Posted on 03/19/2002 10:00:46 PM PST by Buffalo Bob
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:08 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
On most Thursday afternoons, she positions herself in the median on Ritchie Highway. Wearing the black robe and hood of the Grim Reaper, the woman uses kitchen tongs to hold a baby doll smeared with fake blood. She's joined by others displaying 5-foot-tall color posters of dead fetuses.
On one side of the highway is a women's medical clinic. On the other side is a school - with children as young as 3 years old.
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
I disagree. It's time to stop being nice and pleasant. It's time to show a bright, stark light on this issue.
I would not want my young children exposed to the kind of graphic posters which are used at many anti-abortion protests. I wouldn't want them watching Silent Scream either. There is a time and a method for delivering the anti-abortion message to children, and this ain't it. These children are probably having nightmares over this - Young children do not need the graphic message.
We have them participate in the Life Chain, candlelight vigils, etc - And we carefully present the message. There is time enough for them to be exposed to the ugliness of the world - I want them to enjoy the innocence of childhood while it lasts. I would be highly irate if people I considered to be allies were attempting to usurp my right to teach my children as I see fit.
But that abortion clinic across the street from a school, it doesn't target children does it??
50% of all people that enter an abortion clinic are murdered!
By the time I finally understood what abortion really is, I had already helped two girls do it. Now I have to go to hell to pay for what I did, but I'm sorry.
Point taken. I don't suggest ignoring the topic; I do discuss it with my children. But my five-year old doesn't need to see pictures of aborted babies.
That is not to say that she shouldn't see them when she's older; I would have no qualms about an 11 or 12 year old getting the graphic message - Show them Silent Scream.
My point is not that the protestors are there - I agree with and support their efforts to educate people on the horrors of abortion. However, I think that parents are probably legitimately concerned about the graphic nature of the message.
There is a lot of ugly stuff in the world, and I've been successful for the most part in insulating my young children from it. They are conceptually aware of war, but I see no reason to show them Saving Private Ryan or graphic newscasts. They are conceptually aware of abortion, and go to a conservative Catholic school, where they pray the Rosary for the victims of abortion - but they don't need to see images of dead babies to understand that it is wrong.
I know I can't protect them from the world forever, nor do I plan to, but it is my right to determine what I teach them and when. The fact that I believe in their cause makes it no more acceptable.
Unfortunately, I think in some cases you are correct. I don't know if its a majority. I know that in the Catholic school my kids attend, the issue is addressed in no uncertain terms.
The other day, I was looking at a family member's copy of the school newspaper of an all-girls Catholic high school. I was a little surprised to see a column devoted to bashing President Bush. I was even more surprised that the article included several references to "choice."
They clearly need Freeping.
That does not, however, negate my judgement as to the best way to inculcate that attitude in my children. And if you, against my wishes, exposed my children to that imagery, you'd be pulling pieces of protest sign out of your fourth point of contact. Period.
Most Catholics I know, especially those who attend Mass and send their children to Catholic school, as opposed to "dog-tag Catholics", are at least somewhat sympathetic to the anti-abortion position. Yes, I know that for some libs, Catholic school is strictly a pragmatic educational choice - but, at least in the school my children attend, they are the minority.
With a sympathetic audience, confrontational tactics like this are not productive, and tend to be polarizing. People who were somewhat sympathetic get pushed into the pro-abortion camp, by the methods used by the pro-life side.
Those tactics have their time and place - and this ain't it.
Whoever told you that was wrong, not to mention cruel.
That is the truth. By the standard of these people, it would be acceptable to shown kindergarteners pictures of blown up bodies to protest war. Or pictures of murdered people to protest the evil of murderers.
My advice would be for the protesters to be a little more judicious about their protest. They might like to remove their signs for a half-hour or so around drop off and pick up times, or simply have a coffee break. That way the kids might be spared the sights their parents dread but the protest could still continue to get its message across.
Many "Catholic" members of Congress support abortion. They also back birth control, homosexuality, and other practices contrary to the Faith. As a result, these public leaders engage in objectively mortally sinful behavior. They also spread scandal and confusion, which hurts the faithful and the Church.
And yet America 's bishops largely are silent. Most do nothing as error spreads. A bishop rarely rebukes a Catholic public figure who is spreading error and poisoning young souls. Thus, it is not unfair to say that by their silence many U.S. bishops help foster scandal, false teachings and sin.
The bishops, as a group, may issue a letter (usually under Vatican pressure) calling Catholic politicians to task. But such letters are rare. Many people don't read them. And prelates and priests do not read them in public or from the pulpit in church, where the faithful need to hear it.
When did you hear Cardinal Bernard Law, for instance, publicly chastise Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) for his public support for abortion and contraception? Never. And Edward Cardinal Egan, when he headed the Diocese of Bridgeport, Conn., did he ever publicly-and firmly and clearly-condemn the pro-abortion and anti-Catholic positions of Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.)? No. Does Egan, now Archbishop of New York, say anything in public about the pro-abortion and pro-homosexual actions of New York Mayor Rudolph Guiliani? No. Or has Archbishop Theodore McCarrick, head of the Washington Archdiocese, publicly called on any pro-abortion Catholic member of Congress to mend his ways, go to confession, and practice the Faith, lest he risk losing his immortal soul? No. McCarrick is silent.
(Maybe McCarrick and his fellow prelates write letters to wayward Catholic congressmen. But such passive and private resistance does nothing good for the Church Militant. In fact, such "diplomacy" allows evil teaching to dominate the public square. In turn, the unchallenged errors of pro-abortion Catholic politicians may influence clergy and laity alike. It may lead one to conclude, for example, that, "If the bishop says nothing about Congressman X's pro-contraception views, then they must be all right." Or, "Why should I not practice birth control? My Catholic senator supports it, and he's a good friend of my bishop. He even receives Communion from my bishop." Evil may indeed triumph when good men do nothing.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.