K
Kendy
Guest
Excellent post.
- Status
G
Grace_Angel
Guest
If your children’s innocence was destroyed this morning, the lives of those very children you saw was completely destroyed. They were killed.I’m not sure if this is the right forum; so if it needs to be moved I understand.
Why do anti-abortion signs have to be so graphic?
My children had no school today, so I took them to see their Grandpa who in the hospital recovering from surgery. (My kids are 4 and 5).
While leaving the hospital there were anti-abortion picketer with signs saying abortion kills. They even had blown up images of post-aborted babies. The images were enough to make me turn away, seeing a child dismembered is awful. My children wanted to know why those babies were “cut up”.
So I had to have the “talk” with my 4 and 5 year-old, a talk that I didn’t really want with them, not at this time. Seeing they are only 4 and 5. They themselves are just children and should have the right to some innocents. (At least that is my opinion).
Well I started to think about it. I understand why they the anti-abortion picketers are there. I understand what abortion does. I understand why it is important to get the message out there. Abortion kills an innocent child.
However, what about the innocents of the children that see these signs? Should they be forced to see such graphic images? Should parents be forced to explain such things to their kids?
Modern technology is wonderful.
There are wonderful 4D ultrasound pictures that show babies ALIVE in the womb.
This link will allow you to see some 4D ultrasound pictures: prolifeamerica.com/4D-Ultrasound-pictures/index.cfm?photo=10#photos
I think that these anti-abortion picketers should do away with their post-abortion images, and use pre-abortion images such as these 4D ultrasound pictures.
I think they should blow up a few of these images and have messages like:
I’m ALIVE in my mother’s womb….
{Image of 4D ultrasound}
….If she aborts me, I will die.
ABORTION KILLS! THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS!
FOR HELP CALL: xxx-xxx-xxxx or ON the web: -------------------
It gets the same message across without destroying the innocent of children.
Abortion does kill and destroy an innocent life. However, why destroy the innocents of other children? Shouldn’t we protecting ALL children?
Now if my kids saw a 4D ultrasound picture, I could just tell them that a picture of baby inside the mommy’s tummy. Those people are holding those signs because some people don’t think that babies are ALIVE when they are in a mommy tummy, but we know they are. It’s good to let people know that babies are ALIVE when they are in the mommy’s tummy. That would have been much nicer to tell my kids.
However do to the graphic image this morning I’m left explaining why those babies were all “cut up.”
My children innocents were destroyed this morning.
Abortion cannot be sanitised. Because it has been sanitised, and the language of the abortion industry sanitised and sabotaged, abortion has become endemic. It is easy to walk past an abortion clinic and not be disturbed. Unless of course someone loves God enough and woman enough and child enough to show what abortion really does.
Abortion is literally the killing of an in utero child in early stages of formation.
cheers and goodnite.
B
boppaid
Guest
True, But two wrongs never make a right and (again) the ends does not justify the means.
Let me ask my question another way, since no one has answered it before. Please, answer each of these individual questions.
- Would you approve of showing small children video of jewish children being set on fire in Nazi concentration camps to show how low humanity sunk?
- Would you approve of showing small children pictures of children being murdered in the ghetto to bring about social change in our country?
- Would you approve of showing small children vivid, bloody pictures of Iraqi children brutally slaughtered, missing arms, letgs, etc., in order to bring about change in our foreign policy?
- How would you feel if I showed these to YOUR 5 year old? 4 year old? 7 year old? Toddler? Can you honestly say there is nothing wrong with this…that the end justifies the means?
M
Monica02
Guest
If burning jewish people were going on right now , I would have no problem with these images being shown.
The news media covers the ghetto murders and the Iraqi war horrors so they already get coverage.
Abortion gets no coverage in the MSM, so the images have to be shown by some other outlet.
B
boppaid
Guest
I see what you’re saying. I would have no problem with tv showimg these pics as that’s easier to monitor than a sign, though. I dont like graphic bloody images forced on little ones…no matter what. There must be another way that doesn’t require doing this to children Again, do 2 wrongs ever make a right?
M
Monica02
Guest
I do not consider showing the images to be a “wrong”. I view it as a necessary consequence of an accepted evil.
The thing with abortion is that it is legal and accepted as okay by a great many people. Alot of these people truly do not know what it is. The other evils you mentioned are generally considered wrong and usually are illegal.
If I did not personally encounter people who said things like “ooooh - is THAT what an abortion is?” when they see the image or “I would never have an abortion ! I have seen those photos” I would not be so insistent about effectiveness of the images. It is true that alot of people would take the initiative to view the images through some other avenue, but many people would never even think to look.
G
Grace_Angel
Guest
No two wrongs never make a right. however, the reality is that children are being killed in utero daily throughout the whole year and we walk past these facilities whilst the children die and we continue to walk on. Because it is behind closed doors. We scream about the attrocities in Iraq, we scream about the attrocities in Afghanistan, we scream about the at the attrocities in Hitlers Germany. We scream about the attrocities of Stalin, and yet we walk by an abortion clinic, because the attrocities committed there are behind closed doors. No we need to be disturbed. If there is a child present who may not understand what abortion is and not cognitively able to process the information, gently cross the road, distract the child whilst passing, do something creative so that the child does not see, but dont call for the removal of the pictures. We need to be reminded that there is a holocaust in our midst, and generally we did/do nothing about it we do more for our animal friends than for a human person created in the Imago Dei.
M
Monica02
Guest
I too would love to see TV cover the abortion issue from the perspective of it being wrong. If TV were doing this, the street protestors could probably take a break. TV would also have alot more influence and a much bigger audince.
B
boppaid
Guest
Well, I guess this is the crux of our disagreement, then. I just see it as simply wrong.
We as Christians get up in arms whenever our children’s innocence is taken away by graphic images, such as pornography, lustful images, etc. Even though the end is justified, our children’s innocencs is being stripped away. If it’s wrong for pornography, etc., then it’s wrong here. It’s just that the people who feel it’s not wrong believe that the consequence of showing children these images is worth it because a life may be saved. This argument reminds me of people being against using embryos that will be thrown away for the possiblity to cure diseases…they say that even though embryos won’t live anyway, the end doesn’t justify the means. That’s how I feel here.
So, I’m not going to badger you anymore. We’ll just have to agree to disagree. Thanks for a respectful debate!
B
boppaid
Guest
Maybe. But I don’t think the children need to be.
M
Mommyof02green
Guest
I like watching a show called “In the womb”; I forget what channel now. Any way I like watching it, they are going to be doing one here soon on baby animals, dolphin, elephant, and dog… I can’t wait. I’ve seen the pictures and have seen the commericals it’s going to be a good thing.
One of the posters mention earlier, how it’s not about education. I have to disagree with that. It’s all about education and informing the conscience.
post-abortion is AFTER the fact. How many would have an abortion if they REALLY knew how a human body/baby develops? Would they have an abortion if they new what REALLY happens in the womb. Men and Women need to know what is going on today, what that baby in the womb is doing today. (I guess that’s why I like show like IN the womb)
If they knew what really happen in the womb, then I believe that there is no way in good conscience that they would agree to ending that baby’s life.
G
Grace_Angel
Guest
I agree with you, children dont need to be disturbed, so do something to avert the children’s eyes, as you would monitor what they watch on tv. I suspect its not the children that are the issue or the person being disturbed but the adult because the adult has a “judgement” to make, that is to act or not to act, and the visual images remind of apathy. The visual images disturb not only the children but more importantly the mother/father. Abortion is now a “right” so if its a “right” then it must be good, so if its “good” what is the problem?
Or maybe the images actually show that the hard fought for “right” is actually the “right” to kill children with impunity.
It must be really frightening for a young child to hear that tiny babies are killed before they are born because their mummy is exercising her “right” The child hearing the story that children can be killed lives with a fear that their own life might even be conditional.
J
jediliz
Guest
“In the Womb” airs on National Geographic channel. The one with a human development in the womb was amazing! I can’t wait to see the animals one! That’ll be awesome.
btw, I never use graphic abortion photos, but I do use a poster I made from a cool picture on NRLC.org site. Its a picture of a baby in the womb and it says "Attention America, this is tissue (Shows a box of kleenex) and THIS IS NOT (shows the tiny baby picture). I enlarged it and had it laminated.
I realize that these graphic pictures are disturbing - and yes, I would not want little little children exposed…but we need to let America know the horrors of abortion. There are trucks called the TRUTH TRUCKS that people just hate…because of what they show.
I hope your kids are doing better.
btw, I never use graphic abortion photos, but I do use a poster I made from a cool picture on NRLC.org site. Its a picture of a baby in the womb and it says "Attention America, this is tissue (Shows a box of kleenex) and THIS IS NOT (shows the tiny baby picture). I enlarged it and had it laminated.
I realize that these graphic pictures are disturbing - and yes, I would not want little little children exposed…but we need to let America know the horrors of abortion. There are trucks called the TRUTH TRUCKS that people just hate…because of what they show.
I hope your kids are doing better.
M
Mommyof02green
Guest
They are but they aren’t… we have been focus on my hubby seeing he had surgery a week ago yesterday. So they were focusing on him and rightly so. Sometimes when nothing is going on they ask…but it hasn’t been the main focus cause of hubby surgery.
Thanks for the channel…I knew it was either that or science or discovery… I just couldn’t remember. It is a cool show amazing…I just know the animal one will be too. I can’t wait.
G
Grace_Angel
Guest
In another post I said that the abortion industry has sabotaged our language and made abortion a sanitised event. A pregnancy is no longer “infanticipating” but according to them a “bunch of cells” “tissue” “embryo” even “foetus”. Now none of these bring an image to mind when spoken. Simply because to a woman when she is pregnant and wants the child, that conception is immediately “my baby.” When the child is not wanted it becomes all the other euphisms eg “tissue.”
Abortion means the killing of an in utero child in its early and at times later stages of development. Nothing else. We need to reclaim language, show images of what abortion does. Stop sanitising the situation and begin by us women saying NO More. Went wont kill our children. We (as women) need to defend the life in our womb. We need to become its biggest defender, (as we used to be) unless this happens, we wont see the end of this holocaust.
B
bear06
Guest
Again, we’re not talking about the the taking away of innocence. We’re talking about the taking of a human life. The protection of that life supercedes all else except the taking of another life. Also the term showing is wrong. It’s allowing children to see. There’s quite a bit of difference here. I also don’t think this is a case of the ends justifying the means. The means are justified as is.Well, I guess this is the crux of our disagreement, then. I just see it as simply wrong.
We as Christians get up in arms whenever our children’s innocence is taken away by graphic images, such as pornography, lustful images, etc. Even though the end is justified, our children’s innocencs is being stripped away. If it’s wrong for pornography, etc., then it’s wrong here. It’s just that the people who feel it’s not wrong believe that the consequence of showing children these images is worth it because a life may be saved. This argument reminds me of people being against using embryos that will be thrown away for the possiblity to cure diseases…they say that even though embryos won’t live anyway, the end doesn’t justify the means. That’s how I feel here.
So, I’m not going to badger you anymore. We’ll just have to agree to disagree. Thanks for a respectful debate!
In answer to your questions:
I would approve of trying to stop all of these deaths by getting the truth out. If we happened upon them, again, I would say a prayer to the Holy Spirit to help my children understand and then trust that He would give protection and aid to my children.
So, what would you do if you knew that the 2 year old next door would be murdered and you were the only line of defense? Wouldn’t you use any means of self defense possible on behalf of this child?
Again, shooting someone with a gun is usually considered evil unless it’s used in self defense. It’s the same thing with these pictures. If you consider this to be an evil act period then I guess there really would be no point in continuing further since it’s the same as holding those graphic signs. Yes, a child may happen upon them but they are a perfectly justified means of self defense on behalf of the defenseless.
F
fix
Guest
Impure things are wrong. What end is there to showing pornographic images to children? In such a case the ends are wrong and the means are wrong and the intent is wrong.
The intent of those holding the posters is good, as in educate about abortion. The end willed is good as in helping to end abortion. The means used, photos of aborted children, are not evil. Please show how the means are evil. Some have concluded some children may experience some type of psychological trauma. I am asking if such trauma is in and of itself evil? The phrase stealing one’s innocence is vague. Is a child less innocent if they have some knowledge of right and wrong?
Evil may never be done even to achieve a good. My point is no one has shown that holding posters that some children may see and may cause some “negative” pshychological experience is an evil means.
M
Mommyof02green
Guest
Bear, I know that you don’t see it being on the same playing-field. I know that as far as you are concern innocence of children that are living post-womb does not matter when it comes to anti-abortion signs and protesting abortions. I know that for you the lost of a post-womb living child’s innocents and a child loosing his/her life via abortion do not compare. So for you the innocence of a child is a mute point when it comes to stopping abortion.
However, I started this thread because of the loss of my children’s innocents. Lost of children innocents was the point of the OP that started this thread. So frankly I’m tired of hearing how it’s not the point, because it’s is the point. It was the reason that THIS thread was started.
I understand and respect that fact that you don’t see it the way Others and I here on this thread see it. Also I have noted that most of us think that something should be done. We need to inform people and get the truth out there. I, personally, think it’s great that you have time to do what you do. However, what most of us question is the method. Not the cause, not the reason. It’s the method many of us question.
Why do many of us question the method? Well, I can’t answer for everyone. However, I can tell you I question the method because of what it did to my children and their innocents…that is what started this thread.
I know that one of the posters here, not sure who, posted a web site that shown graphic images from newspapers/magazines. I can tell you that my children have never seen those images. When I go to the store the kids stay home with their Dad: so they don’t see the magazines on the store shelves.
Hubby and I also don’t watch the news while the kids are up or home with us. We have all the news channels and news shows blocked. So if the kids change the channel they CAN NOT see that stuff.
If I want to know what going on in the world I read news articles via Internet. Even when I view things via Internet, I do it at times that my children are nowhere around. They don’t need to worry about that stuff, especially seeing they have an Aunt in the army. They KNOW NOTHING about the war, all they know is that their Aunt is in the army and is far away doing Army stuff, driving army cars, climbing walls, etc.
My Sis, has not been assigned to go over sea, yet. She has been state side. However, she knows that will change come April. Even, when that time comes in April, we don’t plan on telling the kids exactly why Auntie has to go over Seas. We are just going to tell them that when you are in the Army you have to go to the places that that Army said to go…and the Army wants Auntie over seas.
Now if something happens to Sis, while in Irag then we’ll cross that bridge with the kids then. However, we are NOT going to tell them that there is a war and “bad guys”; this is because we strongly feel that they do not need to worry about their Aunt. We believe that if we tell them all that they are going to be worried about their Aunt and will be worried about her becoming dead. We don’t want them to worry, so we are not telling them about the war. The war and tell children or not telling children is a whole other thread. I just felt like sharing, because of the one web-link it made me think about it. Just because those images, newspaper, and magazines are around does NOT mean that ALL children see them. My kids have never seen that stuff.
F
fix
Guest
Can you provide proof for these accusations? After thinking about this thread I am more convinced now, than before I read it, that the actions of the poster holding folks are not immoral.
If I remember you and some others have used the phrase the ends do not justify the means to conclude public protesting with these photos is immoral. I have been trying to educate myself about this phrase and from what I have read it would seem misapplied in these cases.
What constitutes an unjust means? Can anyone tell us? So far I have seen things that violate the natural moral law or divine law may be unjust means such as lying, contraception, muder, ect. I have seen no proof holding these photos is unjust.
Also, even if the intention, means, and end are good there may be an indirect and unintended evil. That unintended evil does not make the actor or action evil or culpable.
Many of our daily actions have unintended evil effects. Like driving a car or playing sports.
It seems those who hold these posters have no intention of showing them to innocent children. That they may be seen is unintentional and any evil effect certainly is less proportionate than the evil of abortion.
Can anyone show me where my reasoning is wrong? I welcome any correction.
M
marcsababa
Guest
The signs are not meant for children to see and “destroy their innocence” the signs just display to the public that which is happening behind closed doors.
Many have given examples of horrible violent acts that have been committed in the past and posed the question: Would you show your children videos of that?
No of course not.
But remember the horrible things you cited were witnessed by children of all ages. They too had to see what was going on. If I were in a country where people were executed en mass and I walked by a public execution site with my children I would not go over to the kids and point it all out in gory detail. They would probably catch a glimpse and I would tell them: “That is what the regime is doing to us, this is why we pray. This is why daddy is fighting in the rebellion…”
The pictures are not aimed at children. You keep discussing them as if they were. It would be better to not focus on them as if they were aimed at children, because nobody is learning anything in this debate.
The emperor really does not have any clothes
= people are really killing babies
The truth must be brought to the open.
Jesus was crucified in public and we have gory horrific images of him at the front of our church for all to see. Our children are certainly meant to see that. You are just used the image of the crucified Christ. Perhaps we need bloodier crucifixes.
Please take a good look at one of those images and take a good look at your baby.
Oh blessed Lord have mercy on us!!!
Many have given examples of horrible violent acts that have been committed in the past and posed the question: Would you show your children videos of that?
No of course not.
But remember the horrible things you cited were witnessed by children of all ages. They too had to see what was going on. If I were in a country where people were executed en mass and I walked by a public execution site with my children I would not go over to the kids and point it all out in gory detail. They would probably catch a glimpse and I would tell them: “That is what the regime is doing to us, this is why we pray. This is why daddy is fighting in the rebellion…”
The pictures are not aimed at children. You keep discussing them as if they were. It would be better to not focus on them as if they were aimed at children, because nobody is learning anything in this debate.
The emperor really does not have any clothes
= people are really killing babies
The truth must be brought to the open.
Jesus was crucified in public and we have gory horrific images of him at the front of our church for all to see. Our children are certainly meant to see that. You are just used the image of the crucified Christ. Perhaps we need bloodier crucifixes.
Please take a good look at one of those images and take a good look at your baby.
Oh blessed Lord have mercy on us!!!
- Status