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]
Child abusers often make the same arguement: "It is not the abuse that traumatizes the child. It is the reactions of the adults who care for the child that traumatizes the child."
I do not buy it.
This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine, let it shine, let it shine, let it shine.
Probably on the street. Outlaw the legitimate sale of condoms. Let the local drug pushers add them to their sales card.
The showing of the pictures on the street is protected by the first ammendment. This means that people who lack common sense are free to display them. Your first ammendment rights do not extend into the private world of FreeRepublic. This means that Admin Moderators with common sense can control what appears on the pages of FreeRepublic.
Babies can now survive as early as 21-22 weeks old outside the womb. Your caveat - "without extensive life support" is ludicrous and its implications are immense. To wit, if the definition of "human" means only those who can survive without extensive life support, then we should be able to pull the plug on any 100,000's of elderly patients sitting in nursing homes and hospitals throughout the country. After all, they are incapable of surviving on their own - they are "former" humans, since at the moment they are totally dependent on external technology and humans. Why should we waste all the time and money on them? Shouldn't we direct our resources to only "healthy" and "productive" members of society?
You fail to see the implications in your espoused worldview - and you fail to see where it leads: genocide and euthanasia.
Which is pretty much what erizona advocated above. There are quite a few posters on this thread insisting it is no big deal at all to explain to a 3 year old that mommies sometimes kill their babies.
Just like rape, no young child would ever imagine that abortion even existed if not for some adult teaching it to him/her. Would it be understood? What words would you say EXACTLY? How would you, as a mother (I assume) explain to your 3 year old child that some mommies are so bad that they kill their babies and NOT harm their innocence and trust with that explanation?
Understanding that murder is wrong is basic to human understanding. ON the other hand, the idea of rape is not basic, but has to later be learned. That is, from early childhood, one knows that murder happens. On the other hand, rape is often not known about until nine to eleven years old.
I agree that most young children would say murder is wrong IF they had any idea what you actually meant and 3 year olds don't have a clue. From early childhood children DO NOT know that murder happens, unless of course, some insensitive adult has thrust it into their lives.
As a teacher, I know what goes on in the classroom. I know what kind of humanistic garbage that's being taught. I tell my students the truth, and set them straight if I see any conflicting statements within the textbooks. You underestimate their reasoning capability.
Oh, are you a PRESCHOOL teacher? With that mention of textbooks, I would assume not. I am also a teacher, of preschool, and am well educated in child development. There is NO possible way to truly explain abortion to a 3 year old child in a way that he/she will understand which will not be confusing and upsetting.
My own son was 8 when I explained it to him. As the parent, I knew what he could understand. And it is MY right to explain such things.
I know you love your child. But please concider the effect of showing something so disturbing to a child who cannot communicate well.
When most of us encounter something frightening or confusing, the first thing we do is find someone to talk it over with. And children especially need extra processing and help dealing with strong emotions.
If you don't want the world to see that you're a freaking nut case, close your curtains.
might I remind you that hangings were once done in public?
So, do I need to tell you that this was not done by surprise? That these events were preannounced, so that the parent could make his own decision whether allow the child should see that. Should I point out that this is different from the parent driving by and seeing pictures of death on the sidewalk, which necessitates unexpectedly the need to deal with the issue right then and there.
I am sorry, I mean no offense, but if you yourself are so morally confuse that you do not see the difference between these circumstances, there is nothing helpful I can say further.
Have a good night, and thank you for writing. , and the parent
Have a good night, and thank you for writing.
Sorry for not deleting the extra words from a draft of a previous sentence.
Well parental guidance and all.
AHh there is a difference between the abuse that the child actually experiences and a picture unrelated to the child. So no, child abusers are not making the same argument. I think you would kick a kid out of school for drawing a picture of a gun.
I see you took my advice and decided to get some blinders
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.