Why some images shock us

[Shoshana]

I think pictures would be a good thing for people to understand what they are up against. If they would see the arms, legs and head of tiny human being, they might think twice for sure. I just saw the movie ‘The Silent Screan’. This would be an effective tool for pro-life and then is no gore at all. Just a fetus (11-week old) trying to escape the surgeon’s aspirator.:crying:

 

[deb1]

It is that it so well illustrates the motiff of parental reaction being the causitive element in childrens’ reactions. The preschoolers are not at all disturbed by the fact that there are life size headless human representations. Why? Because their parents aren’t running from the store saying “O my gosh…a headless person!”. Now if the parents were to act in such manner, I would hazard to guess the child would be “emotionally harmed”. The exact same thing applies to graphic abortion photos. It is dependent on how the parents react to them.

My child is the one who noticed and was upset at the photos first. She wanted to understand what the pictures were of. I have said that in a previous post.

If a plastic doll upset her I could explain that it wasn’t real(although giant, plastic, human like forms really do creep me out sometimes) An aborted baby is impossible to explain to a child of three without upsetting her. It isn’t a question of the parent being calm. Displaying giant plastic dolls has not hurt any innocent child. Abortion has. To equate the two is almost to downplay the killing of infants.

 

[deb1]

“Shock value” in and of itself is of little beneficial value.

Why show the pictures then? Why make a fuss about not turning the photos toward the highway.

It is of more value for people to be informed and educated about something than to be shocked by it.

You can’t tell me that the doctors and nurses who perform these abortions aren’t aware of what they are doing. They see the results of abortions everyday. They simply are no longer shocked

In a recent article a woman who aborted her infant for the environment expressed some sorrow over her child. She certainly understood that she was taking a child’s life, or why would she feel remorse? People can do horrible things and know that they are horrible.

Look at the Holocaust, for instance. Their is a display at the Holocaust museum of German soldiers playing with their own families, and clowning around. These photos were taken at the same time that the soldiers would go to work and kill innocent men, women and children in the concentration camp.

All these people were/and or rational. They simply weren’t shocked at cruelty anymore.

Why would you want people to be shocked at abortion. How is it of benefit to withhold showing the reality of abortion so that the appropriate time (what is the appropriate time) they can be displayed and shock people with them.

People become deadened to what they see often.

I think the images that have slowly turned the public against abortion are those showing children alive in the womb. The image, a few years back, of a fetus grabbing the doctor’s finger as he performed a operation in the womb is pretty effective to me.

I don’t think that people have to be shocked or frightened to see that abortion is wrong. But neither do I want us to become desensitized toward images of aborted fetuses.

It is much better if people were constantly reminded of the tragedy happening before them, lest they become complacent.
People tend to forget what is not constantly placed before them. Why do you think Coca-Cola keeps putting pop ads everywhere. They certainly wouldn’t if one showing would suffice as then they would never have to advertise again.

I agree. I just don’t agree with this method of doing so.

What does getting angry and shocked do for them. It is better if they can think rationally about it.

Righteous anger is a good thing and it doesn’t have to be irrational. Killing innocent children should anger/sadden and horrify us.

 

[deb1]

I think pictures would be a good thing for people to understand what they are up against. If they would see the arms, legs and head of tiny human being, they might think twice for sure. I just saw the movie ‘The Silent Screan’. This would be an effective tool for pro-life and then is no gore at all. Just a fetus (11-week old) trying to escape the surgeon’s aspirator.:crying:

I think that I saw a blip of this movie and I couldn’t even get past the trailer. Yes, it upset me very much also.It would be a good movie for some teenagers, maybe a few preteens(although the child’s maturity level has to be taken into context)

 

[mapleoak]

An aborted baby is impossible to explain to a child of three without upsetting her.

No it isn’t.

It isn’t a question of the parent being calm. Displaying giant plastic dolls has not hurt any innocent child. Abortion has. To equate the two is almost to downplay the killing of infants.

It would if that’s what was being equated, however it is not. The mannequins are being equated with graphic images. We could rewrite exactly what you wrote above but substitute graphic abortion photos. Here goes:

Displaying graphic abortion photos has not hurt any innocent child. Abortion has. To equate the two is almost to downplay the killing of infants.

…And that is a totally correct statement and the gist of what these threads are about.

 

[mapleoak]

Why show the pictures then? Why make a fuss about not turning the photos toward the highway.

Because they are used to educate, inform, and persuade. They need to be seen in order to accomplish that. It is not the main purpose to ‘shock’.

You can’t tell me that the doctors and nurses who perform these abortions aren’t aware of what they are doing. They see the results of abortions everyday. They simply are no longer shocked

They are indifferent inspite of, not because they are no longer shocked.

In a recent article a woman who aborted her infant for the environment expressed some sorrow over her child. She certainly understood that she was taking a child’s life, or why would she feel remorse? People can do horrible things and know that they are horrible.
Look at the Holocaust, for instance. Their is a display at the Holocaust museum of German soldiers playing with their own families, and clowning around. These photos were taken at the same time that the soldiers would go to work and kill innocent men, women and children in the concentration camp.

All these people were/and or rational. They simply weren’t shocked at cruelty anymore.

It is totally incorrect to say that these people did the things they did simply because they were used to it and not shocked by it.

People become deadened to what they see often.

Why are you arguing this point? I really don’t believe there to be any danger of people becoming deadened to abortion any time soon. On the one hand, you want children to be shocked if they see a photo and not be jaded to them, on the other hand you don’t want them to see a photo at all. Which is it?
We can actually state that the other way also. If people are jaded and not shocked by them, what is the problem?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I have no idea why they don’t provoke the same reaction. As I have said before, I haven’t the opportunity to look at them. They don’t show them on buses here, or if they do I haven’t seen them myself. So, I can’t respond to that.

Yes, it is MY child and IT is MY right as a Parent to decide when to expose her to evil. Each parent has to gauge when their individual child is ready for this information.

It is a sad commentary on our education system that people seem unable to use words like, “duty” or “obligation” or “responsibility” in a sentence.

My husband lost a considerable amount of family to the Holocaust but I did not want my three year old to be exposed to those pictures either. Now that she is nine, we have discussed some of the Holocaust with her. But even so, she has expressed fear that if her Grandparents had not left Austria there would be no her alive. How much more horrible is the idea of a mother allowing her child to be killed in her womb to a three year old.

I saw those very pictures when I was about 3 1/2 – Movietone News showed them just before the Mickey Mouse cartoon at the movies.

It did me a world of good – it innoculated me against the blandishments and persuasions of dictatorial systems of government.

 

[KarenNC]

It is a sad commentary on our education system that people seem unable to use words like, “duty” or “obligation” or “responsibility” in a sentence.

It is my duty, obligation and responsibility to do everything within my power to see that my child is not exposed to horrific situations and images just to satisfy the desires of someone else.

I saw those very pictures when I was about 3 1/2 – Movietone News showed them just before the Mickey Mouse cartoon at the movies.

Several differences here:

1. You stated “It did me a world of good – it innoculated me against the blandishments and persuasions of dictatorial systems of government.” This is a much more complex idea than “it is wrong to kill babies”. If you were able to grasp at 3 1/2 that one should not be taken in by “blandishments and persuasions of dictatorial systems of government”, I am at a loss to explain your statement “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”.

2)You were not grabbed off the street by a random stranger and taken into the movies to show you this because the stranger decided it was good for you. Your parents took you to the movies. If they believed that taking a 3 1/2 year old to the movies was acceptable they were within their rights to do so. I do not know if it was standard behavior for 3 1/2 year olds to be taken to the movies at that time.

1. The reel was shown inside a movie theater, a place where one has to deliberately buy tickets and enter in order to see what is being shown, not on the street outside the toy store.
2. There are things that were considered widely socially acceptable 45+ years ago that are not considered socially acceptable now. Even then, as we have discussed before, the horrific pictures of the Holocaust, concentration camps, dismembered soldiers, etc did not appear on the cover of Life magazine, though some were indeed printed inside.

 

[Scottgun]

Here is a link from a group that has heard every ham-fisted objection to images and disposed of them: prolifeaction.org/truth/objections.htm#kids

Still waiting for an actual argument that says using images is wrong without appealing to the imprudent dodge.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The issue is not simply the grossness or horror of the images but the fact that abortion if evil. Children are innocent, and we as grownups are supposed to protect their innocence. I don’t understand the desire to expose them to evil before they are ready or their parents feel that they are ready.

You left out the part about how we grownups are supposed to educate the children. We are supposed to instil values in them, so they can grow up to be strong, morally upright adults.

As I said, it’s a comment on our education system that so many cannot use words like “duty,” “obligation” and “responsibility” in a sentence.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It is my duty, obligation and responsibility to do everything within my power to see that my child is not exposed to horrific situations and images just to satisfy the desires of someone else.

Several differences here:

1. You stated “It did me a world of good – it innoculated me against the blandishments and persuasions of dictatorial systems of government.” This is a much more complex idea than “it is wrong to kill babies”. If you were able to grasp at 3 1/2 that one should not be taken in by “blandishments and persuasions of dictatorial systems of government”, I am at a loss to explain your statement “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”.

2)You were not grabbed off the street by a random stranger and taken into the movies to show you this because the stranger decided it was good for you. Your parents took you to the movies. If they believed that taking a 3 1/2 year old to the movies was acceptable they were within their rights to do so. I do not know if it was standard behavior for 3 1/2 year olds to be taken to the movies at that time.

1. The reel was shown inside a movie theater, a place where one has to deliberately buy tickets and enter in order to see what is being shown, not on the street outside the toy store.
2. There are things that were considered widely socially acceptable 45+ years ago that are not considered socially acceptable now. Even then, as we have discussed before, the horrific pictures of the Holocaust, concentration camps, dismembered soldiers, etc did not appear on the cover of Life magazine, though some were indeed printed inside.

Nice tap dance.

The fact is, showing the images works. Showing the images early (with rational, dutiful parents to explain them) works better.

It’s true some parents abandon their responsibility, have hysterics and transmit that to their children. The answer to that is, work on your parenting skills.

 

[Newbie2]

People learn to be shocked, and the primary teachers are the parents.

Consider this – some cultures eat grubs, those little white worms you find under logs. They’re perfectly nutritious. But having taught survival courses, I know most Americans have a hard time eating them – in fact, most young troops gag and vomit when they first try.

Why? Because the people who eat them were taught at a young age that such things are good to eat, and young Americans are taught they are not.

And that early teaching is enough to cause violent physical reactions to such food.

Not that I saw. I saw bus after bus with larger-than-lifesize flayed, dissected human corpses, but didn’t see anyone throwing things, picketing, or complaining.

Do you really think a parent should wait until after a daughter gets pregnant to instill values in her?

Sorry, I don’t know how to quote a quote, so I hope this isn’t confusing:

Horrifying should remain horrifying.

I get the impression that Vern thinks that kids of all ages are able to emotionally handle graphic pictures and the explanation of abortion. Maybe the explanation of “they won’t be shocked unless their parents teach them to be” holds some water, maybe not.

So we’re supposed to teach our kids early that dismembered fetuses and corpses are not supposed to be shocking? Wouldn’t that lead to a “ho-hum…there’s another picture of a dismembered fetus, big deal” attitude in our youth? Kinda like the desentization with violent video games?

There was quite a stir in the media about the “Bodies” exhibition, depending on where you live. And I’ve never personally seen anyone throwing things, picketing, or complaining outside an abortion clinic. Just because you didn’t see it personally, Vern, doesn’t mean it didn’t occur.

No, I don’t really think a parent should wait until after a daughter gets pregnant to instill values in her. I was responding to your assertion, “When a woman is already pregnant, it is a little late to instil values in her. She must have grown up with those values…”

Ideally, of course, we agree that values are better instilled when young. But there’s no event or cut-off date for instilling values, is there? I think I get your point and agree for the most part, but not with the particular way you put it.

 

[mapleoak]

So we’re supposed to teach our kids early that dismembered fetuses and corpses are not supposed to be shocking?

No, we are supposed to teach our kids early that dismembering babies is wrong.

Wouldn’t that lead to a “ho-hum…there’s another picture of a dismembered fetus, big deal” attitude in our youth? Kinda like the desentization with violent video games?

And then the problem of kids being traumatized by them would go away then, wouldn’t it? It looks as if many who are opposed to the pictures want kids to be traumatized by them so that they have an excuse to oppose them.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Interesting. First you say this:

My child is the one who noticed and was upset at the photos first. She wanted to understand what the pictures were of. I have said that in a previous post.

And then you say this:

If a plastic doll upset her I could explain that it wasn’t real(although giant, plastic, human like forms really do creep me out sometimes)

If they creep you out, don’t you think that communicates itself to your child?

It isn’t the picture or the doll – it’s the parents’ reaction that upsets the child.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No, we are supposed to teach our kids early that dismembering babies is wrong.

And then the problem of kids being traumatized by them would go away then, wouldn’t it? It looks as if many who are opposed to the pictures want kids to be traumatized by them so that they have an excuse to oppose them.

Bingo! You broke the code.

 

[Chuck_M]

Here is a link from a group that has heard every ham-fisted objection to images and disposed of them: prolifeaction.org/truth/objections.htm#kids

From the site you mention:

We also respect the responsibility of parents to educate their children on such issues. That’s why we always place Warning signs several blocks in advance of our display, to allow parents and others to choose an alternate route if they would rather not see the pictures.

I have no problem with this as it seems to be the best way to handle the situation.

mapleoak:

No, we are supposed to teach our kids early that dismembering babies is wrong.

Why can this not be done without having to show a sensitive child a picture of an aborted baby? You’re acting as though people will only become pro-life if they’ve seen pictures of aborted babies when they were very young. I mean really, you can educate your children that murder is wrong without having to show them pictures of graphic crime scenes. The child is not going to say “Sorry Mum but I don’t believe that a fetus is a person.”

 

[Scottgun]

From the site you mention:

I have no problem with this as it seems to be the best way to handle the situation.

Agreed. I don’t know anyone suggesting forcing children to look at them. We are mostly dismantling the absurdity that graphic images should not be used at all on the possibility of children seeing them. The fact that no one has made a coherent argument against their use and yet still persist indicates that something else is going on. Like the site says, “Is a mother really motivated by concern for the children in her car when she rolls down the window to scream obscenities at us about their seeing the pictures?”

 

[vern_humphrey]

Why can this not be done without having to show a sensitive child a picture of an aborted baby?

First of all, it isn’t the child that’s sensitive, it’s the parent.

Children in many cultures routinely see things that would have an emotional impact on aduts in this culture – but it doesn’t affect them, because the parents don’t freak out.

Next, I have seen those on the opposite side of this issue say “Can’t it be done some other way?” But they never actually have another way to suggest.

And there has to be a reason for that.

 

[KarenNC]

Agreed. I don’t know anyone suggesting forcing children to look at them. We are mostly dismantling the absurdity that graphic images should not be used at all on the possibility of children seeing them.

Then you are arguing against something that has not been proposed.

If you read my posts on this subject for the last several months you will see a continual theme. Use the pictures if you feel they are effective, but use them with **reasonable discrimination ** in areas where any person is going to reasonably expect that there will be large numbers of young children.

This discussion (and all the others that have preceded it) has never been about “don’t use the pictures at all in any situation”. There are folks who are using these photos in ways that are reaching the public without having to also reach children under the age of 7. Vern and his friends keep pointing me toward testimonials on websites…which refer to people whose minds have been changed by the photos on the website. They keep bringing up picketing at abortion clinics—I have specifically said many times that I can see the justification for using these in and directly outside abortion clinics. I have said repeatedly that I can see the justification for using these on college campuses, in sex ed classes, at publicized rallies, etc.

I cannot see a reasonable justification for parading these outside a toy store, flying them behind planes over public beaches and towns, driving them on tractor trailer trucks around cities, parking them in neighborhoods and outside unsuspecting churches without permission, plastering them on people’s cars in grocery store parking lots when you can clearly see that there is a child’s booster seat in the back, leaving them on restaurant tables and in public restrooms in businesses frequented by parents with young children. Note that none of these are in the vicinity of abortion clinics.

These are indeed “forcing” children to see these images without their parents’ prior permission or cooperation. These are people who are deliberately going out of their way to find places where families gather with their young children. This is not “accidental exposure” or “unintentional”, it is a deliberately planned strategy.

Reasonable discrimination in use would include: handing the material directly to an adult, restricting their use to places that are not reasonably expected to have large numbers of young children present unless their parents choose to bring them there, using them in your own religion’s sex education classes and religious education classes with the consent and cooperation of the parent, using other options in situations where you know there are likely to be numbers of young children.

 

[KarenNC]

Children in many cultures routinely see things that would have an emotional impact on aduts in this culture – but it doesn’t affect them, because the parents don’t freak out.

There are many things that occur in other cultures that are not considered appropriate (often not even considered legal) in our own culture here in the US. If you are out showing these photos to young children in those other cultures as well, I will leave it to their parents to argue with you over whether such is appropriate in that cultural context.