You are starting your argument from a false premise—that it is only “abortionists” who object to the indiscriminate use of these images, particularly in places where young children will be exposed to them without the consent of their parents. It is further a false premise that everyone who objects to the indiscriminate use of these photos believes or even claims that they are depictions of “tissue” rather than graphic color photos of blood-covered dismembered and otherwise mutilated babies–human beings.Thought this was an interesting answer to the abortionists who object to images of “fetal tissue” being used to dissuade people from getting abortions.
If it was only the young women who were getting an abortion who saw these images I would not be bothered by them. But I had to explain what such images meant to my observant then three year old as we passed a clinic. I felt annoyed because she was too young to really understand but old enough to get upset.You are starting your argument from a false premise—that it is only “abortionists” who object to the indiscriminate use of these images, particularly in places where young children will be exposed to them without the consent of their parents. It is further a false premise that everyone who objects to the indiscriminate use of these photos believes or even claims that they are depictions of “tissue” rather than graphic color photos of blood-covered dismembered and otherwise mutilated babies–human beings.
That could very well be an interesting answer for some abortionists, but what about everyone else who object to these kind of pictures?Thought this was an interesting answer to the abortionists who object to images of “fetal tissue” being used to dissuade people from getting abortions.
WARNING, SOMEWHAT GRAPHIC PHOTO
As has been pointed out many a time, when children get upset over pictures like this, it is simply their reaction to the parents’ response.If it was only the young women who were getting an abortion who saw these images I would not be bothered by them. But I had to explain what such images meant to my observant then three year old as we passed a clinic. I felt annoyed because she was too young to really understand but old enough to get upset.
As has been pointed out many a time, that statement is complete rubbish. I think last time this came up, there was some sort of study used to support this statement.As has been pointed out many a time, when children get upset over pictures like this, it is simply their reaction to the parents’ response.
That’s a self-serving argument advanced by those who do not wish to face up to their parental rsponsibilities.As has been pointed out many a time, that statement is complete rubbish.
It was a good example of grasping at straws by those who will not face up to their responsibilities.I think last time this came up, there was some sort of study used to support this statement.
Unfortunatly the study didnt support the argument and was unrelated to the argument anyway.
Elric, I will have to say that I don’t believe it is complete rubbish. Of course parental reaction plays a role in this by doing damage control, just as we do when our children accidentally see any other scene of horrific violence. What I find objectionable in vern’s statement is the word “simply” (as in “only” or “solely”). I also find objectionable the implicit assumption (which he has clearly stated elsewhere) that there is nothing in the world inappropriate about showing scenes of horrific violence in full color tractor trailer sized blood covered, dismembered detail to young children without their parents’ consent and that therefore he has the unassailable and unquestionable right to put these images wherever he pleases whenever he pleases, including deliberately placing them where he knows that large groups of children will see them in the normal course of daily activity.As has been pointed out many a time, that statement is complete rubbish. I think last time this came up, there was some sort of study used to support this statement.
Let’s have a link to the images you are discussing Vern, then we can talk about them.how is it these graphic images, of dissected bodies, can be plastered on the sides of busses, but those graphic images, of aborted babies are “too shocking?”
You are right, that was an overstatement on my part.Elric, I will have to say that I don’t believe it is complete rubbish.
My son will be distressed no matter how good your damage control is (he is a high functioning autistic child), so I guess that it is a little different for us.Of course parental reaction plays a role in this by doing damage control, just as we do when our children accidentally see any other scene of horrific violence.
I agree. But not only that, I object to the “blame game” (its the parents fault) that goes on. Which would explain my overstatement before.What I find objectionable in vern’s statement is the word “simply” (as in “only” or “solely”). I also find objectionable the implicit assumption (which he has clearly stated elsewhere) that there is nothing in the world inappropriate about showing scenes of horrific violence in full color tractor trailer sized blood covered, dismembered detail to young children without their parents’ consent and that therefore he has the unassailable and unquestionable right to put these images wherever he pleases whenever he pleases, including deliberately placing them where he knows that large groups of children will see them in the normal course of daily activity.
I dont think that “parental responsibilities” includes exposing children to graphic images and I dont think that it is “self-serving” to protect children from such things (personally the images dont effect me).That’s a self-serving argument advanced by those who do not wish to face up to their parental rsponsibilities.
Yes it was, trying to twist that study to justify their poor parenting accusation was pretty silly.It was a good example of grasping at straws by those who will not face up to their responsibilities.
Since I have never seen the pictures you were refering to (and never having been to New York), I couldnt actually make a comment on them or the comparison.And you still fail to address the question – how is it these graphic images, of dissected bodies, can be plastered on the sides of busses, but those graphic images, of aborted babies are “too shocking?”
Oh, I am not saying that that damage control will or can totally neutralize the effects. I don’t believe that it can. It can only work to mitigate them to the extent possible in the situation. There are many factors at work—the age of the child, the sensitivity of the child, the situation in which the exposure occurs, etc.My son will be distressed no matter how good your damage control is (he is a high functioning autistic child), so I guess that it is a little different for us.
I agree.But not only that, I object to the “blame game” (its the parents fault) that goes on.
Many people object to these images becuase they dont want to have to explain to their children why they support what the images depict. Of course they’ll tell you its all about protecting their childrens feelings but in reality its all about protecting their childrens feelings about them.Thought this was an interesting answer to the abortionists who object to images of “fetal tissue” being used to dissuade people from getting abortions.
WARNING, SOMEWHAT GRAPHIC PHOTO
Its not just the graphic images the abortion aplogists oppose. they fight tooth and nail to keep anyone from showing women what the child looks like before they abort it. When our CPC was obtaing 3 d ultrasound Planned Parenthood tried to get the law changed so that such devices could only be used in certified medical clinic.I think pictures of this sort should be posted in every high school and dorm bathroom. I think that every sex education class that supports “choice” should be required to show them.
Do you honestly think a 3-year old child knows what they’re looking at when they see the flayed corpse of a Chinese, or the body of an aborted child – unlesss the parent tells them what it is?Elric, I will have to say that I don’t believe it is complete rubbish. Of course parental reaction plays a role in this by doing damage control, just as we do when our children accidentally see any other scene of horrific violence. What I find objectionable in vern’s statement is the word “simply” (as in “only” or “solely”).
No – what I have stated is the hypocritical acceptence of these graphic images, and the no-holds barred assault on other graphic images.I also find objectionable the implicit assumption (which he has clearly stated elsewhere) that there is nothing in the world inappropriate about showing scenes of horrific violence in full color tractor trailer sized blood covered, dismembered detail to young children without their parents’ consent and that therefore he has the unassailable and unquestionable right to put these images wherever he pleases whenever he pleases, including deliberately placing them where he knows that large groups of children will see them in the normal course of daily activity.
No, that is not true. At least I can speak from my own experiences with my own children. Horrible images of evil should not be shown to a very young child.As has been pointed out many a time, when children get upset over pictures like this, it is simply their reaction to the parents’ response.
Look at the exhibition of bodies from China – when I was last in New York, city busses carried ads for this exhibition, huge, gruesome pictures of dead and dissected bodies on the sides of the busses. Yet no one complained about those graphic images!
When a woman is already pregnant, it is a little late to instil values in her. She must have grown up with those values – which means she must learn what abortion really is long before she’s old enough to get pregnant. That’s just basic good parenting.