Truth be told
From yesterday’s Herald-Mail Online in Maryland:
When Hagerstown mom Angelique Bowman first spotted the posters of bloody aborted fetuses Monday afternoon as she strolled down West Washington Street holding the hands of her sons Dushion, 2, and Thavies, 5, she was shocked.
“I got a little annoyed because they are so graphic,” said Bowman, 28. “I had my kids with me and I didn’t expect to see that.”
But a few blocks, some conversations with the protesters and a pamphlet later, Bowman said she was convinced that the images were “what it takes” to convey what the protesters call “the truth” about abortion.
“I never realized that this is what it looks like, that it takes so much mutilation,” Bowman said.
Reactions such as Bowman’s were what members of the Baltimore-based anti-abortion group Defend Life were after when they set up their posters… on either side of the Hagerstown Reproductive Health Services clinic….
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I don’t have a problem with showing these images in newspapers, on television, on the internet — but on a street corner I have no ability to protect my children from the horror they invoke. As a parent *I* should be able to decide when, where and how to introduce my children to the abortion discussion.
The people holding up these graphic signs are not going to be there when my children wake up with nightmares because of this. It is just not appropriate to deny parents the ability to protect their children from graphic images of abortion; it is immoral to damage some children in the name of saving others.
(BTW, I am 100% pro-life, but my responsibility is to protect MY children first.)
Dear Children First,
I couldn’t agree more. All children must come first. But you are making an insane decision to prefer born children over the pre-born. It is this same mentality that perpetuates the abortion mindset. Why would you want to (allegedly) spare a born child from nightmares at the expense of having a real pre-born child ripped to shreds? Sorry your ends do not justify the means.
Furthermore, your argument holds no weight. I have five children. All of them from the time of their birth have seen these pictures. None have had nightmares. They all realize that the pictures depict a broken baby, but they know their father is working hard to stop the slaughter; this helps them sleep well at night! I tell them I would save protect their little lives in the same way and vigor I do the pre-born babies. Talk about sleeping like a baby! Tell your child you would defend them against the evil of this world, even until death, and they will love you all their lives.
But truer still, is the child who is told that the pictures they see are “not real” or “it is a woman’s choice” or just to “look away” after seeing the images. These children inherently know evil when they see it. They want, no, they must, have their parents tell them that they will protect them against the evil of the world. But when the uncaring parent tells the child a lie, they do have nightmares. They are afraid that the evil of the world, like dirty abortionists, will come and get them. They will be afraid their parents will treat them like they already treat the preborn
Michelle, you say, “it is immoral to damage some children in the name of saving others.”
It is “immoral” to risk frightening your children in order to literally save the lives of other children?
How this translates: If I see your children being drowned in my neighborhood pool by a madman, my first concern must be for the mental well-being of my own children and the nightmares they may have from seeing this, so I scurry them away from the scene rather than helping your children.
I guess this also means that what angered you most about 9/11 was not the evil act that was committed but rather that you didn’t have time to prepare your children it.