Home - List All Discussions

Should abortion be taught in detail in highschool?

exactly what it says

by: Kat

now before I get into this I'd like to ask not to bring any problems you have with other people in here.
I think they should because my mom(who happens to be a single parent of 6 kids including me(and before any one says or asks anything we all have the same father) is also going to college working and parenting) happens to work in fast food with mainly teenagers, who hardly no anything about how aboritons are done. So one day my mom told some of themhow some of them were done and they now are completly aginst it. I think if we educate our children better one day abortion might just be around for medical nessacritys, or at least the numbers of abortins will drop dramatically.

reply from: yoda

Sounds like a good idea to me. And the more realistic, the better.

reply from: Yuuki

I think that is a very good idea. You wouldn't even have to add any extremist lies like "abortion causes breast cancer and makes all women infertile". The procedure itself is horrific enough.
But you'll probably not be able to show any images, because there are people on here who have said they would not want their children seeing images of STDs, so I can't imagine they'd ever be okay with showing their children pictures of abortions.

reply from: Kat

I agree the picturres are horrific and very mentally scarring and using them would be a little extreme, but if they did parental would be needed.

reply from: yoda

No, the pictures are not "mentally scarring". They are informative and educational. No research has ever shown any "scarring" from seeing them.
Using them would be the best, and quickest way to inform students. As the old saying goes "A picture is worth a thousand words", and most students would fall asleep at about the 500th word.

reply from: Kat

I was almost 16 when i first saw a picture of an aborted baby, ever since I knew what abortion was I was against it, but that, those pictures it killed me, I cried for so long and on top of that had nightmares of trashcans with dead babies and baby parts in it. Mabey im emotional but it still killed me. So I know mabey not all those teens would be affected like I was but thered be a few and I'd feel teriblle.

reply from: yoda

The problem is that the truth is brutal sometimes, but we are always better off knowing the truth than ignoring it. No matter how upset we become when the truth is revealed to us, it is always best to know it. And it works to reduce abortion, I know that from personal experience. I have seen young men and women change their minds about abortion simply by looking at those photos. So they save lives, and I will always believe that is more important than keeping someone from being upset about knowing the truth about abortion.

reply from: Kat

I agree but its hard to see those who know who are against without seeing the pictures have to see them, have that tear them apart because others thats what it takes for them to see.

reply from: yoda

Lots of things in life are hard, life is not a rose garden. But hiding from the truth never makes things better, IMO.

reply from: Yuuki

So you're also okay with exposing their retinas to STD covered genitals too, gotcha. I forget who it was that said they'd absolutely not allow their children to see such "disturbing" images, so I can assume they'd also not want their child to see aborted babies.

reply from: yoda

And you wonder why people call you a "liar"..........

reply from: Yuuki

And you wonder why people call you a "liar"..........
Are you okay with it or not?

reply from: yoda

Since I never said it, I consider it an insult to even be asked.

reply from: galen

nope i was the STD genital exposure person ( that sounds a bit weird)...
I think at a certain point ALL kids need the info and a pic at the right time is worth a thousand words... you do have to adjust for age however... gory stuff for a three yo... no way... for a 12 yo... probably so.
i showed my kids the realities of war abortion and stds at 11 or so.

reply from: sheri

I just gave a presentation to a group of 13-14 year olds and agonized over whether or not to show the pictures, I did and am glad i did, most of the kids were surprised but it made them start talking and quite a few said they had proabort friends and asked questions on how to better counter there arguements.
A picture IS worth a 1000 words.

reply from: xnavy

alot of the killing in iraq was done by sucide bombers, saddam hussain was also killing alot of his own people, the mass graves that was
found in iraq. saddam hussain used to kill and maim kurdish children by putting bombs made to look like toys, so the kurdish children
would play with them and get hurt or killed, saddam also gassed a bunch of kurds.

reply from: ProInformed

In a society that is legally allowing such atrocities to occur, crying and having nightmares when you find out the truth is a quite normal response.
Those citizens of Nazi Germany who knew the truth about the Nazi holocaust had a responsibility to show the truth to other citizens; the reporters who took those photos of the emaciated prisoners of Nazi concentration camps, and the photos of the gas chambers and mass graves, had a repsonsibility to show the truth to others, even though that would cause people to cry and have nightmares.
Of course it's also quite normal to want to protect children from ugly truths until they are adults; but since teens and their unborn babies are preyed upon by the abortion industry, specifically when they do not know the truth, IMHO it is important to show teens the truth.
Part of the problem is that some people consider teens to be old enough to be having sex (with)... but not old enough to be told the truth in sex-ed class.
Sex is an adult activity; but as long as our culture continues to endorse
(and encourage) teens to have sex, the teens should at the very least be told the truth, including showing them photos of what abortions really do to their babies.
Again, sex is an adult activity;
there is no logical reason to allow teens to have sex without requiring them to know the truth and to at the very least behave in a responsible, non-fatally violent, way towards any babies they may create.
Once a person decides to start having sex, they shouldn't be allowed to continue to be ignorant and irresponsible as if they were still a child - that's why we have the problem of so many 'adult-children' (some of whom are in their 30's and 40's);
allowing people adult priveledges minus adult responsibilities harms individuals, families, and whole societies.
It might be a good idea to only show the truth to those teens who are already having sex, but not to those teens who are responsible enough to wait...
But once a teen starts having sex it often changes their worldview and beliefs in order to accomodate what they're up to (the consistence principle).
So waiting until after they are already having sex might just get the typical pro-abort reaction of hostility. Giving teens the info, including showing them the photos, before they become sexually active would give the teens more reason to refrain from having sex and would be giving the teens the info before their complicity closes their minds completely to the truth.

reply from: yoda

Yes it is. And while very young kids may not understand the issues behind a photo of an aborted baby, there is no reason to conclude that such photos cause any harm. I've seen many young kids look at such photos and react with puzzlement, not horror. They ask things like "who broke the baby".
Pictures are not nearly as boring to kids as our words are. We can reach them better visually than with words.

reply from: ProInformed

Yes it is. And while very young kids may not understand the issues behind a photo of an aborted baby, there is no reason to conclude that such photos cause any harm. I've seen many young kids look at such photos and react with puzzlement, not horror. They ask things like "who broke the baby".
Pictures are not nearly as boring to kids as our words are. We can reach them better visually than with words.
I agree.
The media and schools don't have much qualms about exposing children to all sorts of gross info when it comes to other issues, the politically correct issues that is. The abortion holocaust is perpetuated when the truth is hidden. And the abortion industry lobby groups have no qualms about targeting youth with their pro-abort, pro-sex-before-marriage message.

reply from: Yuuki

You were against genital images? Are you okay with showing violence but not something even remotely related to sex? I think it's ridiculous (maybe not you; this is a general statement) that our society finds violence totally acceptable yet anything to do with penises or vaginas or even nipples and HOMG WTF U CAN'T SHOW DAT TO MAH KID! But violent video games and TV no problem...

reply from: Yuuki

Well now I'm asking.
Are you okay with showing diseased gentials to highschool children (after parental consent)?
Are you okay with showing violently dismembered bloody remains of babies to high school kids (after parental consent)?
If you are for one and against the other, please explain why.
I was exposed to diseased genitals in hischool and it definitely influenced my decision to use condoms when I became sexually active. It also definitely influenced me to not be promiscuous, although I already had that influence from my parents.
I never saw any abortion images until college, and only after I'd made my decision to be pro-choice at the time. I truly feel if I'd seen the images before, in highschool, it probably would have influenced me towards pro-life a lot earlier.

reply from: Yuuki

Yes it is. And while very young kids may not understand the issues behind a photo of an aborted baby, there is no reason to conclude that such photos cause any harm. I've seen many young kids look at such photos and react with puzzlement, not horror. They ask things like "who broke the baby".
Pictures are not nearly as boring to kids as our words are. We can reach them better visually than with words.
I agree.
The media and schools don't have much qualms about exposing children to all sorts of gross info when it comes to other issues, the politically correct issues that is. The abortion holocaust is perpetuated when the truth is hidden. And the abortion industry lobby groups have no qualms about targeting youth with their pro-abort, pro-sex-before-marriage message.
Pictures of the holocaust are horrific and published in every History book! Abortion images are perhaps worse only because they are in color, though not always. They are definitely on par with each other.

reply from: ProInformed

Yes it is. And while very young kids may not understand the issues behind a photo of an aborted baby, there is no reason to conclude that such photos cause any harm. I've seen many young kids look at such photos and react with puzzlement, not horror. They ask things like "who broke the baby".
Pictures are not nearly as boring to kids as our words are. We can reach them better visually than with words.
I agree.
The media and schools don't have much qualms about exposing children to all sorts of gross info when it comes to other issues, the politically correct issues that is. The abortion holocaust is perpetuated when the truth is hidden. And the abortion industry lobby groups have no qualms about targeting youth with their pro-abort, pro-sex-before-marriage message.
Pictures of the holocaust are horrific and published in every History book! Abortion images are perhaps worse only because they are in color, though not always. They are definitely on par with each other.
AND pictures of aborted babies also may be considered worse because the abortion holocaust is still going on. The history books of the future will show photos of aborted babies and students will shake their heads in disbelief that abortion was ever legally allowed.

reply from: galen

You were against genital images? Are you okay with showing violence but not something even remotely related to sex? I think it's ridiculous (maybe not you; this is a general statement) that our society finds violence totally acceptable yet anything to do with penises or vaginas or even nipples and HOMG WTF U CAN'T SHOW DAT TO MAH KID! But violent video games and TV no problem...
___________________________________________
no i was the one that was FOR showing the exposure pics....

reply from: Yuuki

You were against genital images? Are you okay with showing violence but not something even remotely related to sex? I think it's ridiculous (maybe not you; this is a general statement) that our society finds violence totally acceptable yet anything to do with penises or vaginas or even nipples and HOMG WTF U CAN'T SHOW DAT TO MAH KID! But violent video games and TV no problem...
___________________________________________
no i was the one that was FOR showing the exposure pics....
Aaah, okay. I couldn't tell from your initial reply. Do you think that someone who is against one and for the other is a bit of a hypocrite?

reply from: BossMomma

I was 22 when my sister Katrina explained what a D&E was, I'd just had my son and was going through PPD, her description was so graphic I would wake up in a cold sweat after nightmares of seeing my son laying in three or four pieces in his crib. I had a hard time looking at the pictures for a long time and I will not stand for those pictures being brought into schools.

reply from: BossMomma

It's actually harder for me to view these images than to view early abortions, I know those children suffered horribly. I wish I had the space to light a candle in honor of each middle eastern child lost needlessly in a needless war.

reply from: BossMomma

So you're also okay with exposing their retinas to STD covered genitals too, gotcha. I forget who it was that said they'd absolutely not allow their children to see such "disturbing" images.
That was me.

reply from: Yuuki

So you're also okay with exposing their retinas to STD covered genitals too, gotcha. I forget who it was that said they'd absolutely not allow their children to see such "disturbing" images.
That was me.
After reading your above comment to someone else, I at least have to give you credit for being consistant in your beliefs on ALL forms of 'graphic' imagery.

reply from: yoda

I am not interested in debating about photos of diseased genitals, that is a totally unrelated subject.

reply from: Yuuki

I am not interested in debating about photos of diseased genitals, that is a totally unrelated subject.
As it can cause teens to choose abstinence, the best form of birth control, I think it is completely related.

reply from: yoda

Then you debate it, by yourself.

reply from: Yuuki

Whatever. It's relevant and you know it. It's intently related to this topic and you know it. But you don't want to show you're a hypocrite, that's the only excuse for not answering. You're all for showing bloody dismembered babies, but dare to show a penis!?
Violence is AOK but anything related to sex is worse than murder - literally! You won't even show a diseased, completely non-erotic image of a penis, but you'll show murdered babies!

reply from: 4given

I believe that abortion facts and videos, aborted images etc. should be a part of every sex education class.

reply from: Hosea

I believe the pictures of the holocost and of aborted babies can be shown to hogh school students. Scoial injustices can be shown and are shown except abortion. Students should be given some warning to prepare their minds. MAny high school students have seen "Lord of the Rings" which is very violent or other violent films so this may not be as much of a shock to them as it was to those of us who saw these in high school in the eighties.
I think where the concern is that 1/3 of theis high school's generation died from abortion. There is no doubts that some of this generation have siblings who were killed from abortion. Some teenagers have had an abortion.
This topic needs to be dealt with with extreme care. There needs to be no judgement on the post abortive woman. "Hate the sin love the sinner" needs to be practiced completely. Presenters need to have a heart for the post abortive woman.
That being said , I think any way to get the truth in the schools is important whether or not it is through graphic pictures of dead babies.

reply from: Hosea

I am a pro-life speaker to most of the Catrholic schools in the Cincinnati Area. I do not use the graphic pictures of dead babies. I do use beautiful pictures of live babies in the womb or miscarried babies. I give detailed information on how the baby matures in the womb. For example, the tongue forms 7 weeks after conception. I give great empathy to the post abortive women and where they can go if they need help. I decribe how our pregnancy center offers material goods (maternity clothes, diapers $ formula) and parenting classes. After doing these things I do describe in verbal detail the various abortion procedures performed. I close asking them to inform others so people can make a real choice because the only real choice is an educated choice. When I am finished speaking, the students get a survey form. Between 90-100% say they are pro-life after my presentation. The rest are unsure or pro-choice/pro-abortion. The truth can be told/shown mentally without any pictures and still make a huge difference. Persons experienced and an unplanned pregnancy deserve to be fully informed on the truth before making such a serious decision. This may be the only chance these students get to be fully informed before amaking this life and death decision. I know of babies alive today becasue the truth was told to these teenageers.

reply from: yoda

Political correctness reigns.....
Most definitely.
The photos in the ad that was just rejected by the campus newsrag at Notre Dame contained only photos of hands and feet of aborted babies, so there was no way to distinguish them from photos of live babies, or babies that had miscarried naturally. So proaborts reject even the use of the word "aborted" with the photos, not necessarily the actual photos.
Such photos, whether of live of aborted babies, simply portray the obvious humanity of the victims of abortion. And that is unacceptable to the proaborts who scream bloody murder whenever they are shown.

reply from: Rosalie

I wouldn't trust anyone else to tell my child the truth. Way too many people are eager to brainwash kids. My kids will have access to all information (that is INFORMATION, not PROPAGANDA) and will have a CHOICE. Them having choice is more important to me than them agreeing with me on everything.
You think? I don't find it any more horrific than childbirth, C-section etc.
That's how it should be. I wonder how other people here feel about these.

reply from: Yuuki

Shredding a child limb from limb is as horrific as bringing them into this world alive and in one piece? Hardly.

reply from: yoda

Personally, I would say it is much more horrific, but to each his/her own, I guess.

reply from: Hosea

Political correctness reigns.....
Most definitely.
The photos in the ad that was just rejected by the campus newsrag at Notre Dame contained only photos of hands and feet of aborted babies, so there was no way to distinguish them from photos of live babies, or babies that had miscarried naturally. So proaborts reject even the use of the word "aborted" with the photos, not necessarily the actual photos.
Such photos, whether of live of aborted babies, simply portray the obvious humanity of the victims of abortion. And that is unacceptable to the proaborts who scream bloody murder whenever they are shown.
Isn't it sad how so many ( not all) people who proclaim to be pro-choice do not want those making the choice to have an educated choice. Seeing fetal development pictures should be a minimum of information given to a woman before she makes such an important shoice. Yet, this is fought and often forbidden.

reply from: yoda

The bottom line is that something like that would affect their bottom line. Anything that reduces profits will be vigorously opposed by the "choice mafia".

reply from: BossMomma

The bottom line is that something like that would affect their bottom line. Anything that reduces profits will be vigorously opposed by the "choice mafia".
The choice mafia? Now that's a retarded comparison if I ever heard one.

reply from: carolemarie

if we teach fetal development, you don't need pictures of abortions. We don't show pictures of child abuse victims, or rape victims. It is sufficient to know that abortion ends the life of a fetus....
that makes the prolife case without any war of words. Just the facts.

reply from: Rosalie

Pretty much. The visuals are unpleasant either way.

reply from: Yuuki

Pretty much. The visuals are unpleasant either way.
Not at all. I really honest can't believe you consider a murder scene involving dismemberment to be as disturbing as a woman giving birth. You need mental help.

reply from: Rosalie

Pretty much. The visuals are unpleasant either way.
Not at all. I really honest can't believe you consider a murder scene involving dismemberment to be as disturbing as a woman giving birth. You need mental help.
Your ad hominem is always hilarious.
Abortion is not murder - that's just an opinion of an extremist. You are considering how abortion/birth makes you FEEL, not what it actually looks like when these two things are happening.
Also I have witnessed the birth of my own child so I can speak confidently about the visuals. The actual act of giving birth wasn't pretty at all. And a C-section is even worse from what I've seen/heard.

reply from: Hosea

I don't use the graphic abortion pictures when I speak in schools but, I am not opposed to their use. Schools show pictures of piles of dead Jews in Nazi concentration camps and KKK linchings of black people in thier history classes. Abortion is a social injustice also. Babies are not being denied rights because of their skin color or race but are being denied rights because of where they live, the womb. This is another form of discrimination. I realixe it would be hard for a person who was a Nazi to see "Schindlers List" and it is hard for women to hear and see the truth after abortion but, the truth is the truth. I am sorry that these pictures upset those who have had abortions but, maybe it will help these women come to Christ Jesus for forgiveness and peace of heart.

reply from: yoda

And that is why CBR uses photos of the Holocaust and KKK lynchings in their campus GAP displays, along side abortion photos. It is a very valid, and a very effective comparison.
And here is the definition of genocide that they quote (unwanted, unborn babies being the "undesirable group"):
"genocide: "The deliberate and systematic destruction of a national, racial, religious, political, cultural, ethnic, or other group defined by the exterminators as undesirable" (Webster's New World Encyclopedia, Prentice Hall General Reference, 1992)."

reply from: Yuuki

Pretty much. The visuals are unpleasant either way.
Not at all. I really honest can't believe you consider a murder scene involving dismemberment to be as disturbing as a woman giving birth. You need mental help.
Your ad hominem is always hilarious.
Abortion is not murder - that's just an opinion of an extremist. You are considering how abortion/birth makes you FEEL, not what it actually looks like when these two things are happening.
Also I have witnessed the birth of my own child so I can speak confidently about the visuals. The actual act of giving birth wasn't pretty at all. And a C-section is even worse from what I've seen/heard.
Oh yes, because I've never ever seen women giving birth on television before and can't POSSIBLY KNOW what it looks like. It looks nothing like an abortion. There are no bloody limbs dripping from the woman's uterus in a river of blood. An abortion DOES look like that. Birth does not. Again, if you're horrified by birth - and NOT horrified by abortion - I really think you need help.

reply from: CDC700

Pretty much. The visuals are unpleasant either way.
Not at all. I really honest can't believe you consider a murder scene involving dismemberment to be as disturbing as a woman giving birth. You need mental help.
Your ad hominem is always hilarious.
Abortion is not murder - that's just an opinion of an extremist. You are considering how abortion/birth makes you FEEL, not what it actually looks like when these two things are happening.
Also I have witnessed the birth of my own child so I can speak confidently about the visuals. The actual act of giving birth wasn't pretty at all. And a C-section is even worse from what I've seen/heard.
I've seen plenty of bodies destroyed by war, I've see 2 c-sections, and I have seen pictures of aborted babies. The first can get ahold of your heart and make you sad, I was never disturbed by the c-sections(I was more fascinated by my babies becoming magically human even though they didn't pass the birth canal) The photos of aborted children are by far the most disturbing thing I have ever seen. As a parent, I would not be against showing photos of any of the three provided I was provided a copy of the lecture that would follow. I would be a little worried about the educator adding their own personal spin on things.

reply from: scopia19822

"Also I have witnessed the birth of my own child so I can speak confidently about the visuals. The actual act of giving birth wasn't pretty at all. And a C-section is even worse from what I've seen/heard."
I did not look as my son exited from my womb, however I have seen pictures and books of births and it doesnt bother me in the least. A little messy, but just a natural part of life. Two years ago I was midwife for my Siamese cat who was having her first and only litter of kittens. It was fascinating, not gross at all. Csect are not that bad as long as you dont have a weak stomach, my sister and I were both born via csection. I even watched an autopsy from start to finish, however abortion pics and pics of the Holocaust do turn my stomach.

reply from: BossMomma

Pretty much. The visuals are unpleasant either way.
Actually some rather love watching live births. I watched them on Youtube all the time while I was pregnant with my Bella. Name even one person who digs looking at pics of dead dismembered babies.

reply from: yoda

Both child abuse victims and rape victims can speak out for themselves, AND neither of those things are legal. Victims of abortion cannot speak out and abortion is legal. It is up to us to speak out for them, and the best way to do that is to inform the public of what abortion really looks like, so they will understand that abortion does not simply "remove a blob of flesh". Without those photos, that lie can gain traction and result in more abortions.
It is NOT, IMO, sufficient to know that abortion ends the life of a "fetus", as you call it. (And even that is disputed by many proaborts.)
It is vital to inform the public that a "fetus" is actually a BABY, and that abortion kills a baby. And the ONLY way to do that effectively is to show photographic proof. Pictures ARE "worth a thousand words", and they don't bore you and put you to sleep like a lot of people's words do.
As Father Frank Pavone says, "America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion".

reply from: yoda

I don't have a problem with that, do you?
I also didn't have any problem with the photos of how some prisoners were treated at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, did you?
I also didn't have a problem with the photos of how some people were treated in Viet Nam, did you?
I also don't have a problem with Holocaust photos being made public, do you?

reply from: scopia19822

"Both child abuse victims and rape victims can speak out for themselves. Victims of abortion cannot speak out. It is up to us to speak out for them, and the best way to do that is to inform the public of what abortion really looks like, so they will understand that abortion does not simply "remove a blob of flesh". Without those photos, that lie can gain traction and result in more abortions."
Yoda I have to disagree that all abuse victims can speak for themselves. You have many children and adults that are mentally disabled that cannot say they are abused. However that doesnt mean that abortion pics should not be shown in the proper venue. I dont have a problem with high school kids and adults seeing them, they need too. Especially when they defend abortion without knowing it really is they are defending. But I dont like the idea of the truth trucks as I have a 5 soon to be 6 yr old son and I would like him to keep some childhood innocence for now. He will learn about this stuff soon enough.

reply from: Yuuki

Pretty much. The visuals are unpleasant either way.
Actually some rather love watching live births. I watched them on Youtube all the time while I was pregnant with my Bella. Name even one person who digs looking at pics of dead dismembered babies.
Yeah, I love watching live births ^^

reply from: Hosea

If child abuse or rape was legal, I would hope there was a group out their showing pictures of victims "after the 'crime' " Maybe that would wake America up to make laws protect people from child abuse and rape.
BTW Abortion is the ultimate child abuse.

reply from: yoda

With whom are you disagreeing? I NEVER SAID "ALL" victims can speak for themselves...... that was a general statement.
There is no practical way to screen out kids from seeing the truth trucks, and there is no evidence that it does them any harm. And NO PHOTO can take away a child's "innocence".
Such overblown, exaggerated fears about the viewing of aborted baby pics are exactly the kind of thing I expect from proaborts, but not from anyone who actually wants to defend babies being slaughtered.

reply from: carolemarie

i think that it boils down to a matter of do you have the right to force parents to have to talk about abortion to their little children. What about the rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children? If you are willing to have your child see those images (as I was) then that is the choice of the parent. If you are not willing to have your child exposed to those images as Scopia then that is her right as a parent, and it should be respected.
There is a line where the desire to "show the truth about abortion" interfers with the rights of parents to direct and control the upbringing of their children.
Showing the graphic photos indiscriminatly and telling people too bad, your child will be fine is rather presumptious and borish behavior in general.
At least the missionarys to the preborn have signs that say, warning, graphic photos up ahead so parents can protect their children.
If we are prolife, we should be concerned for the little children who see our signs and actions and try to find a way to "show the truth about abortion" and still respect the right of parents to not expose their chidren to those images. There has been no studies done that prove the signs are harmless or not harmless to children. Parents who choose to expose their childrens to the signs have taken the time to have a conversation about the whole issue and are ready to deal with the fall out if there is any. That should be a decision the parent makes, not a decision that we force on them if we can help it.
i wouldn't like it if truth trucks with graphic photos of men kissing each other were thrust in my little childs eyes....I should have the right to decide if and when my child is exposed to that. Same principle.

reply from: faithman

tHE SO CALLED PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT LOVE'S PAINTING THEMSELVES INTO ALMOST UN-WINNABLE CORNERS. iF THIS WERE A RIGHTEOUS NATION, EVERY CLINIC WOULD BURN TO THE GROUND THIS VERY NIGHT. bUT BECAUSE OF BACKWARDS COLLARD SANHEDRIN SELL OUTS LIKE PAVONE WHO OFFER 30 PIECES OF GOLD TO SELL PEOPLE OUT WHO TAKE SUCH ACTION, AND BECAUSE SO CALLED MAINSTREAM PRO-LIFE CARES MORE ABOUT WHAT BORTHEADS THINK ABOUT THEM THAN ACTUALLY SAVING BABIES, iaap HAS PROVEN TO BE ONE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL EFFORTS IN ALL OF PRO-LIFE. IT IS EFFECTIVE IN SAVING BABIES, AND IT TAKES AWAY THE BLOODY PICTURE FUSS. EVEN PHONY PRO-LIFERS HAVE USED THEM TO SAVE BABIES.

reply from: faithman

Are you advocating violence? For what purpose? To encourage others to commit violence? Perhaps to attempt to frighten abortion clinic employees? Do you think this kind of ranting serves any useful purpose to the prolife cause, or do you even care?
A so called cause that is full of crap as you are? No, I rteally do not care what slime bags like you think at all. Frightened employees who quit are a good thing. Clinicks that burn and don't reopen are a good thing. Abortionist who quit, or doctors who never get started out of fear for their lives is a good thing. Or atre you one of those phony pro-lifers who would rather defend the abortionist rather than the babies they kill? Huh punk? Come opn, run your baby killing phony mouth. Tell us how your crinal behind would rather protect the murderer rather than the innocent they distroy.

reply from: carolemarie

I am all for calling this talk of killing abortion providers hate speech and locking up those who do it. If it was a crime to spout garbage like this, they would all stop and we wouldn't have to listen to the stupid rants...

reply from: Yuuki

It IS hate speech and it IS illegal. Any talk of killing a group of people based solely off of their race, color, or beliefs is wrong.

reply from: carolemarie

I wish it would be enforced then! I am sick of people saying evil things like shooting abortion providers is good.....

reply from: scopia19822

"It IS hate speech and it IS illegal. Any talk of killing a group of people based solely off of their race, color, or beliefs is wrong."
Where does it stop? If we start censoring what people say than it will just go on and on. I dont condone the killing of abortion providers, but I will not shed a tear for any of them. Advocating the killing could be seen as a crime as you are threatening bodily harm and violence, but I hate censorship and would oppose any law that would convict people like my dad of a hate crime because he siad the "N" word as deplorable as that words is to me.

reply from: scopia19822

"There is no practical way to screen out kids from seeing the truth trucks, and there is no evidence that it does them any harm. And NO PHOTO can take away a child's "innocence"."
My 5 year old is afriad of the monsters in his closet, we have to censor his TV watching to ensure that he doesnt see things that are violent or grusome that will give him nightmares. If he can have nightmares from media, he most certainly could have them from the image of an aborted child. I will not even let him see pics of the Holocaust etc as hes a child and will learn about these things soon enough. Children dont need to see this, especially preschool and elementary age children.

reply from: carolemarie

Your Dad would stop it if he would go to jail.
the right to say what you want is limited and always has been.
you can't call fire in a crowded theater, you can't call for people to be killed.

reply from: scopia19822

"Your Dad would stop it if he would go to jail.
the right to say what you want is limited and always has been.
you can't call fire in a crowded theater, you can't call for people to be killed."
The ACLU defended the Klan and their rights to have their rallies and cross burnings. My dad although I dont defend his bigotry has never said he wanted to kill or do physical harm to anyone. The courts have said that while it may be ok to say a group of people are whatever as long as they dont advocate killing or causing them bodily harm. I value my first amendment right to freedom of speech and if we start taking away peoples right to say what they believe no matter how deplorable pro lifers could be next for simply saying they think abortion is murder and oppose it. Even the ACLU would come to the defense of my dad or others like him. The 1st amendment doesnt cover slander, libel, things that threaten murder/harm or shouting in a crowd . Everything else is and should be continued to be protected.

reply from: BossMomma

Are you advocating violence?
Nothin new there.

reply from: carolemarie

Supporting murdering abortion providers is hate speech.
Calling names isn't.
You can hate abortion without supporting killing abortion providers or destroying their property.
You can even call them poopie-heads. But it crosses the line when you call killing abortion providers a good thing. If you go about saying that kiling abortion providers is justifiable homicide you are committing hate speech and trying to intimidate those who perform abortions or are trying to incite unstable people to kill for you. It is sick.

reply from: scopia19822

"Supporting murdering abortion providers is hate speech.
Calling names isn't.
You can hate abortion without supporting killing abortion providers or destroying their property.
You can even call them poopie-heads. But it crosses the line when you call killing abortion providers a good thing. If you go about saying that kiling abortion providers is justifiable homicide you are committing hate speech and trying to intimidate those who perform abortions or are trying to incite unstable people to kill for you. It is sick."
I would not advocate or defend a persons right to kill anyone. I would not advocate killing an abortion provider IMHO one because its obviously wrong and I am above that. Also too they are not worth it, lower than the scrapings on my shoe. However, using my dad as an example if he said that he thinks the President is a "N" he has a right to say that and to hold that opinion no matter how deplorable that is. Which he expressed that sentiment on our visit at Christmas. I personally get sick on TV of hearing white people referred to as "crackers". That should not be allowed on TV and should be considered just as wrong as saying the N word.

reply from: yoda

Those trucks are too big to be "thrust" into anyone's eyes, so that's a rather silly phrase. But they cannot be expected to avoid all areas where there might be small children, because that is just about anywhere. Small children cannot be used as an excuse to oppose truth trucks, there simply is no evidence that the trucks cause a problem, except in the minds of some people who oppose them anyway.
You do have that right, and so does every parent. And in order to exercise that right, it's up to you to keep your small kids away from any areas where the truth trucks might be. Or cover their eyes. Or keep them home at all times, it's up to you.
You simply cannot go around using kids as an excuse to suppress the Freedom of Speech of an entire class of people, called "prolifers". That's been tried in court, and it doesn't work.

reply from: yoda

That's nice. Why didn't you quote the part of the post that did that?

reply from: yoda

Where does it start? Why do these discussions always omit the simple action of quoting the part of a post that says what they are attacking? Is it because attacking a strawman is much easier than attacking something real?

reply from: yoda

And yet, you allow him to see "media" every day, right?
Protect your child to whatever extent you feel comfortable with, but don't think you can take away someone else's Freedom of Speech because of your fears.

reply from: scopia19822

And yet, you allow him to see "media" every day, right?
Protect your child to whatever extent you feel comfortable with, but don't think you can take away someone else's Freedom of Speech because of your fears.
I would not dream of taking away a persons right to drive their truth trucks, however if these people are decent people than they would take into consideration about being careful about exposing this to young children. Morally I think its repugnant that they are so reckless about it, but under the 1st amendment they have a right to do so and as far as his media expsoure goes, I only allow him to see programs and play games that are age appropriate. I take advantage of the Vchip in our TVs and internet filters for him as well. Its my job to censor his TV watching.

reply from: scopia19822

"Where does it start? Why do these discussions always omit the simple action of quoting the part of a post that says what they are attacking? Is it because attacking a strawman is much easier than attacking something real?"
That was carolemarie who made the comment.

reply from: Hosea

The topic is should they be shown in HIGH SCHOOL. These are not little children. Most of these kids can drive. Are you saying this about high school kids?

reply from: Hosea

The topic is "should graphic pictures be shown in HIGH SCHOOL." These are not little children. Most of these kids can drive. Are you saying this about high school kids?
I think the biggest reason parents don't want their kids to see the pictures in high school is because they are afraid they will think that those who have an abortion are terrible people. I always teach that most who have an abbortion were not fully informed before making their choice and many people now regret that choice. I teach that we must love the post abortive woman. If she is sorrowful help her to repent (ask for forgiveness from God) and give her the support she needs to forgive herself.

reply from: carolemarie

Because showing the disgusting photos to minors is inappropriate

reply from: yoda

Wow, everything previously said in this thread is now totally negated by "Because showing the disgusting photos to minors is inappropriate".
Never mind the thousands of people who have reported that their views on abortion have changed radically towards the prolife side because of seeing the images. Never mind that the proaborts know this, and make their use a special target for their hatred. Never mind that there is voluminous historical precedent for using photos to document and disseminate photos of atrocities to the public in order to combat the practice that is depicted in those photos (KKK actions, Nazi atrocities, baby seal slaughter, war crimes in Viet Nam, etc. etc.). Never mind that no one has shown any documentation that such photos harm anyone's "psyche". No, never mind that thousands of people sincerely believe that showing these photos save the lives of living human beings in the womb..... we must forget all that because we're being told that it is "inappropriate".
So that's it..... the final word.

reply from: Hosea

So IYO what age can be shown the pictures, only 18 and older?

reply from: Yuuki

Which disgusting photos? Who will determine if they are "disgusting" or not? Should a print out of the slide show be sent home to parents to decide if they want their child to see it? What about pictures of the holocaust printed in nearly every highschool aged history text book? What about pictures of STDs?

reply from: yoda

Now, why would they think that? You mean just by looking at the results of an abortion, they might think that whoever did that was "terrible"?
And what would be wrong with that conclusion?

reply from: carolemarie

I don't see that showing pictures of bloodied fetuses is appropriate. Parents can show that to their children if they so choose.....let them decide.
Showing fetal development makes the point that it is a baby, no need to show them gore.

reply from: scopia19822

Which disgusting photos? Who will determine if they are "disgusting" or not? Should a print out of the slide show be sent home to parents to decide if they want their child to see it? What about pictures of the holocaust printed in nearly every highschool aged history text book? What about pictures of STDs?
I think that these kids should see the STD pics especially the pics of herpes and gential warts. I think they should also see the pictures of patients with end stage AIDS. I think these pics should be targeted at middle and high school age, not elementary. Children are over exposed as it is. My son already knows that gay people have sex with other boys/girls although he really does not know what sex is per se. As for the abortion pics I would not want my son to see them at a young age. In high school perhaps would be a different story.

reply from: yoda

REAL Prolifers can show the photos in public, and the parents can keep their children's eyes closed.
Riiiiight....... let them think that the babies just close their eyes and disappear in a puff of smoke, right?
Don't let any of them know that they are mangled, ripped apart, or poisoned, right? After all, we must keep the truth about our national disgrace away from them, right? Yeah, sure.......

reply from: yoda

And yet, in many states kids in elementary school can get an abortion without the parents even being notified. So you don't want them shown photos of what that will do to their baby, right?

reply from: nancyu

They should teach in high school that abortion is illegal.

reply from: scopia19822

And yet, in many states kids in elementary school can get an abortion without the parents even being notified. So you don't want them shown photos of what that will do to their baby, right?
They should not be allowed to get an abortion without parental consent that is where the real issue. I am sorry but my 6 year old son does not need to see Holocaust pics or abortion pics at this age.

reply from: carolemarie

i don't think that showing even high school kids pictures of the holocaust or abortion is necessarily a good idea....they are children after all, not mini adults.
Fetal development is simply the facts with no spin. If you see those, you know it is a baby and that abortion will kill the baby. After years of doing postabortion counseling you would be shocked at how many women simply didn't know the facts....if they had known, they would have made better decisions.
If they had gotten the facts in highschool, they would already know it isn't a blob of tissue or that it isn't a baby yet. Even those who are prochoice can't and don't argue against the science of embryology.....

reply from: nancyu

What? Of course they do.
http://onemom.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/bill-clinton-unfertlized-embryo/
Bill Clinton and the amazing unfertilized embryo
Posted by: onemom on: March 12, 2009
Last night, former President Bill Clinton was interviewed by Dr. Sanjay Gupta on CNN's Larry King Live. The topic was embryonic stem cell research. Dr. Gupta really should have explained to the President what makes an embryo an embryo. Here are the President's comments:
* "If it's obvious that we're not taking embryos that can - that under any conceivable scenario would be used for a process that would allow them to be fertilized and become little babies ..."
* "...he (President Obama) has apparently decided to leave to the relevant professional committees the definition of which frozen embryos are basically going to be discarded, because they're not going to be fertilized..."
* "...I believe the American people believe it's a pro-life decision to use an embryo that's frozen and never going to be fertilized..."
* "...those committees need to be really careful to make sure if they don't want a big storm to be stirred up here, that any of the embryos that are used clearly have been placed beyond the pale of being fertilized before their use..."
* "There are a large number of embryos that we know are never going to be fertilized, where the people who are in control of them have made that clear. The research ought to be confined to those."
* "But there are values involved that we all ought to feel free to discuss in all scientific research. And that is the one thing that I think these committees need to make it clear that they're not going to fool with any embryos where there's any possibility, even if it's somewhat remote, that they could be fertilized and become human beings." (CNN Transcripts)
A note to Bill Clinton: if it's not fertilized, it's not an embryo. Your concern that nothing be used in the research that could become a human being, would mean that you are against embryonic stem cell research (now that you've been given an accurate definition).
A note to Sanjay Gupta: did you honestly not hear the glaring - basic biology - error made by the former President in his six references to "unfertilized embryos", or were you just uncomfortable correcting him? Either way, it's probably best that you won't be Surgeon General.
OneMom

reply from: carolemarie

nobody argues that a embryo isn't a human, and even if they did, they FACTS would prove them wrong. a three celled embryo doesn't look like a baby, but a 8 week fetus does.
Bill Clinton was trying to spin stem cell harvesting and sounding stupid in the process..... he was and is a weasel with words

reply from: nancyu

So Bill Clinton is "nobody"? Did you take lessons from him on how to be a "weasel with words"?

reply from: carolemarie

He is a politician who will say anything.....
if the votes were on the prolife side he would be prolife
because if you are not sure of the meaning of the word "if" it makes it hard to have reasonable discourse with people.
let me rephrase....most prochoice people admit it is a baby. They just say it isn't really a sedinet person yet so abortion is permissible.
Abortion is hard to defend when looking at pictures of fetal development.....
so show those.....

reply from: nancyu

Ana Rosa Rodriguez
Ana Rodriguez
Ana Rosa Rodriguez was a 32-week-old foetus when her mother, Rosa, went to the New York City abortion chamber of Doctor Abu Hayat, the notorious "Butcher of Avenue A" in 1991. This was going to be just another of the thousands of routine, late-term abortions performed annually in the state of New York, even though abortions after the 24th week of pregnancy are illegal under that state's law. According to Rosa, who was then 20 years old, she told Hayat that she had changed her mind and didn't want to go through with the abortion. "He said that it was impossible to stop, that I had to continue," she told New York Newsday.
According to Rosa, Hayat's assistants held her down while he sedated her. When she awoke, she was told that the abortion was incomplete and that she should come back the following day. That evening, however, she experienced increasing pain and bleeding. Her mother took her to Jamaica Hospital by taxi, where, five hours later, Baby Ana Rosa was born. But Hayat had left his mark upon her; Ana Rosa's tiny right arm had been torn off in the brutal abortion attempt. Ana Rosa has disappeared from public view, but when last reported, in 1996, she was a perfectly healthy, beautiful, little girl, aside from the abortionist's mark, which she will always bear.
Ana Rosa Rodriguez
http://www.gravityteen.com/pregnancy/kickin.cfm?StoryID=46&Text=Yes

reply from: nancyu

http://cwmonca.xanga.com/

reply from: carolemarie

what does that have to do with the topic?

reply from: Yuuki

It doesn't. That's now how Nancyu "rolls". She just splatters her venom all over the board, not caring where it lands. It's too bad too, since some of the sites she posted are actually very interesting. Her out of context copy-pasta methods bore me.

reply from: yoda

But they ARE allowed to get an abortion, that is the point.
And you would have them exposed to that possibility without letting them see what an abortion actually is? You would leave them vulnerable to the lies of the proaborts?

reply from: yoda

I agree that the pro baby killers who argue that are "nobodies", but there are plenty of them out there making that, and even some WORSE arguments. And they don't give a rat's patootie about the "facts", so it's up to us to counter their trash...... NOT to hide our heads in the sand and say "nobody argues that". They darn sure do, and we'd better be ready to refute them when they do.
They ALL are weasels with words...... and it's up to us to counter them, not to deny that they DO exist.

reply from: yoda

In my experience, very very few proaborts admit "it is a baby". I'd say probably not one in a hundred do. I've argued for hundreds of hours with them over that one word, "baby", so don't tell me they "admit it".
And they use phrases like "not sentient yet" in the same way the Nazis used the phrase "not human" to describe the Jews. And if you challenge them to say why sentience has anything to do with the moral right to life, they will immediately change the subject to "why you are such an awful person".

reply from: yoda

It doesn't. That's now how Nancyu "rolls". She just splatters her venom all over the board, not caring where it lands.
Nancy was posting something that fit with the general theme of this board, which is in opposition to elective abortion. To me, that is of more importance than the particular detail that was being "debated" in this thread at this moment. An honest, humble prolifer would applaud her effort, not give her grief.
And she reserves her "venom" for those who support and enable the slaughter of unborn babies, unlike many of the PP lifers here who use their venom on those who are actually trying to stop the slaughter.

reply from: scopia19822

"But they ARE allowed to get an abortion, that is the point."
Those past puberty are. A 6 year old boy cannot get it up to have sex, a 6 year old girl unless she has some hormone problem cannot concieve a child. Lets practice some common sense here and not go to ridiculous extremes. Let children be children they have to grow up soon enough as it is and I dont think showing young elementary school kids these violent graphic images is morally right. Are you prepared to pay the threapist bills for these children?
"And you would have them exposed to that possibility without letting them see what an abortion actually is? You would leave them vulnerable to the lies of the proaborts?"
When they get older and in at least middle school which is 5th or 6th grade then I have no problem exposing them provided the parents dont object and have the option to opt their child out. I do think that fetal development pics and drawings of abortion procedures and graphic verbal descriptions will be enough to sway most. If not then show them the post abortion carnage.

reply from: yoda

That's an interesting point, actually... (and the answer is YES). Do you have any evidence, any documentation at all that a SINGLE child has ever "suffered" as a consequence of seeing a photo of an aborted baby? I have seen many, many kids look at the photos with no apparent ill effect, and even boredom in some cases. The only time I've ever seen a child get upset in an area where the photos were being shown was when the child's parent(s) pitched a fit first. All kids get upset when they see their parents go nuts, that's to be expected.
Since there is no harm in showing them the "real thing", I see no valid point in covering up their eyes as if they were in front of a strip joint. It's the parents who get bent out of joint about this topic, NOT the kids.

reply from: scopia19822

"hat's an interesting point, actually... (and the answer is YES). Do you have any evidence, any documentation at all that a SINGLE child has ever "suffered" as a consequence of seeing a photo of an aborted baby? I have seen many, many kids look at the photos with no apparent ill effect, and even boredom in some cases. The only time I've ever seen a child get upset in an area where the photos were being shown was when the child's parent(s) pitched a fit first. All kids get upset when they see their parents go nuts, that's to be expected. "
Kids can be traumatized by seeing violent images of anykind, that is one reason that one has to be 17 in order to see an R rated movie unless accompanied by an adult. My son is sensative like me. He has nightmares constantly and I do not think he needs to see pics of aborted babies or any other graphic images. Kids are inundated with sex and violence as it is. Abortion pics are not the sole issue for me, it is any type of graphic violence.

reply from: Yuuki

But they ARE allowed to get an abortion, that is the point.
And you would have them exposed to that possibility without letting them see what an abortion actually is? You would leave them vulnerable to the lies of the proaborts?
Yoou have to look at the at-risk age. Middle schoolers are not the most common age group having abortions - or sex. Mid-teens and young 20 somethings are the at-risk group, and so they are the ones who need to be educated, from 9th grade onwards. I agree that senior year of high school is way too late, but freshman year isn't.

reply from: yoda

The movie ratings have as much to do with sexual content and profanity as they do violence. But let me ask you this, what sort of "violence" can you see in the photo of an aborted baby? Photos are not movies, so you don't see anything moving, so what kind of "violence" is there in such a photo?
Apparently not. Abortion continues on unabated.

reply from: yoda

That's kind of beside the point, IMO. It's never too soon to educate a child, they will remember many lessons that they learn young, well into their adulthood. They see more violence on TV, movies, and video games than they will ever see in a post abortion photo. Those photos only show the result of violence, not the violence itself.

reply from: churchmouse

High schools hand out PP information and they provide abortion services. Of course abortion should be taught and from a scientific point of view. If I were a teacher I would write one thing on sentence on the board. "All abortions kill."
Lies? Do you know for a fact with 100% certainty that it does not? The information we have on this should be taught for what it is.
I believe images should be shown as well. Pictures put a name to a face and it shows the inhumanity of abortion. Like yoda pointed out....they are informative and educational.
I also think pictures of STD's should be shown. Show them what genital herpes looks like.
Look I dissagree with a lot of nancys ways, but what she posts factually is usually right. The story she gave here is the truth. I thought yuuki you believed in truth.
I could give you hundreds of documented stories like that one.
Are you kidding me? Middle schoolers most certainly are having sex. Elementary school kids have sex. And they know about it.
Do you know the average age when a child sees its first pornographic picture?
nine.

reply from: carolemarie

not all schools routinely give out PPH information or information on abortion. and teachers doen't get to write whatever they want regarding abortion on a blackboard, or teach creationism either for that matter.
anyone who is under 16 shouldn't be shown graphic photos or violent or disturbing images. That is why movies are rated, to keep that from children. it isn't good for children to be exposed to graphic violence and explict images....and just because we hate abortion, doesn't mean we get to force them to look at it.
Fetal development makes the prolife case with out crossing that line.

reply from: Yuuki

So have you ever seen a PG 13 movie lately?

reply from: Yuuki

Lies? Do you know for a fact with 100% certainty that it does not? The information we have on this should be taught for what it is.
I believe images should be shown as well. Pictures put a name to a face and it shows the inhumanity of abortion. Like yoda pointed out....they are informative and educational.
I also think pictures of STD's should be shown. Show them what genital herpes looks like.
Look I dissagree with a lot of nancys ways, but what she posts factually is usually right. The story she gave here is the truth. I thought yuuki you believed in truth.
I could give you hundreds of documented stories like that one.
Are you kidding me? Middle schoolers most certainly are having sex. Elementary school kids have sex. And they know about it.
Do you know the average age when a child sees its first pornographic picture?
nine.
I like the truth, but I would much rather she put some context and opinions in her posts instead of lazily posting links out of context.

reply from: Yuuki

That's kind of beside the point, IMO. It's never too soon to educate a child, they will remember many lessons that they learn young, well into their adulthood. They see more violence on TV, movies, and video games than they will ever see in a post abortion photo. Those photos only show the result of violence, not the violence itself.
And STD photos show only the results of unprotected sex, not the act itself. But I don't think middle schoolers need sex education, at least not the same KIND of sex ed older kids need. They should be told how babies are made, for example. And fetal development pictures would be good. But I think the horrors of abortion shouldn't be shown in detail until the child is older. Just like I don't think they should see diseased genitalia in middle school. Yes, it would scare them into having safe sex or being abstinent, but I don't think it's appropriate for their age group to see such things.

reply from: iCelebr8Life

I think it is very important to educate about sexual reproduction and pregnancy. Giving as much information as possible illustrating the unique human identity that the human child is from zygote to birth. The objection I have to most abortion movies is that they tend to show late term abortions. Most abortions tend to be done during the embryonic stage and the fetus looks less human. Our humanity is not based upon how we look, but by what we are. We are human the moment of conception and some birth control such as IUD and certain drugs prevent implantation rather than fertilization. I would hate to diminish the human zygote because of the way it looks, and that kind of film does leave the zygote vulnerable.
I am leery of scare tactics and gross-out pics. I prefer facts. Many igh school kids like gross pictures. They pay money to see violent gore films. It might cause an atmosphere of disrespect to have real baby snuff films in a classroom. Some might also argue that if we show abortions, then we'll have to show births.

reply from: carolemarie

that is how i see it as well. There is no really good reason to compel students to look at gory pictures when showing them the truth educates them

reply from: nancyu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMAgPoJ3qxI
It shouldn't be taught high school, because there is no telling who will be doing the "teaching".
Watch the video.

reply from: Yuuki

Yeah, cause kids don't need to know about sex! If you don't teach it to them they'll NEVER think of doing it!
AND YES BECAUSE YOU KNOW THERE IS NO WAY TO REGULATE WAT TEACHERS CAN SAY Oh wait there is.
In the state of Florida, teachers are required to follow a VERY strict Health program once a year to discuss AIDS. They are told exactly what to say per grade level (basically a scrip) and are NOT allowed to deviate from it at all. They are told what videos they can show and what images they can show. Permission slips are sent home and teachers are held liable to the standards. Failure to comply could result in the suspention of their professional license or being fired.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics