I misunderstood the description of the pictures then please correct me. I didn’t think Philothea53 meant that the actual suction procedure was shown in the picture.
P
Philothea53
Guest
You are the one who took the great leap and called the baby in the picture a blob of tissue as a failed attempt to discredit the pictures as feeding into the pro-aborts hands. **I **said that to a child who had not been educated in what a baby who had gone through a suction machine looks like, they would not be able to even identify the picture as that of a baby. EWWW. Gory. Bloody. But not a baby. To an adult with even a low IQ there would be no doubt because of education/experience/frame of reference, etc.
S
seekerz
Guest
Young children don’t need to know what abortion is. When they are mature enough ( a matter for parents to decide), then it’s appropriate.Oh reiteration, seekerz, is what we have come to expect of your posts.
Answer us this:
[SIGN]
Whose responsibility
is it to discuss abortion
with young children?
[/SIGN]
S
sprout
Guest
In all these instances the children are 1) taught by their parents and/or caregivers and 2) taught in an age-appropriate way. 3) taught according to the will and consent of their parents or caregivers.
I completely disagree that children need to be taught about abortion by some stranger on the street, which is what YOU are, by holding up a sign or poster or driving a truck with the giant sized pictures of bloody, mutilated bodies of aborted babies pictures on them.
Teaching about fire is a naturally observable lesson. There is fire around a child every day of their lives, when Mommy or Daddy is cooking on the stove. Since this is **part of their lives **from birth, something within the realm of their consciousness and experience, they need to be taught caution around fire. Even more so with running into the road. Strangers is a bit more difficult but also naturally occuring.
Most parents don’t want to raise their children with an outright fear of all strangers, yet at the same time protect them.
One wouldn’t suggest that because there are pedophiles who rape children that children should be shown the bloody, gory poster-like images of the results of these rapes (can’t bring myself to describe it).
Are you aware of the statistics on the number of Catholic girls who have abortions? Catholic girls at Catholic schools? I used to work at a Pregnancy Center only blocks from a Catholic school. I know for a fact that even though these girls knew full well the horrors of abortion, they would still choose abortion rather than face their Catholic parents with their sin. How do I know this? because the girl would come back to the Center after having the abortion for another pregnancy test. Her reason for having the abortion “I couldn’t tell my parents I was pregnant” or when she was filling out the questionaire that asks about former pregnancies she would say she had an abortion. When asked why? “I couldn’t tell my parents”. So in many, many cases a parent’s “education” of their children on the “horrors” of abortion, birth control, pre-marital sex, not only go flying out the window when hormones start to rage, but these words only come back to haunt them when faced with “tellling their parents” rather than committing the actual crime.
So “educating your children” about abortion can go either way.
You really haven’t established that showing young children large graphic posters of the mutilated bodies of babies without their parents consent or will, is doing anything to “help” anyone but your own ego.
opening the “eyes” of children is not a “remote intent”; it is an “immoral intent”. You have neither the right, responsibility, training or knowledge for “opening the eyes” of children. “Opening the eyes” of children in such a manner does nothing to stop abortion since they are incapable of understanding the “concept” (something their parent would be more qualified to judge) so it cannot in any way shape or form be construed as a remote intent.
Besides, I thought you said earlier you were *not targeting *children!
at least your true intent is finally “out there”.
S
seekerz
Guest
Sorry, but it is a physical impossibility for a baby to pass through a suction machine. Baby parts do and afterwards they often don’t look like much more than tissue. So my question still is why show tissue to those who believe they would be aborting tissue?
If a formed baby is shown, it likely has been aborted in some other way rather than being suctioned out, in which case it should be clear to anyone above the age of 5 (or perhaps younger) that they are seeing head-torso-limbs of a human being.
- Status