Posted on 04/27/2002 7:00:00 PM PDT by syriacus
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:34:38 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I was driving with my 3-year-old daughter Monday morning down West Liberty Avenue, when we had no choice but to gaze out the car windows at a variety of 5-foot placards depicting extremely graphic photos of aborted fetuses. My daughter asked me, "Mommy, why are those people holding signs of scary monsters?" In shock myself as to what I was seeing, I did not know what to say.
(Excerpt) Read more at post-gazette.com ...
How long has this public display of dead babies been going on? Long enough for someone to have grown up under the trauma?
We protect our kids from all sorts of reality until they are mature enough to deal with the reality. Common sense says we should protect them from this particular reality also.
How many kids are you willing to traumatize so you can be right?
You avoided my point. How does a child know without someone going into great detail to explain it to them? How does the picture go from being "icky" to a representation of mass murder?
When a young child sees a frozen chicken and asks what it is would you respond,
"Why that is a chicken. It was raised on a farm until it grew to be a big strong chicken. Then its head was chopped off with an axe. Blood squirted out all over the place from its gaping neck wound while the chicken twirled around in circles until the poor chicken fell over. Then they cut off Mr. Chicken's legs and ripped his feathers and guts out. Then he was wrapped up and sent to the store so we could eat his dead corpse".
Sadly, I must agree- this is a wicked world we live in.
I recall a post here on FR right after I joined ( and as a newbie I hadn't the vaguest idea of how to make or save links, so it's from memory ) about abortion, and for some reason most of the people gravitating to it were women who had kids.
They described "the first time their children asked 'what's an abortion, Mommy?'" and every child they talked about was horrified that a Mother would do that to her baby.
Another thing that struck me was how young those children were who asked "the question"- I seem to recall that age 7 or 8 was typical. I was well into my teens (!!!) before I heard the word.
One other thing that literally made the hair on my neck stand up--- one woman asked her 2 year old, "What was it like when you were in my belly?"
His childish reply?
"Wet...."
Most medical personnel take it as an article of faith that "fetus's have no conciousness"-- guess they are wrong, eh?
I don't know about your 3-year-old, but telling either of my children that at age 3 the truth would have caused nightmares for a week. Perhaps a simpler answer is all that is required when dealing with a very young child. Something like, "They are showing everyone the terrible things that happen in that building". I'd save the heavy rhetoric for later, like maybe 4th grade, after they have had more experience and can more cope with the images. Incidentally, 4th grade is where I plan to give reproduction and personal relationships the "Heavy Treatment", at least in small doses. So, that aspect of how people "deal" with unwanted babies will get the full treatment then.
Abortion is Murder, just ask my wife how she felt after loosing our 3rd child at 10 weeks after conception. It's been 3 years and she has never been quite the same. If it's just tissue, then why doesn't she miss her appendix as much, and lay awake some nights wondering what it might have become.
Immediately after taking office, President Bush took a giant step for the unborn, halting U.S. funding of foreign abortion clinics--something impeached42 did as soon as he took office. Congress has the responsibility to pass laws, the President to enforce them.
President Bush is doing a great job protecting human life. More than 99.99999% of those who post here on FR.
The problem with this country today is NOT enough pictures of murder victims.
The press which used to cover and print the truth now sanitizes and covers up the reality of murder.
If the pictures of all murder victims from crime scene photos were published today, the public would scream "CRIME WAVE SWEEPS CITY !!!", and they would be right, they just didn't realize it til now.
I used to support abortion, it was a convienient way to turn a blind eye to the responsibilites of life, now it's just murder.
Not condoms in drug stores! What next!
BTW, where would you suggest they be sold?
This mother obviously chose life for her own child. She now chooses to further protect that child from these horrifying images at such a tender young age. Are you saying she is as bad as those mothers who chose death for their children? That because some women chose to kill their children, she gives up her rights to protect her own? Sorry, but that's twisted
Doctor "I can help ypu, you need an abortion".
Young Girl "Oh thank you doctor, when can you hlp me"?
Doctor " I WANT MY MONEY FIRST".
I would suggest that anti-abortion protesters should take lessons from Hitchcock's style. It really might work wonders.
Hitchcock was able to do what he did because he could rely on the viewers to have a similar point of view. This is the universal view almost any member of Western society would have.
It's a given, that, to most of the audience, Miss Crane looked like a human. It's also a given that most of the audience knew that the human, Miss Crane, was killed by the murderer slashing or stabbing her to death. They have cut themselves or seen other people who have had knife wounds. The Hitchcock audience knows that pain and bleeding (and fear) are involved.
The pro-abortionists have been saying for years that the fetus does not resemble a human. They have been promoting a "mind set" among their audience that imagines that abortion is a surgical procedure similar to removal of a mole.
In the case of abortion, the audience does not have a universal point of view. People who want to keep abortion legal, at any cost, have a real need to deny the gruesome reality. Many people who get to see pictures of aborted fetuses might be horrified.
I haven't seen Psycho. Was the Hitchcock film silent at the time of the murder of Miss Crane? Were there sounds of terror or menacing music in the film? This brings to mind an alternative to showing gruesome pictures. Pro-lifers could play audio tapes of the sound of small bodies being ripped apart.
Given that you are on high horse of motality, why don't you just take a machinegun and spray the town square with bullets? Just make sure that five-year-old is also there.
I am amazed that I have to say this again: having a rightious cause in not enough; the means you shoose have to be moral as well.
who is it that is confused? I am: givent that you are posting on a conservative board and the you are not doing this under duress (this is a free country), it was natural for me to assume that you were a conservative.
please explain which comments I made that led you to believe that I think the ends justify the means? You rvery next sentence is the answer:
I see nothing wrong with showing pictures of the truth I explained that these pictures create "collateral damage," which I find morally indefensible.
and as far as anyones children being exposed to said pictures, ultimately the parents are responsible for what a child sees or does not see. That is patently false. I grant you, these words are repeated so often that they sound like truth: they are repeated every time someone objects to the trashy content of TV boradcasts and movies.
This statement is patently false, nontheless. Until the leftists won in this country, no one has ever advanced it. It is precisely because the parent is physically unable to do that, the responsibility is taken up by the society at large. This is why (and not just for sanitary reasons) you cannot urinate in the street. Until the recent idiotic ruling by the courts, for centuries you could not swear in public (in Michigan, I believe, it is still illegal). This is why the sale of certain magazines to minors is illegal. This is why a contract to buy real estate signed by a minor is null and void. In sum, contrary to your assertion, the very thrust of Anglo-American law is to acknowledge that the parent cannot fully control what the child sees and does. I reiterate: because it is so fundamental, no one even touched this until recently, when the leftists found the need to justify pornography on television --- it is then that they invented sentences like "Control your child," "You do not like it, turn it off."
this is what haas far as I know we still have freedom of movement in the USA, and freedom of association (kinda) Agian, you appear to be a victim to the slogans here (please do not read any offense here: none is intended). Whether you have freedom to do something, in the sense that you reference, stems from your relationship with the government. Yes, from that standpoint, you have all the freedoms.
Teh government does not regulate (thank G-d) all your relationships and behaviors --- in fact, does not interfere with most of them. Although you have a freedom to do so, you do not scream at people when you meet them at a supermarket, you show repsect to you mother and fathrer, hopefully to the elderly as well.
If you did not assist a widow or orphan at the time of need, most people would say that you were wrong. The defense "I have freedom of movement" would be inapplicable for the very reason I mentioned: your relationship with the government has nothing to do with you releationship with that orphan.
In all Judeo-Christian societies, morality was always a more stringent standard than the law. What law leaves upt to you, the moral code does not.
It is because immoralirty is so widespread --- to the point that some refer to the society as post-Christian --- you here statements such as you referenced. It is patently wrong to justify the deviance from the moral code by the fact that the law permits its. This is the rape of everything sacred in the Judeo-Christian civilization that has been perpetrated by the left over the last four decades.
if you do not want your children exposed to things such as these, then might I suggest moving to a country where such pictures are not allowed, or investing in some blinders....
Ah, either America where one cannot even discuss morality or none at all --- that is the choice you are giving me.
Sorry, this not your America to give it to me. It is true that you and your fellow travellers have hijacked it and moved very, very far from its moral foundation. But it is not up to a thief to dispose of the stolen property. The America that morally-deprived have stolen from us shall be returned to its rightful owners.
The fact that you as adults believe that you can deal with something your children can't shows just how sick and twisted out society has become.The fact that you think that a 3-5 year old child should be expected to deal with whatever an adult can deal with is what's sick and twisted.
...Listen, if it is to horrible for your child to look at or to embarrassing for you to find a way to explain how some mommies "CHOOSE" to torture their children to death then maybe it is time you stopped supporting the genocide.
How dare you accuse us of supporting genocide simply because we don't think it is appropriate information for a three year old.
I'm very tempted to tell you where you can put that thumb. (It's right about where your head is now.)
who is it that is confused? I am: given that you are posting on a conservative board and that you are not doing this under duress (this is a free country), it was natural for me to assume that you were a conservative.
please explain which comments I made that led you to believe that I think the ends justify the means? Your very next sentence is the answer:
I see nothing wrong with showing pictures of the truth I explained that these pictures create "collateral damage," which I find morally indefensible.
and as far as anyones children being exposed to said pictures, ultimately the parents are responsible for what a child sees or does not see. That is patently false. I grant you, these words are repeated so often that they sound like truth: they are repeated every time someone objects to the trashy content of TV broadcasts and movies.
This statement is patently false, nonetheless. Until the leftists won in this country, no one has ever advanced it. It is precisely because the parent is physically unable to do that, the responsibility is taken up by the society at large. This is why (and not just for sanitary reasons) you cannot urinate in the street. Until the recent idiotic ruling by the courts, for centuries you could not swear in public (in Michigan, I believe, it is still illegal). This is why the sale of certain magazines to minors is illegal. This is why a contract to buy real estate signed by a minor is null and void. In sum, contrary to your assertion, the very thrust of Anglo-American law is to acknowledge that the parent cannot fully control what the child sees and does. I reiterate: because it is so fundamental, no one even touched this until recently, when the leftists found the need to justify pornography on television --- it is then that they invented sentences like "Control your child," "You do not like it, turn it off."
this is what haas far as I know we still have freedom of movement in the USA, and freedom of association (kinda) Agian, you appear to be a victim to the slogans here (please do not read any offense here: none is intended). Whether you have freedom to do something, in the sense that you reference, stems from your relationship with the government. Yes, from that standpoint, you have all the freedoms.
The government does not regulate (thank G-d) all your relationships and behaviors --- in fact, does not interfere with most of them. Although you have a freedom to do so, you do not scream at people when you meet them at a supermarket, you show respect to you mother and father, hopefully to the elderly as well.
If you did not assist a widow or orphan at the time of need, most people would say that you were wrong. The defense "I have freedom of movement" would be inapplicable for the very reason I mentioned: your relationship with the government has nothing to do with you relationship with that orphan.
In all Judeo-Christian societies, morality was always a more stringent standard than the law. What law leaves up to you, the moral code does not.
It is because immorality is so widespread --- to the point that some refer to the society as post-Christian --- you here statements such as you referenced. It is patently wrong to justify the deviance from the moral code by the fact that the law permits its. This is the rape of everything sacred in the Judeo-Christian civilization that has been perpetrated by the left over the last four decades.
if you do not want your children exposed to things such as these, then might I suggest moving to a country where such pictures are not allowed, or investing in some blinders....
Ah, either America where one cannot even discuss morality or none at all --- that is the choice you are giving me.
Sorry, this not your America to give it to me. It is true that the morally-deprived have hijacked it and moved very, very far from its moral foundation. It is not up to the thieves to dispose of the stolen property; America shall be returned to its rightful owners.
What genocide? How does a 3-5 year look at the picture above, which is about as bad as they get, and see genocide or murder? They dont know what you know when they see such a picture. When we look at the picture, part of the picture is what we know about what it means. The only way such a young child could be traumatized by that picture is if someone explained the meaning of it to them in such a way as to amplify the ugliness as much as possible.
Can a 3-5 year old tell the difference between a frozen chicken in the grocery store and human child butchered and packaged in the same way?
It is still up to the parent to guide the child in the non-sesame street world that we live in.
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.