Leaving pro-life literature, where is it legal?

[KarenNC]

Not sure how you equate participation in murder with graphic bumper stickers.
Which argument? Curious to know where you deduced from what I had written that it is alright to participate in the dealings of abortion clinics.

You are the one who made the connection between the desirability not only to see graphic images of the “grim realities of life” as young as possible but actual active participation at as young an age as possible. Your example was the full participation in slaughtering animals at age 5 and how well that worked. Simply an extension of your argument.

"They will know and understand the evil of abortion, as I did at the ‘tender’ age of 5.

Even before the age of 5 there was planted deeply the understanding of where our food comes from, for example. I was ‘exposed’ to slaughtered animals being skinned and gutted all the while instructed on what it means to properly care for and respect animals as God’s creatures while they are alive. Actually, it was a bit more than exposure, rather participation. It never caused nightmares. Bring a city kid into that same situation, who has never been exposed to the ‘grim reality’ of where there food comes from, yes there may be some explaining to do. "

If this is the way to properly expose someone to one “grim reality”…

The intent is to bring to public awareness the sad reality of what is happening daily on our bloodthirsty soil. In doing so, children are going to see these images also. Saying that they will have nightmares after seeing such pictures is a rather baseless assertion. I know of no one, in all the time I have been involved in right to life organizations, of anyone who said there child was marred from exposure to abortion photos. It is up to you whether you are going to spend the appropriate time with them so they have a proper understanding of the evil of abortion.

Or did they just lose their capacity to be shocked by them or care about them? Is that truly your goal?

“There certainly was no cumulative effect involved. In fact, I believe it works the opposite of what you are saying; the more exposure, the more jaded. Watch horror movies all the time, and they eventually lose their shock element.”

Baseless assertion? Hardly. As I said, I don’t want my child to grow up so jaded to violence against other human beings that she no longer reacts to it, regardless of the situation of that violence. That would be precisely why we don’t watch shows or movies full of violence, play video games in which we shoot people, etc.

I’m going to make an ignorant statement also: Earlier, you said you didn’t want you children to see anything that would shock them. Might give them nightmares.

No, I said I wanted to be in control of that process as much as possible in order that it occurs at a developmentally appropriate time and in an appropriate manner, when they have the ability to fully understand the context. The nightmares are simply a side effect I have witnessed from other exposure by some children and not an inconsequential one.

Eventually, like it or not, they are going to see something that is upsetting. If they are in total shock after seeing it (as if they have never been instructed on what abortion is or what happens) it is a reflection on you as a parent.

As i responded to another poster "Yes, they will “be exposed to things we will have no control over whether we like it or not.” I am prepared to explain if I have to. I had simply harbored the evidently naive hope that people who claim to follow the teachings and example of Jesus in his treatment of others would not be the ones choosing to perpetrate such exposure.

Is such truly what you believe Jesus would do? "

I also don’t instruct my young child using photos of the latest bayoneting techiques, graphic photos of the immediate aftereffects of roadside bombs, people who have been burned to death because war happens. It is a matter of the technique, not the subject matter. Frankly a 4 or 6 year old is not the apprpriate target audience—they can neither participate in the activity nor do anything to stop it. Stick to your proper target audience and distribute your material in ways that it reaches them, not simply whoever walks by.

The intent of displaying graphic photos is not to provide “age appropriate” instruction to toddlers.

Well, at least you finally seem to have some concept that not everything is appropriate for everyone or for all situations. What I am asking is that people deal with these sorts of material in a responsible way, rather than just strewing them around the countryside.

It is to raise public awareness of the most gruesome issue plaguing the world today.

There are other, more appropriate ways in which to do so.

How your children handle it is under your control.

I would rather it be able to be proactive control rather than damage control.

 

[urban-hermit]

I guess after running across those graphic pictures and explaining them to the child, it’s pretty hard to then say “Mommy’s pro-Choice”, eh?

 

[RichT]

*I don’t see anything wrong with the cards the OP is talking about. I do have a hard time with the more graphic images being in public view, especially in light of children. And then again I think of what my 8 year old daughter and I saw in the grocery store yesterday after mass. Two teen girls dressed in very little, each wearing shorts that read "F%K OFF" on ther backsides. Our children will be exposed to things we will have no control over whether we like it or not. We as parents had better be prepared to do a lot of explaining when they start asking questions.

I am glad you are at least a bit troubled over the graphic images.

Yes, they will “be exposed to things we will have no control over whether we like it or not.” I am prepared to explain if I have to. I had simply harbored the evidently naive hope that people who claim to follow the teachings and example of Jesus in his treatment of others would not be the ones choosing to perpetrate such exposure.

Is such truly what you believe Jesus would do?

So, considiering what we are up against, we had also better prepare our children at an early age to value life, before the otherside gets to them first. I’m not suggesting we show our young ones these graphic images, but I certainly hope those who don’t want to have to explain things like abortion to their little ones don’t regret not starting early. Either you can expain it, or the world can. I know that for me, I will explain before the world gets a chance.

My particular point is that there are better, more appropriate ways of teaching children the value and sacredness of life.

Yes, I am troubled by the images, although I do feel that they have their place.

As far as there being better, more apporiate ways of teaching our children, I am not questioning that there are. I am concerned, however, about the parents who shelter their children to the point that they wait until it is too late to teach them anything. By then the world has gotten ahold of them and we parents have lost the battle.

 

[mapleoak]

You are the one who made the connection between the desirability not only to see graphic images of the “grim realities of life” as young as possible but actual active participation at as young an age as possible. Your example was the full participation in slaughtering animals at age 5 and how well that worked. Simply an extension of your argument.

Sorry, but to twist what I said in order to try to advance your point does nothing for your argument. You stated that I was saying children should participate in dealings with abortion clinics. My example was specifically directed toward debunking your baseless assertion that children are so fragile that they shrivel up if they see a graphic photo depicting the truth of abortion. This is nonsense.

If this is the way to properly expose someone to one “grim reality”…

Yes, it is one tool that is highly effective. Again, the intention is not directed at toddlers, but adults who have no idea the reality that is taking place. It is understood that children are also going to see these images, but that is only tolerated, not purposefully intended. The good that comes about from raising public awareness outweighs your feelings that your children are going to be damaged from them. I would say take the time to properly educate your children.

Or did they just lose their capacity to be shocked by them or care about them? Is that truly your goal?

Shock value is of little consequence. Hollywood thrives on shock value.

“There certainly was no cumulative effect involved. In fact, I believe it works the opposite of what you are saying; the more exposure, the more jaded. Watch horror movies all the time, and they eventually lose their shock element.”

Baseless assertion? Hardly. As I said, I don’t want my child to grow up so jaded to violence against other human beings that she no longer reacts to it, regardless of the situation of that violence. That would be precisely why we don’t watch shows or movies full of violence, play video games in which we shoot people, etc.

Now you are saying your child will grow up jaded to violence against human beings. Before you were saying they cumulatively get more damaged by each exposure. I was stating a fact that shock value diminishes with exposure, which is the opposite of what you were saying. The display of images again, is not to shock, but to inform. Further, young children don’t get shocked by such things anyway, due to their limited understanding. Adults do. You have a rare situation indeed if your children are having a problem with this.

No, I said I wanted to be in control of that process as much as possible in order that it occurs at a developmentally appropriate time and in an appropriate manner, when they have the ability to fully understand the context. The nightmares are simply a side effect I have witnessed from other exposure by some children and not an inconsequential one.

Again, your experience. Mine has been different.

As i responded to another poster "Yes, they will “be exposed to things we will have no control over whether we like it or not.” I am prepared to explain if I have to.

Awesome! Then what is the problem.

I had simply harbored the evidently naive hope that people who claim to follow the teachings and example of Jesus in his treatment of others would not be the ones choosing to perpetrate such exposure.

Can you show how this morally bankrupt?

You are not doing a good job of persuading me to remove my bumper stickers, rather you are attacking me for doing so. The shoe is on your foot if you desire to change my mind as you brought up the argument. You made baseless claims and I refuted them. That is all. Good day.

 

[boppaid]

It’s exactly like advertising. .

Advertising is not free. You have to pay to advertise. Is that what the OP is doing? I guess I’m confused.

 

[KarenNC]

As far as there being better, more apporiate ways of teaching our children, I am not questioning that there are. I am concerned, however, about the parents who shelter their children to the point that they wait until it is too late to teach them anything. By then the world has gotten ahold of them and we parents have lost the battle.

What gives you the impression that because I object to running across business cards with graphic photos of dead babies that I shelter my child to the point that it is too late to teach her anything? What point do you consider too late for this particular topic, out of curiosity?

 

[KarenNC]

** Again, the intention is not directed at toddlers, but adults who have no idea the reality that is taking place. It is understood that children are also going to see these images, but that is only tolerated, not purposefully intended. **

If it is not directed at children, then I argue that responsible people take the time and trouble to not leave them around in ways likely to fall into the hands of children. Strewing these cards around the countryside is not a responsible method.

**Now you are saying your child will grow up jaded to violence against human beings. Before you were saying they cumulatively get more damaged by each exposure. I was stating a fact that shock value diminishes with exposure, which is the opposite of what you were saying. **

I consider becoming jaded to be “damaged” as well.

The display of images again, is not to shock, but to inform. Further, young children don’t get shocked by such things anyway, due to their limited understanding. Adults do. You have a rare situation indeed if your children are having a problem with this.

It is precisely because children have limited understanding that I am saying that it is irresponsible to use these images in ways that lend themselves to falling into the hands of children. They do no active good and can do active harm.

You are not doing a good job of persuading me to remove my bumper stickers, rather you are attacking me for doing so. The shoe is on your foot if you desire to change my mind as you brought up the argument. You made baseless claims and I refuted them. That is all. Good day.

Well, if I had been arguing against your bumper stickers that might be relevant. I am not concerned about your bumper stickers nor have I said word one about your bumper stickers. You are absolutely right that my child is unlikely to be aware enough of a passing bumper sticker on the highway to be problematic. If you had them plastered on your car that was parked in a driveway across the street from my child’s bedroom window day in and day out, it is an issue I would discuss with you. I may consider them extremely inappropriate, but it is your private property.

I am concerned about the practice of leaving cards and pamphlets with graphic pictures of aborted babies in public areas, on cars, etc where they are likely to fall into the hands of young children, usually without the permission of the owner of the property and often in direct conflict (at least in my experience) with well posted signs stating no solicitation or unauthorized distribution of literature is allowed.

 

[KarenNC]

I guess after running across those graphic pictures and explaining them to the child, it’s pretty hard to then say “Mommy’s pro-Choice”, eh?

Actually better to be accurate and give some developmentally appropriate version of “Sex is a wonderful and sacred act that should only occur between two adults in a committed lasting relationship, when both people are mature enough as well as financially and emotionally ready to deal with the consequences of their actions. It has emotional and physical consequences and is not something to be entered into lightly. One of those consequences, even if you use the most effective forms of birth control, can be getting pregnant, which creates the responsibility for a new life. Abortion is not an easy way out of such a situation, regardless of whether you meant to get pregnant or not. It is without exception a tragic event and has very long term consequences for everyone involved.”

 

[urban-hermit]

Originally Posted by urban-hermit

… and that’s why Mommy’s pro-choice? You’re still trying to slither away from being direct and understandable to your child. I think that’s the whole reason you (not your child) are so upset by these pictures. If you can’t explain it in a developmentally appropriate way (which I would challenge you to do here, since it can’t be any more time-consuming than the other carefully worded posts you have submitted), you should consider the possibility that your position simply makes no sense.

 

[nan]

The OP stated very early on that the cards left are not graphic. Yet the discussion has evolved into a debate over graphics. In my opinion, leaving one of those cards is an act of love. I think God has inspired me many times to leave a card/pamphlet in a certain place for a reason. As to the legality - can anyone answer that question? I don’t think leaving a card under the salt shaker at a local restaurant, for example, is offensive, and I can’t imagine anyone getting upset over it. That reaction strikes me as defensive.

 

[KarenNC]

The OP stated very early on that the cards left are not graphic. Yet the discussion has evolved into a debate over graphics. In my opinion, leaving one of those cards is an act of love. I think God has inspired me many times to leave a card/pamphlet in a certain place for a reason. As to the legality - can anyone answer that question? I don’t think leaving a card under the salt shaker at a local restaurant, for example, is offensive, and I can’t imagine anyone getting upset over it. That reaction strikes me as defensive.

I would say it would depend in part on whether the place, as many do for this very reason, have specific signs stating that no solicitation or unauthorized distribution of literature is allowed on the premises. Most of these store owners have evidently had negative experiences previously with folks deciding on what was appropriate to leave where without consent of the store owners.

It’s called the Golden Rule. In essence, if it is a place you don’t want to run into literature such as Jack Chick tracts or pro-choice literature or solicitations for gay escort services, then you probably shouldn’t be leaving your stuff either. By doing so, you are making the choice for the business as to what material is available in their business. Would it be equally okay for pro-choice folks to come into a Catholic bookstore, for instance, and stick ads for abortion services in the books unbeknownst to the owner of the store or ads/coupons for birth control pills and condoms in the NFP guides?

 

[nan]

Well, the situation you describe - that of leaving pro-abortion literature in a pro-life book/bookstore would better equate to someone leaving the anti-abortion cards in the offerings inside an abortion clinic, I think. Both places certainly are private property(although I suspect some of my taxes in New York State support the latter), so I would agree that leaving them in either place shows a lot of chutzpah. However, I don’t foresee a problem leaving one card in a “neutral” place frequented by the public.

 

[KarenNC]

… and that’s why Mommy’s pro-choice? You’re still trying to slither away from being direct and understandable to your child. I think that’s the whole reason you (not your child) are so upset by these pictures. If you can’t explain it in a developmentally appropriate way (which I would challenge you to do here, since it can’t be any more time-consuming than the other carefully worded posts you have submitted), you should consider the possibility that your position simply makes no sense.

First, what is your basis for determining “my position?”

I choose not to expose her to them any more than I choose to expose her to graphic images from a battlefield or child abuse or murder or a car wreck or a natural disaster. I do not consider that graphic photos of dead people are a necessary part of her education at this point in her life. I don’t consider extended graphic descriptions or depictions of murders any more appropriate than extended grpahic descriptions or depictions of sexual intercourse or child abuse.

At this stage, with a fairly advanced 6 year old, I would handle it the same way I handle information on war or murder or child abuse. That sometimes people make bad decisions and do horrible things to others, even to babies, sometimes for reasons we just don’t understand. It’s wrong and very sad and something that Mommy and Daddy are working to help keep from happening now and in the future, but it is not something that she needs to worry about or feel responsible for. It is something only adults can do anything about. No, it isn’t something that is going to happen to your or your friends or to us.

The person who left these pictures around made a bad choice, because they didn’t stop to think whether little kids would pick these up and get scared or worried about things they could not control or do anything about. Yes, it is littering and yes, littering is wrong because it is making someone else responsible for cleaning up the mess you chose to make.

 

[estesbob]

First, what is your basis for determining “my position?”

The person who left these pictures around made a bad choice, because they didn’t stop to think whether little kids would pick these up and get scared or worried about things they could not control or do anything about. Yes, it is littering and yes, littering is wrong because it is making someone else responsible for cleaning up the mess you chose to make.

Do you believe abortion should be illegal?

 

[KarenNC]

Well, the situation you describe - that of leaving pro-abortion literature in a pro-life book/bookstore would better equate to someone leaving the anti-abortion cards in the offerings inside an abortion clinic, I think. Both places certainly are private property(although I suspect some of my taxes in New York State support the latter), so I would agree that leaving them in either place shows a lot of chutzpah. However, I don’t foresee a problem leaving one card in a “neutral” place frequented by the public.

It isn’t “one card in one place.” It is everyone feeling that they and they alone should be the arbiters of what is put out, regardless of the wishes or policies of the owner of the property (public or private) and leaving all their cards in the same places. It is the mindset that their issues and wishes and theirs alone are what is important or worth considering and that they are above such petty considerations as posted signs or policies of others.

Realize that, ethically, if you are willing to make the choice to do this, you are saying that it is also okay for every other group to do so as well with their literature, no matter how graphic.

 

[KarenNC]

Do you believe abortion should be illegal?

I am asking urban-hermit to define what s/he means by “my position” based on the comment “you should consider the possibility that your position simply makes no sense.”

Until I have clarification on what is meant by “my position” including my position on what specifically (graphic images, littering, leaving cards, abortion, etc), then I cannot productively discuss whether it makes sense or not.

 

[dulcissima]

I’ve delivered pro-life anti-Planned Parenthood literature door to door in my community. I had my 4 kids help out with this too. There were quite a few people out and about who I handed the literature to. No one got upset. I get all sorts of advertisements left on my doorstep, lanscape services, health clubs, maid service, etc. What I’m not interested in ends up in the trash. People have a right to get their ideas, their goods, their services out there.

I do think it is important to get the truth out there, and I think it’s important for those prolife bumper stickers to be out there on people’s cars. I think it is important for us to get the message out there that abortion is not only evil it is also not socially acceptable.

 

[estesbob]

I am asking urban-hermit to define what s/he means by “my position” based on the comment “you should consider the possibility that your position simply makes no sense.”

Until I have clarification on what is meant by “my position” including my position on what specifically (graphic images, littering, leaving cards, abortion, etc), then I cannot productively discuss whether it makes sense or not.

Its a very easy question to answer and is not dependent on anyone else defining anything for you. Do you think abortion should be illegal or not?. Gvien you vehement oppostion to handing out pro-life literature i suspect the answer is no. I suspect its not that you dont want to have to explain to your child what abortion is-its that you dont want to explain to them why you think it should be legal.

 

[boppaid]

As to the legality - can anyone answer that question? I don’t think leaving a card under the salt shaker at a local restaurant, for example, is offensive, and I can’t imagine anyone getting upset over it. That reaction strikes me as defensive.

It is offensive to pro choice people. That means, that if enough pro-choices frequent that establishment, they may complain to the management, which is why I said that you should get the owner’s permission. Again, it’s privately owned.

 

[boppaid]

However, I don’t foresee a problem leaving one card in a “neutral” place frequented by the public.

The problem is that these neutral places frequented by the public are still privately owned.