Let’s weigh the options to find the greater good
How about we actually discuss the part that I am saying is the most objectionable and which mapleoak and philothea and others find no big deal and actually to be encouraged regardless of any costs.
If your child is going around reading books on women’s sexual health and visiting abortion clinics, you’ve clearly failed as a parent.
Well, as it is being advocated that preschoolers need to be educated about every aspect of abortion by things people leave laying around a public bathroom, I guess I ought to be getting kids the Joy of Sex and a coffee table book on the Holocaust for the next holiday. (and folks complain that anyone wants to offer sex ed in kindergarten—what do you think you are doing via this?)
I suppose if she has to ride in her own family’s car, eat in a public restaurant, visit the dentist, open a holiday or birthday card or go to the bathroom anywhere other than my house I have also failed? These are just a few of the places that your co-religionists are advocating putting the cards with the graphic images.
Let’s look, for instance, at urban-hermit’s posts:
" know you said you are not distributing graphic images. But even if you were, a kid who inadvertantly sees a graphic picture will get over it, whereas the girl or boy in the picture wasn’t so lucky. I understand why some parents would object to this, but at the same time I also feel those same parents may have lost their sense of urgency about the problem of abortion, or else want to avoid talking about it at all costs, even though it is enormously prevalent. It’s like the elephant in the living room - except most of the time our culture hides the elephant somehow. The graphic pictures are ugly, of course, but they serve the purpose of forcing this genocide into being acknowledged, recognized and discussed."
“From the priests for life link I posted earlier:
13) Leave pro-life literature wherever you can: in public places, at restaurants, as inserts in the mail you send, on cars, etc. Give literature to friends. Send it also in prepaid business reply envelopes that come in the mail. Include it in cards you send for Christmas, birthdays, and other occasions.”
And urbanhermit is not alone in advocating such. Look at posts #127 and #128 by philothea.
Exactly what value is seen in having such images “acknowledged, recognized and discussed” by preschoolers and young elementary children, I still fail to fathom.
To me, it is the same reasoning as saying "We are fighting what we believe to be a just war and we think that it is possible that some folks who might be enemy soldiers are over there in that family restaurant miles from the fighting zone because we have seen folks of the right age and sex go in there before. Since it is good to reduce the number of enemy soldiers, even by only one, we are going to lay down some random gunfire into the restaurant hoping that we hit someone who actually might turn out to be an enemy soldier. Once we have fired, we will leave and go on to the other businesses on this street and repeat.
Yes, we know that there are a bunch of children in there on a regular basis, but it is only of very minor concern. If they get hit, it’s likely only to be by ricochet and be a flesh wound at worst. No, it’s not the most ideal thing to shoot children under normal circumstances, but this is war and we have to reduce the enemy soldiers and we don’t think what we’ve been doing by focusing on actual military targets is working well enough so we are expanding into random hit and run attacks on the civilian areas. Parents ought to be prepared for their kids getting shot, anyway, because they know that guns exist and people use them, even if the actual war zone is nowhere near here. They should be prepared for gunfire anywhere at any time. If they are trying to avoid the shooting by avoiding the war zone, they are just sheltering their kids and making them into wimps—they ought to toughen them up.
Even if they do get hit, it’s not likely to cause lasting harm, kids are resilient, you know. Anyway, it doesn’t really matter who actually gets hit, it will be worth it as long as we think we might possibly get rid of one enemy soldier or someone who might eventually have become a soldier, not that we will be able to tell since we aren’t going to be around to see who got hit. It’s the best way for the kids to learn about the bad things that the enemy does, anyway, and keep them from becoming enemy soldiers in the future."
The end (removing enemy soldiers) does not justify the means (randomly shooting into crowds of civilians that you know include children).
Oh, and she’s a feminist, too?!
First, what do you mean by “feminist,” and how in the world can you judge whether or not I am such on the basis of a simple request for information?
I think those of you who are so offended by these innocent little cards are visiting the wrong website.
We could use a lot more like him. And by the way, no mothers were covering their childrens’ ears during his sermon, and none of the children are any worse for having heard it.
