Exposing children to abortion pictures not OK?
.
We often get comments from people who don’t want us to show abortion pictures in the public square because children will see them. We get one such message from “Briana Richards”, who saw our trucks operating near Liberty University in Lynchburg. She wrote:
To whom it may concern,
Let me begin by saying I am completely anti-abortion and support that cause. However, I do not agree with the manner in which the organization is displaying the signs in areas that are heavily traveled by young children. I do not think that it is necessary to take away my young child’s innocence by showing them graphic images of fetuses. The only thing that is going to promote is questions too early regarding what is abortion, why are some babies not wanted and killed. Why do YOU get to choose when the right time is to talk to MY child about abortion?
I understand making people aware of what abortion truly is so they do not make that choice, I just disagree with the method in which you are getting your point across. After school yesterday I had to stop short of the stop light and drive up next to 2 cars just so my 6 year old wouldn’t have that image in his mind for the rest of his life! You are not using a plane this year (from what I’ve seen) but what 18-month-old kid, or 10-year-old, does not look up at the cool airplane going over, only to be accosted with an image they have no idea about but know it’s scary looking? I mean would you really want to have a conversation with your 6-year-old about abortion? They don’t even understand all the ins and outs of how babies are born yet but we’re showing them what people do when they don’t want them.
I am requesting that you please take into account the large amount of parents that are driving their young children by these signs daily near the Liberty University campus and that you rethink the location of your displays for the future. I disagree with your methods but I know it is your right to display them. It seems there could be better ways to get your point across without effecting our innocent children.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Briana Richard
Sent from my iPad
I responded as follows:
Dear Ms. Richards,
Thank you for registering your comment about our work at Liberty University last week.
We don’t target young children with our pictures, but with all the institutions of society (including the Church) covering up the truth of abortion, we have no choice but to take to the public square. Otherwise, the killing will never stop.
Children are exposed to graphic images of violence all the time … on newspaper front pages, on magazine covers that are visible in the supermarket checkout lines, etc. They even showed Schindler’s List on TV during family viewing hours a few years back. Nobody objects because nobody feels guilty about their own complicity or complacency with respect to those acts of violence. Many are guilty of complicity or complacency with respect to abortion.
What is worse, a born child being horrified by a picture of abortion or a preborn child being killed by the act of abortion?
You might ask if Jesus would ever put a graphic image on display where children could see them. In fact, He did just that. Jesus controlled every aspect of his arrest, trial and execution. He arranged to have Himself beaten nearly to death before stumbling through the most crowed part of Jerusalem on the most crowded day of the year. His bloody body horrified throngs of Passover pilgrims which included large numbers of families with young children.
He then permitted himself to be stripped naked and tortured to death in full view of still more passersby, including more children. The Romans used executions to intimidate subjugated peoples. They located crucifixion cites for maximum public exposure. Our Lord accommodated Cesar by going out of His way to make this disturbing spectacle of His death as public as possible. And in the process, He chose as the very symbol of our faith, a bloody instrument of torture. His point was to disturb us with the gravity of our sin but bless us with the grace of His forgiveness, despite the fact that many children would be traumatized in the process. Did He get this wrong?
.
Tags: abortion pictures, CBR, Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, children, GAP, Genocide Awareness Project, Jesus, Liberty University
This entry was posted on Monday, September 19th, 2011 at 2:31 pm and is filed under Abortion and the Church, Campus Debate (GAP). You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
One Response to “Exposing children to abortion pictures not OK?”
Leave a Reply
September 19th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
There are a view arguments that this author makes that I would like to politely disagree with:
1) I don’t think that it is correct to say that nobody objects to graphic images being shown in public. People object all the time to inappropriate things being shown in the public arena. Furthermore, I don’t think that we as Christians can use the secular world as a gauge for what is morally acceptable. Thus, I consider this aspect of his argument to be insubstantial.
2) Next, I think that to use the polarizing distinction, “What is worse, a born child being horrified by a picture of abortion or a preborn child being killed by the act of abortion?” is oversimplifying the issue. By posing this rhetorical question in a way that implies there only exists one extreme or the other, the author assumes that without showing graphic images of unborn children being aborted to children there is no hope for them. I would heartily disagree with this. I think I understand what he was trying to get at, but this argument in itself is quite weak, and should any individuals who are undecided on the issue encounter this, I believe it would give cause for them to disregard the pro-life platform altogether. There are many ways to save unborn children — exposing young individuals to graphic images is not the only way to do so.
3) Finally, I don’t think that the comparison between showing children graphic images of aborted foetuses against their parents’ wishes and Jesus choosing to be tortured and crucified publicly is a substantial argument either, nor is it an accurate comparison. The crowds that gathered to see Jesus on the day of his crucifixion voluntarily assembled before the display of brutality. No one was dragged up to Golgotha to watch, or dragged out of their homes to watch, or forced to remain alongside of the procession. Furthermore, while there is no doubt a brutality to the way Jesus chose to sacrifice himself, Christian parents have the right to expose their children to the increasing degrees of that brutality at their own discretion, just as they have the right to expose their children to the realities of abortion at their own discretion. Stepping in and choosing to parent another individual’s child is disrespectful and unloving. Yes, we must preach the Word of God, but the means do not always justify the End, especially if the means are unloving and disrespectful.
To conclude, I’d like to say that I do believe that graphic images of abortions can be very effective in fighting against the pro-choice movement. However, I do not agree with showing them anywhere and everywhere, mainly for the reason stated in the letter which the author of the article was addressing. Another very good reason to not post these pictures publicly is that doing so can disregard the healing process that converted women who have had abortions must undergo. These women are surely aware of the gravity and the severity of their actions, but we must be loving and nurturing to them in their healing. Thus, I think that this author’s article is composed of very insubstantial arguments, and may even do a disservice to the pro-life platform, should any undecided individuals come across it.