Leaving pro-life literature, where is it legal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TraderTif
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I will say, however, that to say you object to leaving the material where young children can ‘access’ it, is really your way of saying YOU don’t like to see the truth about abortion, for whatever reason. Due to teen’s higher level of understanding, they are much more prone to be upset at seeing a graphic picture if they never have before, than will a 5 year old who can barely comprehend what he is looking at.
I’m not Karen, but I strongly object to this statement. Why? Because I am equally upset and annoyed (and even sometimes offended) when there is junk mail, propoganda, or whatever you want to call it from either the pro-life OR pro-choice movement.
 
Visit the Knights for Life website where you will find a suggested curriculum for all children beginning at Pre-Kindergarten. Now keep in mind that they don’t suggest teaching these kids what an actual abortion is until much later, but as I have been saying all along, we need to start planting seeds as they suggest. The curriculum is a pro-life teaching that includes teaching children about the horrors of abortion at a later age. They certainly don’t receommend using graphic images, which I don’t think anyone else has either. I think the argument here is against what appears to be you stance that children shouldn’t be exposed to it at all.

cpforlife.org/id105.htm

Considering the OP doesn’t even use the graphic cards, I would have to agree that this thread was hijacked. And as far as my stance on the graphic cards, I certainly don’t want them in front of my children, but I do believe they have their place.
So, for the people in favor of placing graphic images of children, I wonder if this changes your mind at all?
 
Visit the Knights for Life website where you will find a suggested curriculum for all children beginning at Pre-Kindergarten.
If the thread was hijacked, it was by those that decided to advocate and, indeed, encourage, the practice of using the graphic images in areas accessible to small children. I think you could easily find the break point at about #27.

I have looked over the curriculum you linked. Honestly, doesn’t sound a great deal different in terms of information than what I have been doing with my child since she was very young. She has had since she was 4 a couple of books that show drawings and photos of fetal development and loves looking at them over and over. She knows babies come from human eggs and sperm and where each of those come from, though I think she is still a bit fuzzy on the specific mechanics of the sex act (she’s just turned 7, I’m fine with that for now).

She knows that one doesn’t have to be married to have a baby, but that it is much better for everyone if you are, that moms have to be careful what they eat and drink and do to protect the babies before they are born and that sometimes babies come early as well as the challenges they face.

She has been learning for years about the inherent worth and dignity of every person, including those who are different or who have disabilities. I worked for 16 years with people of all ages with developmental disabilities and she has a friend close to her age with Asperger’s Syndrome as well as knowing adults who have various disabilities. She knows that they have gifts to contribute to society just like everyone else, as do the elderly people we have visited in nursing homes and in our family. She knows people of various races, including mixed race families, we live in an integrated neighborhood, have mixed race marriages within our extended familiy and we learn about other cultures, religions, etc, so she sees the value in people who look and believe differently than we do.

We have talked often of the importance and sacredness of life within our religious framework and our responsibilities to care for and respect all living things. She understands the roles and responsibilities of parents to love and care for their children and . knows about adoption and knows families built through adoption (including her father’s).

She knows that there are people out there who will hurt children and that that is why I don’t let her run around unsupervised in public places. We have books on stranger danger and safety and will be having a visit from the sheriff’s dept for a program on that soon at her homeschool group. She has, unfortunately, heard mention of the war and the people hurt by that as well as through disease, crime, etc and she has attended funerals and receivings so she knows that people die and that people hurt other people, sometimes including children. She knows that we moved out of our old house when she was 4 because it wasn’t safe for her due to rising crime and violence and drugs in the area.

Based on the reading, looks like we have pretty much covered the same information as this curriculum does up to the fifth grade, in addition to letting her know there is a less than wonderful side of life. Considering she is about to start second grade, I don’t see that we are particularly “oversheltering” her by not adding in specific detailed information on abortion at this stage. Even the Catholic pro-life curriculum doesn’t address abortion until the 6th grade, when the children are around 11-12 years old. There is a vast world of difference in the maturity and reasoning level of an 11 year old and a 5 year old.
p. 104 “Abortion is mentioned for first time in sixth grade.”

So, RichT, in your opinion, what else do I need to add to “plant the seeds”?

My stance has never been that my child should not be exposed to abortion “at all” as in “never in her lifetime”. It has been that I don’t see any value in exposing her to it in any form, much less through graphic photos of dead babies, as a preschooler or early elementary student. We will cover things like abortion, the Holocaust, child abuse, exploitation, sexual assault, the mechanics of sex, etc when she is a bit older.

This seems in line with what I can see of the couple of kindergarten curricula descriptions of Catholic schools that I have found since my earlier post. I continue to be amazed that there are folks here who are castigating me and accusing me of all sorts of things simply because I, apparently like most Catholics who presumably are sending their kids to Catholic school to get an education that covers those things Catholics deem important in the way that the Church deems most beneficial, don’t choose to introduce the specific topic of abortion to a young child.

If you think that no one is advocating children seeing these sorts of images and that such exposure is actively “good for them,” re-read this thread.
 
On the subject of teaching children about abortion, here is an interesting article written my Father Frank Pavone.

catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0019.html
I agree with his statement:
“The basis for teaching about abortion is not the reproductive system, but the dignity and worth of every human person, whether that person is big or small, young or old, healthy or sick, wanted or unwanted, convenient or inconvenient.”

I think I have that pretty well covered.
 
This is totally amazing. Frankly I don’t believe that for a minute. Either you are lying, or you don’t go to any public restrooms.
Are you by chance male? Honestly, I don’t remember if your gender has come up in the thread. I asked my husband and he said that most of the men’s rooms do contain a large amount of pornographic graffiti. That has simply not been my experience in women’s rooms in most areas (restaurants, libraries, stores, etc). Now in high school, yes, I remember this. This may be a case of gender-influenced differences?
Most people in the real world don’t having the luxury of not encountering all sorts of affronts to their decency and morality. They have to teach their children to understand that there are people with evil intentions in the world and to reject such things.
And this is a good reason to add to it?
In what way? There is more to a book than a movie, for instance. In fact, words can draw a picture in the mind in much more detail than an actual picture could.
I would suggest that perhaps you and I process information differently. When I recall something that I have read, I see the words printed on the page, not an image. When I am reading, I get a sense of the story, but not a visual. Anything I have seen is much more likely to remain very vividly in my mind. It is why I pretty carefully choose which tv shows, movies, etc I watch. Visual (name removed by moderator)ut also seems to affect my daughter much more than auditory or what she reads in terms of intensity.
No one is “glossing over” anything. I will say, however, that to say you object to leaving the material where young children can ‘access’ it, is really your way of saying YOU don’t like to see the truth about abortion, for whatever reason. Due to teen’s higher level of understanding, they are much more prone to be upset at seeing a graphic picture if they never have before, than will a 5 year old who can barely comprehend what he is looking at.
If the only reason I object to certain material being accessible to young children is that I don’t want to see it, my tv and movie watching, as well as reading the newspaper, would be very, very different. I am well aware of the truth about a lot of things, including abortion, that I don’t particularly want to show a young child.

As for the teen, they certainly have much more of a frame of reference and mental/emotional maturity and reasoning capacity to understand such things and to process what they see in a useful manner.
 
Based on the reading, looks like we have pretty much covered the same information as this curriculum does up to the fifth grade, in addition to letting her know there is a less than wonderful side of life. Considering she is about to start second grade, I don’t see that we are particularly “oversheltering” her by not adding in specific detailed information on abortion at this stage. Even the Catholic pro-life curriculum doesn’t address abortion until the 6th grade, when the children are around 11-12 years old. There is a vast world of difference in the maturity and reasoning level of an 11 year old and a 5 year old.
p. 104 “Abortion is mentioned for first time in sixth grade.”

So, RichT, in your opinion, what else do I need to add to “plant the seeds”?

My stance has never been that my child should not be exposed to abortion “at all” as in “never in her lifetime”. It has been that I don’t see any value in exposing her to it in any form, much less through graphic photos of dead babies, as a preschooler or early elementary student. We will cover things like abortion, the Holocaust, child abuse, exploitation, sexual assault, the mechanics of sex, etc when she is a bit older.
I never once advocated the viewing of graphic images by young children. My repsonses were about making sure that parents didn’t shelter their children too much, and up until recently in this thread you had not made it clear that you didn’t. Even then, my statements were not necessarily directed at you. They were very general and directed at a larger group.
 
My repsonses were about making sure that parents didn’t shelter their children too much, and up until recently in this thread you had not made it clear that you didn’t.
Well, hallelujah, I have finally managed to communicate that there just might be a middle ground between plastering the nursery walls with graphic death scenes and placing a child in a bubble until they are 45!

What I find very sad in this entire thread is that saying that one wants to avoid showing one’s preschool or young elementary-aged child graphic bloody pictures of dismembered bodies of babies or instructing them in the specifics of abortion along with the names of their colors is seen as bad, evil, poor parenting, mollycoddling, etc.

I would have hoped that my post (115) would have made my position fairly clear

“No, I flat out stated that I don’t feel it is appropriate to discuss abortion with young children across the board. That there might exist a few cases in which it is relevant to their lives, I could possibly see, I suppose, but to my mind this is a topic better left until they have the developmental wherewithal to actually process the information. This does not mean I propose never saying anything about it until they are thirty. There is a vast difference in what a 3 or 4 year old is able to process and understand in a meaningful way and what a 9-10 year old is (take a look at Piaget).”

Post 147 reiterated it
“For about the 5 millionth time, the word “never” is not appropriate in this context. I have not said that my child should “never” (as in “not in her lifetime”) see such images. I am saying that there is no need to rub the faces of preschoolers in them.”

I am not against “planting seeds” in my child’s mind. I have been doing it all her life when we have discussions, read stories, etc about the sacredness of life and the value of all people. I can certainly do this without showing her graphic pictures of dead babies. I can “plant the seeds” of the value of and need for peace without showing her graphic pictures of dead and maimed soldiers and civilians."

And #153
You are correct. I don’t see any pressing need or advantage to introducing the concept of abortion to a young child. There is plenty of ugly in this world that doesn’t need to form the basis of teaching preschoolers and early elementary children. There are plenty of other ways to educate them about the value of life at that stage. Should it be discussed when they are older and able to process it in a meaningful way even if it is disturbing? Certainly.
 
In the interest of restoring this thread to it’s intended purpose, I’d like to know what you all think about TraderTif’s question?
So I have dozens and dozens of lovely little pro-life business cards, and I’ve been leaving them wherever I can think of.

And this has gotten me to thinking…is there any place where it would be illegal for me to leave them? I’ve mainly been leaving them in public restrooms, pinned to town bulletin boards, tucked into library books, and places like that.

Does anyone have ideas for especially good places to leave them? And are there places where it might be illegal for me to leave them?
Code:
Tif    =8-)
After giving it some thought, I honestly think that you would be okay putting the cards you showed us just about anywhere. I highly doubt any serious legal action could result from it, so long as you’re not putting them inside anyone’s house or vehicle. In most American cities, placing flyers on people’s windshields or on their doorstep is a generally accepted form of advertisement, so long as you act within limits(one per car/doorstep). I believe placing items in mailboxes is technically illegal, but this is also fairly common and police only enforce it if you are a habitual offender (don’t make it a weekly or monthly thing).

Some areas may require you to be very discrete in your actions, especially at hotspots like abortion clinics, abortion referral agencies, and in or around hospitals. Even so, the worst thing they’ll do is remove the things you brought in and escort you out. Really it’s not that big of a deal, and most of the time they won’t even write you a warning. I know these things because some of my friends have been involved in “guerilla marketing”, where individuals(usually poor college students) get paid money to walk around placing stickers or flyers advertising things in highly visible areas. The worst punishment one of them received was when a police officer asked him to remove the sticker he placed, and he had been doing this several nights a week for over a year.

It’s funny, but until reading through this topic, I never thought of applying geurilla marketing tactics to advertise Pro-Life. :o

I think your idea of inserting cards into books that women considering an abortion may read is brilliant! I would especially recommend university libraries, where many students writing term papers on topics like abortion must cite texts and scholarly journals for their composition. If the cards have a website listed for more information, there is a good possibility that they’ll go online and visit it (if for no other reason than to cover both sides of the issue).

With things like informational pamphlets or brochures, what is the best way to place them? Do you pin them to bulletin boards, leave them in bathroom stalls, what seems to be the most effective? My instinct tells me to only leave one or two at a location instead of a whole stack, since there’s a good possibility they’ll be thrown away by someone that disagrees with our message.

I’ve ordered a few rolls of Pro-Life stickers along with a roll of abstinence stickers(for condom machines:)). I think the Pro-Life stickers will go in high visibility places, one trick my friend used was to place them out of reach from those who would remove or deface them(above doorways, high on street poles, etc.). I think my favorite place for them will be on top of pro-choice posters(which are especially prevalent in this community). 👍

Here are some links that I found with rolls of stickers and other Pro-Life items, for anyone else interested. Let’s get a good list of sites going for others who don’t know where to look.

Life Cycle Books

Children of the Rosary

Heritage House

National Right to Life
 
I believe placing items in mailboxes is technically illegal, but this is also fairly common and police only enforce it if you are a habitual offender (don’t make it a weekly or monthly thing).
This presumes that one’s primary basis for judging the appropriateness of one’s actions is whether one is likely to actually get arrested for it, not whether it is intrinsically appropriate behavior, actually (“technically”) illegal, etc.
I know these things because some of my friends have been involved in “guerilla marketing”,
Jack Chick, guerilla marketers, JW’s…I would just encourage folks to consider exactly who they are being encouraged to model themselves after in choosing to use these techniques.
I’ve ordered a few rolls of Pro-Life stickers along with a roll of abstinence stickers(for condom machines:)). I think the Pro-Life stickers will go in high visibility places, one trick my friend used was to place them out of reach from those who would remove or deface them(above doorways, high on street poles, etc.). I think my favorite place for them will be on top of pro-choice posters(which are especially prevalent in this community).
Heavens, no, we wouldn’t want anything to get defaced would we? Oh, other than public and private property by not just laying a card on it but actually affixing a sticker. Are you also getting some cans of spray paint for the bridge overpasses, railroad cars, walls of buildings?
 
This presumes that one’s primary basis for judging the appropriateness of one’s actions is whether one is likely to actually get arrested for it, not whether it is intrinsically appropriate behavior, actually (“technically”) illegal, etc.

Jack Chick, guerilla marketers, JW’s…I would just encourage folks to consider exactly who they are being encouraged to model themselves after in choosing to use these techniques.

Heavens, no, we wouldn’t want anything to get defaced would we? Oh, other than public and private property by not just laying a card on it but actually affixing a sticker. Are you also getting some cans of spray paint for the bridge overpasses, railroad cars, walls of buildings?
Karen, I couldn’t agree with your post more!!Seriously, you are worried about people defacing the stickers that you are using to deface other private property? :confused:
 
Heavens, no, we wouldn’t want anything to get defaced would we? Oh, other than public and private property by not just laying a card on it but actually affixing a sticker. Are you also getting some cans of spray paint for the bridge overpasses, railroad cars, walls of buildings?
On this point we agree. Defacing others’ property is off-limits.
 
As a follow up to my post #134,

American Pro-abortion Leader a No-Show for Debate: Replaced with Canadian Pro-Abort

"LifeSiteNews.com published a story yesterday entitled “Non-Canadian Abortion Advocate Recruited to Face Young Pro-Life Leader,” which indicated that one of the abortion side’s top U.S. representatives was going to join Gray on the show. After the story was published, however, Saporta was pulled out, and Canadian NAF director Dawn Fowler filled her place.

Stephanie Gray told LifeSiteNews.com that she had understood that she would be facing Vicki Saporta and that the show would involve some measure of debate. Thus, she was surprised to find out at the last minute that it would be a non-debate format. "

…no interaction between the two was possible…Nevertheless Gray’s pro-life case was so strongly presented that Fowler was unable to refute it afterwards. During the ten minutes in which Fowler was allowed to speak, one of her main tactics was evasion. Host Smyth was clearly dissatisfied with Fowler’s responses. He asked her why she believed that the abortion images are misleading. Avoiding the issue, however, Fowler referred to the CCBR website as untrue because it claimed that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer.

Convinced by Gray’s arguments, Smyth continued to press the point, saying that the website isn’t the same thing as the abortion pictures. He also noted that Gray made a good case.
 
A sticker here or there never hurt anybody, they’re easily removed and are the perfect solution for areas where cards or brochures can’t be placed.

I found several great pamphlets and flyers from Priests for Life and I was wondering where else I can get more of these materials? I’m looking for something affordable, in large quantities with an effective message. Any suggestions?

Another great place to leave Pro-Life materials is in college dormitories where many young men and women experience moral dilemmas. Even if they’re not thinking about abortion, the Pro-Life information may remind them of their values and keep them from making bad choices they will later regret. Most dorms have student lounge areas and many bulletin boards that would be great places to leave information.

Speaking of bulletin boards, would it be better to bring my own tacks or perhaps a mini document stapler? The stapler would be the cheapest option, and it’s also easier than fumbling with tacks.

If you’ve spoken directly with women considering an abortion, are some materials more effective than others? I ask because my favorite Pro-Life materials are those with pictures of cute babies on them, I think it’s good for people to see what they’re giving up when they have an abortion.
 
Even the Catholic pro-life curriculum doesn’t address abortion until the 6th grade, when the children are around 11-12 years old. There is a vast world of difference in the maturity and reasoning level of an 11 year old and a 5 year old. p. 104 “Abortion is mentioned for first time in sixth grade.”
I believe it is pretty negligent for an 11 year old to have no idea or to have never heard about it, nor to even address or introduce the topic until 12 years old.
Are you by chance male? Honestly, I don’t remember if your gender has come up in the thread.
Let’s keep you guessing 😉
I asked my husband and he said that most of the men’s rooms do contain a large amount of pornographic graffiti.
So are we only concerned about little girls?
I would suggest that perhaps you and I process information differently. When I recall something that I have read, I see the words printed on the page, not an image. When I am reading, I get a sense of the story, but not a visual. Anything I have seen is much more likely to remain very vividly in my mind.
Most women will say they take in more from words, whereas men are more visual.
As for the teen, they certainly have much more of a frame of reference and mental/emotional maturity and reasoning capacity to understand such things and to process what they see in a useful manner.
However, if a thirteen year old is all of a sudden one day to be told that 4000 babies are ripped from the womb every day, how well emotionally and mentally are they going to be able to cope with that?
In the interest of restoring this thread to it’s intended purpose, I’d like to know what you all think about TraderTif’s question?
.
.
.
.
I’ve ordered a few rolls of Pro-Life stickers along with a roll of abstinence stickers(for condom machines:)).
I think this is an excellent idea. Also, one of my favorites - bumper stickers. Very effective.
 
I believe it is pretty negligent for an 11 year old to have no idea or to have never heard about it, nor to even address or introduce the topic until 12 years old.
Then I suggest you immediately contact all the Catholic elementary schools that you can so that they can quickly correct such appalling negligence before another day goes by. The Church should be leading the way with examples of proper education for our young children in this matter, I am sure you agree. You might even include a pre-K or kindergarten lesson plan (with appropriate visual aids–you seem to have ready access to such) so they can address the issue on the first day of school, before any more harm is done to those Catholic children who have not yet had the benefit of the pictures of mutilated dead babies and discussion of all the specific details of abortion.

Here’s a link to US Catholic schools by state to get you started.
catholicusa.com/catholic_schools_online/catholic_schools.htm. The National Catholic Education Association might even give you a grant to help you get your curriculum and associated slides/posters/cards to send home/etc out ncea.org/. They offer a $500 social justice grant for elementary school programs, which would probably buy a lot of graphic bumper stickers and posters.
 
Clearly Karen is showing signs of being a prochoice advocate because she is unable to address the simple issue that graphic photos save lives almost everywhere they are seen, happy photos usually don’t ever. This is more important than crying children, if you don’t think so you might need to get counseling as a life is worth more then someone’s feelings.

Since people like yourself won’t teach children right from wrong those of us who care about unborn children will unfortunately be forced to do so. Many catholics have abortions because their moms and dads were too risk adverse to talk about the issue with their children and then never got around to them. As a parent you should be forced to answer your child’s question to whether you support hurting babies or not inside of their mommies. I would want to know and I would be very angry and upset if my mommy supported hurting babies.

Today I almost said something to a mother who had an abortion supporting bumper sticker on her minivan as she was taking her kids out of the car, i probably should have now that I think of it.
 
Since people like yourself won’t teach children right from wrong those of us who care about unborn children will unfortunately be forced to do so. Many catholics have abortions because their moms and dads were too risk adverse to talk about the issue with their children and then never got around to them. As a parent you should be forced to answer your child’s question to whether you support hurting babies or not inside of their mommies. I would want to know and I would be very angry and upset if my mommy supported hurting babies.
This is so true. How many abortions are the result of parents failing to instruct their children properly from an early age. By the time they are teenagers, they have missed out during those precious years of mental formation to help guide their sense of right from wrong. No doubt, if they are in any kind of public education setting, they will have heard many other ideas and formed their own ‘opinions’ by that time.
 
Clearly Karen is showing signs of being a prochoice advocate because she is unable to address the simple issue that graphic photos save lives almost everywhere they are seen, happy photos usually don’t ever.
This is very anedoctal. Do you have statistics to back up that “graphic photos save lives almost everywhere they are seen”?

Certainly, I don’t think almost everywhere they are randomly or strategically litered that lives will be saved. I think they will primarily be thrown in the trash. 🤷 And, in my experience, people who see those images on billboards only grow angry because they feel it’s inappropriate.

I think there are much more effective ways to educated people.
 
ILet’s keep you guessing 😉

So are we only concerned about little girls?
Whatever. I ask to see if perhaps the basis for our different experiences of public restrooms might be based in something other than the automatic assumption that I am obviously lying. In my experience, most small children of either sex are taken to the women’s restroom with their mothers as the mother is usually the one who is caring for them. I only have a daughter, so neither she nor I have had occasion to frequent men’s rooms and my husband does his best to avoid having to take her into a men’s room (thankfully family restrooms are becoming more frequently available).

If these images and the condition of men’s restrooms is posing a problem for fathers of small children, I fully expect that they also need to be speaking up in defense of their young children who cannot effectively speak for themselves on this issue. It is just as much the concern and responsibility of men to protect all children as it is the concern and responsibility of women.
Most women will say they take in more from words, whereas men are more visual.
Then all these graphic images you are promoting are aimed primarily at men?
However, if a thirteen year old is all of a sudden one day to be told that 4000 babies are ripped from the womb every day, how well emotionally and mentally are they going to be able to cope with that?
A heck of a lot better than a 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 year old.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top