Thanks to protesters, children saw horrifying images

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ^ | April 27, 2002 | CAROL BENDER- letter to editor

[syriacus]

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.

[supercat]

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.

You should rent it sometime (the original--haven't seen the remake but hear it's not as good).

As I was noting in another thread, I think it more effective to juxtapose pictures of live fetuses with something like the pictures of jars, without showing the mangled fetuses. The problem with the latter is that it will tend to direct the viewer's revultion toward the [mangled] fetus, rather than at the act of mangling the fetus.

[SKempis]

You need to read up on the thread. You and I agree. But erizona has a problem with us parents who decide not to tell the child the whole gory truth. In his words from post 209: "Obviously you can blow smoke up their tails like so many do about Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy but hey, if lying to your children is what turns you on... go for it and watch as they one day kill your grandchildren."

He not only thinks we are wrong to not tell them the gory truth, but throughout his posts, he accuses us of supporting abortion if we don't.

[sweetliberty]

When my daughter was growing up I was one of the strictest parents I knew about what she was exposed to . But there were certain things I didn't shield her from because I wanted an indelible impact to be made on her, even thoguh it may have been hard for her to process. For example, when she was 2 years old and we attended a showing of the movie "Jesus" I did not try to shield her from the brutality of the crucifixion. And granted, while these pictures are horrific and may be very shocking to a child, and even to an uninformed adult, they do have the capacity to make an indelible and valuable impression. After all, if the pictures are so horrible, just think how much more horrible is the act they depict.

[sweetliberty]

"wise parents give their children time to mature before being faced with them."

Which is a great deal more than the world does, so in some ways it is doing them a disservice not to equip them. There are entities at every turn slathering at the mouth to steal a child's innocence at every turn. Given those circumstances I have to say I don't have much problem with an opposing force innoculating them against the abundance of liberal lies that seduce them from the time they make their first "public" appearance in life.

[Servant of the Nine]

Pro-choice people hate it when you remind them just what it is they are choosing.

If I told Y'all that I was going to protest against homosexual teachers by walking in front of the elementary school in question carrying a large graphic photo of a homosexual buggering a young boy you would call me insane and disgusting and you would be right. The same is true of abortion protesters who carry graphic pictures of dead fetuses where children can see them.

SO9

[Servant of the Nine]

ABORTION IS MURDER

Nonsense. Abortion is killing future Democrats. Democrats get abortions and kill the fetuses that would otherwise be raised as Democrats. Good.

So9

[ValerieUSA]

If "gay" teachers inside a school were teaching children that homosexuals are loving and kind and just want children to feel good about themselves and their sexuality, then a sign depicting a child being buggered might be the only way to counteract such heinous deception. The truth HURTS liars. Liars hurt children.

[SKempis]

You are revolting. Moreover, you shame the name of Christianity by your obnoxiously rude and libelous rantings.

There is no justification for maligning with false accusations people who have made it clear that they are not guilty of supporting the disgusting abortions - and yet you call yourself righteous.

I'm done with you.

[nmh]

My daughter will turn three this May. I wish they'd flaunt aborted fetus pictures where I live in NJ. I WANT my daughter to SEE just how hideous abotion is. I WANT her to know that there is a more COPASSIONATE solution - have the baby and if you don't want to raise it, put it up for adoption. Indeed, abortion is hideous and precisely why this it is so offensive to view. Few want you to see the truth of what an abortion does to a little human being. I WANT my daughter to know that we don't advocate killing little helpless babies and a picture is worth a thousand words.

[nmh]

#254 - "You don't want your precious little child or grandchild to see the horrors of murdered babies? Then stop supporting the killing of them and you will not have to deal with it."

RIGHT ONE! Truth offends people. Too bad. Imagine what it must have felt like to be murdered or should I be more specific, dismembered while alive for "compassionate" reasons. No, kids of ALL ages as well as adults need to SEE just what abortion does to little human beings.

I will make it point to show my daughter just what a abortion is. For her it is not a possiblity.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

Thank you. If there is a First Amendment right to show pictures of "virtual" children being raped, then it is most certainly constitutional to show pictures of the corpses of real children after they have been slaughtered.

As we now know, the First Amendment applies to all sorts of horrific and damaging speech- no matter if it's on a computer or on the sidewalk.

[Admin Moderator]

Those types of pictures do not belong on Free Republic. Do not post it again.

[Pagey]

"Abortion, it's just murder".What a perfectly Pithy statement.It really is that clear.Period.

[HiTech RedNeck]

They're visible on the STREET for crying out loud. THAT IS THE POINT! And nobody has made the abortion protesters stop showing these pictures on the street yet. And this is in an ABORTION thread, not some nice children's story about a teddy bear. Talk about nanny website overreaction. SHEESH.

[Eagle Eye]

I've protested directly outside clinic, yet I think those tactics of shoving the graphic photos in the faces of the public not only distasteful, but counter productive. Doing it outside a clinic would be appropriate but I've seen it done in other settingsthat had nothing to do with abortion and it didn't win anyone to the cause.

[Eagle Eye]

It reveals the horrors to people, and it IS effective. If done as the article describes, it reveals the horrors to people who didn't ask and didn't want to be exposed to gruesome photos. I disgree that it is effective, unless you think that grossing people out and getting them upset with you is effective.

I'm surprised that a Conservative, particularly one who calls himself "Pro-Life" would reject this method.

Do you partake of this method? Have you personally tried any other method?