Today I saw the most disturbing thing I have seen in a long time. On the way home from taking my kids to the dentist I had the stupid idea of driving through town to show them the sights. (bad mistake!).We were driving down Washington street when we ran into the anti-abortion activists that for 6 blocks every 10 feet had huge posters of dead fetuses in different stages of mutilation. Now I am all for the right to free speech and before today leaning more towards pro-life. If asked Iwould consider myself more conservative than liberal but I was shocked ,appalled, and disgusted by the posters. The 1 thing that my 6 and 8 year old do not need to see is that! I would rather my kids be subjected to posters of porn on the city streets than pictures of dead babies. My question is. Does this go on all the time? In the year I have lived here I haven't made it downtown too much and am not familiar with the rally schedules for these activists. i don't think I'll be taking my kids back there anytime soon unless I can find out when these people will be stationed on the streets. I understand them wanting to get their message across but to be honest it had just the opposite effect on me. If anything I came away from that experience sympathizing more with the women who are subjected to that when the go to what I am guessing is some clinic in that area.
Personally I felt violated that not only I but my kids had to be subjected to that

I woulda just told them "hey kids see those wacko freaks over there let's get some eggs and egg 'em...

What a bunch of losers going for the shock value I guess.

ps.in on page 1

This is one of those issues like the gay marriage subject - very emotional. The pro-lifers depend on passersby's emotional reaction to work in their favor, but in this case it worked against them. I'd daresay that it works for them more often than it works against them. But, I agree that it is totally inappropriate to display stuff like that where small children can see it - they don't understand what they're seeing, and between the "touchiness" of the whole subject, the parent's personal opinions, and the shock of what has just happened, it puts the parent in a terrible position to be able to explain it well.

I was hoping that no one would start this topic. We're gonna see a lot of crap here from both the pros and cons.

This happens about once a year from this group. They're from a Baltimore based anti-abortion group. They want to get people to "think". Yeah, well I have my thoughts about the whole demonstration, and it ain't good.

It's really too bad that your young children had to be subjected to such a demonstration. I really can't believe that based on local community standards that the posters exhibited during this demonstration aren't considered "obscene". (Obscenity goes beyond "prurient interest".)

Count youself good, that you weren't here when the group used to demonstrate in front of the planned parenthood center when it was on the square.

This is the first time I've noticed the protesting being this heavy. They're always down around the clinic itself, with the occassional graphic poster.

On a lighter note, the first thing I thought when I saw them was "Uh oh, this is gonna be an ugly topic on the HM forum."

Only if we allow it to.....

Is there anyplace where you can file a decency complaint against the protestors?

Didn't they have to go to city hall and get a permit?

Also, samyo, I guess you could try evasive action first by saying "oh,they're just some people protesting something they don't like". And then try to change the subject. It might work. Alot of times you don't have to go into details,they just need a quick reply.

I'm puzzled as to why people are having such a reaction to the protestors' materials.

A fundamental argument (whether correct or not) of the anti-abortion side is that abortion is the taking of human life. The images they used convey that message both powerfully and honestly (i.e., they're not "doctored). Hence, I'd argue the protestors' use of such imagery is fully "within bounds" -- just as it would be completely in-bounds for anti-war protestors to show images of civilian casualties and for anti-poverty activists to show images of malnourished and destitute people. Indeed, such imagery seems far more on-topic and appropriate to those debates than, say, flag-burning.

Of course, the anti-abortion protestors leave standing two significant IOUs, namely, (1) though fetuses are human life, are they holders of human rights, and (2) does the mother's rights trump the fetus's rights? Those are important components of the debate over abortion, but so too is the point that the protestors were trying to make

I can't think of anything more American than for the protestors to make the statement they're making in the manner they're making, and in public. I worry that, somehow, the belief is beginning to emerge in society that public discourse and debate must be done in bland, timid fashion so as not to "offend." I far prefer a public forum that's rich with voices, ideas, and controversy -- because that is a forum well worth participating in. (But then, I confess to being a free speech radical.)

As far as what to tell the 6 and 8 year-olds, why not the truth? Abortion is a very difficult issue, with tremendous ramifications and really tough arguments on both sides. The anti-abortion activists were giving strong support to what is probably their strongest argument. And, even if grossed out, society is better off because of such debate....

I have a quick question, is America more pro-choice or pro-life?

T-firey - I disagree with your argument. Why do they need to try and get their message across in such a disgusting, crass manner? Why should parents HAVE to expose their children to that kind of material? If you're going to allow those kinds of images to be displayed on the side of a public road, then why have movie and tv ratings, if kids are just going to be exposed anyway. Shouldn't parents have the choice as to whether or not they want their kids to see that crap?

These demonstrators have been around for years and they have no regard for whom is going to see these images. Years ago when I was in college (this is a big university), they demonstrated on the campus and even though it was primarily college-aged people walking around, school buses still came through the campus. Personally, I find these people offensive and their message irrelevant since they're simply trying to use the shock value instead of anything worth listening to.

tfirey, it's inappropriate to be shown to very young children. Whether you personally for or against abortion doesn't matter at this point in time. The point was that it was shown to very young children.

Whether it should be debated or not, a public street is not the proper venue for such displays. If you want to debate abortion rent Kepler Theater or some other venue where folks have a choice whether to view it or not, and where they can shield their youngsters from such displays.

If you would allow a six year old to view such graphic depictions, I truly feel sorry for you.

This link shows about a 50/50 split, depending on how you phrase the question (ie always, sometimes, never, etc.).

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm


PHISH, Yos, et all are right. There's a time and place for everything and the public sidewalk is not it for some of those posters.

X eleventy gazillion

I just wonder if these people with the pictures are the same ones who have hissy-fits about teenagers having sex education classes in school because they might learn about something they were ignorant of until that... Isn't that the way it usually goes?

Dugh - samy0 - "posters of porn"? - Dugh .

Why is it when liberals "don't" like a subject they feel they have MORE power than a conservative? And a conservative has NO right to voice their opinion? We are not allowed to say "under God" in our pledge but they can publish books on having two mommies or daddies? I don't want to explain THAT to my children !

Think people - its a social problem - read history - MARCH 6, 1857 The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the landmark Dred Scott decision that black people were not legal "persons" according to the U.S. Constitution. A slave was the property of the owner and could be bought and sold, used, or even KILLED by the owner at the owner's discretion - 11 years later ADVOCATES (someone who will plead the defence of the innocent) voted to legally protect ALL "persons" ALL living human beings ! That was the color of skin, now its basis of age and the unwanted.

Look what is happening to the doctor's insurance? Doctor's took an oath to heal, have we produced a better society?

Someone has to defend the innocent? Are you not thankful your Mom didn't abort you? Posters of porn? Yeah, tell me again your worried about your children. Dogs have more rights. Wake up and be accountable for what you do, if you don't do right, it's not the child in the wombs fault is it?

Excuse me, but wasn't "under God" allowed to stay in the pledge? The supreme court just allowed for it to stay in the pledge. Where do you get the idea that conservatives have NO right to voice their opinion?

Let me get this straight, you think it's ok to show bloody, aborted fetuses in a public place, but Janet Jackson flashes her boob for a second and the whole country is in an uproar. Does anyone else see a problem with this?

I'm very thankful that my mom decided to give me life, but more importantly, she gave me a good life - a loving environment - and brought me into a world where she could properly take care of me. What about all of those children who are without homes - in foster care (which is a screwed up system right now anyway) - in orphanages - in "the system". What about all of them? Why don't we try and make a good life for the children who are here, instead of bringing more children into this world who need a home, or loving home environment.

Leave it to the new person to bait. I knew someone had to start it.

Your excused Phish.

And "thank God" it was allowed to stay !

And conservative DO have a voice, I just proved it.

And you should get "this" straight. What was Janet Jackson's point? Who knows. . . the posters in Hagerstown - let me let you in - to stop the bloodshed of the innocent.

Has there ever been a time in history that there was ALWAYS food available?
Has there ever been a time when there were NO foster children or NOBODY went hungry? Why not adopt a child and give them a home as your Mom gave you?
Nobody is perfect, why take it out on the child that can't defend itself? Do you know how much "good" food grocery stores throw away for their tax right off? It will shock you, THEY won't even feed the hungry with food that is not outdated. I know this for a FACT !

I don't even want to hear the crap and vomit we should be sensitive, why bring more children into the world, now are you telling me I can't have more children?

I'm with you Yossarian! I thought samyo wanted advice on what to tell/explain to the kids.


P.S. I think anyone who demostrates against abortion should first HAVE to adopt at least 5 kids!

Again I ask..Didn't they have to get a permit to use the sidewalks in town with this type of "visual" aids? Is there ANY type of guide lines for getting said permits?

Thanks, WVD. Yoadrian, the topic was whether or not children should be exposed to the graphic photos exhibited at the demonstration.

This wasn't a debate on the pros and cons of abortion.

Feel free to start a topic on abortion. Just a word of advice to the newcomer. We generally don't belittle or berate our fellow posters on this board. We're a small group of intelligent people who like to debate pros and cons of just about any subject. But we try to do that in a respectful way, and generally stay to the topic. Name calling is frowned upon.

WVD, apparently the group had all the t's crossed and i's dotted. Free speech and all that.

Hey, Yoadrian, I've got some excellent crime scene photos of homicide and human mutilation if you'd like to show them to all of your adopted kids.

What was that about belittle or berate?

I didn't say anything about sarcasm.

If I may hijack the thread a bit .........The actual issue of the "under god" in the pledge wasn't really decided. All the SC said was that the dad that brought the legal action had no grounds to do it because he didn't have legal custody of his daughter, who was being victimized by the "under god" phrase, therefore giving the case a healthy punt off their desks to be decided another day.

It's a shame they side-stepped it on a technicality, it would have been a very interesting decision that would have set the precedent for many more secular vs. religious decisions.

So, Yoadrian; Was it okay for a 6 and 8 year old child to see the graphic depictions of aborted fetuses?

Gee thanks, because I was really looking for your approval.



I'm not the one who said they didn't in the first place, I believe YOU said that.



Why not? You're trying to tell people they SHOULD have more children, even if they're not financially or emotionally equipped to do so.

Hey Yos, I've seen crime scene photos of a victim.Decomposed at that. I'll NEVER forget them. I still see certain ones after 5yrs. There would definately be an up-roar if they were put on posters to be shown publicly!!! Hmmm,new tactic for families of crime victims? Probably not. THAT kind of murder is "o.k." They just need to be confined and cottled...oops! starting to rant. sorry.

I still say try evasive action first. Simple reply and then change of subject USUALLY works with that age group. If not then you and the spouse will have to try to find a more less traumatic(is that the word I want?) way to explain the whole thing. But of course the 8yr. old will grasp onto certain things differently than the 6yr.old.

For visitors to see this down town is not good for the city.
I think they should move the clinick out of the city area.

To answer the question on should young children see this.
My answer is NO. The childre are to young to understand what it is they are seeing. The people who do this have no respect to the younger people having to be subjected to shock pictures and having no idea what it`s all about.

*Sigh* I miss the First Amendment....

While I vehemently disagree with the protesters' stance on the abortion issue, I would certainly champion their right to assemble, display and disseminate their point of view.

Yossarian hit the nail on the head though with his comment that, in order for the images to be regulated or censored in anyway, they have to "offend the prurient interest of society". (This is why a lot of pornographic images are outlawed - because it has been determined that such images offend such interest.) So, if anyone is offended deeply enough to want to challenge the protesters' right to prominently display the images, I would invite you to go and get an injunction against them. (Though, given the political climate these days, I think you'll be fighting a losing battle...)

As far as how to explain such matters to a 6 and 8 year old? Well, I can't say my advice would be any good on that topic, given that I am not a parent. However, if I were in that position, I imagine that I would do my best to explain to them that there are some surgical procedures with some not-so-pretty results, and that people still choose to do them even when they know the outcome; and that the people holding the signs do not want people to have that choice. I suppose you can try to protect your kids as much as possible, but unfortunately, it's impossible to protect and shelter them from the realities of this world forever.

It is never OK for children to see these images regardless of the cause. Would you want your young children to see graphic WWII Concentrarion camp photos in school? I would hope not!
What puzzles me is that this circus is staged right where Hagerstown's protitution trade is practiced day and night, why are these zealots not trying to make a real change and help and or harass these people. Some of whom I am quite sure have used the abortion clinics services. You know why? They are more interested in shock value and attention than making any real positive impact on the community. Real change takes effort and most people are too lazy or just dont care either way. What kind of person would rub the alleged postabortion pain in a persons face by displaying a aborted fetus. Not very christian like in my opinion.

The way to explain this to your 6 or 8 year old is to understand for yourself what the demonstrators are trying to do. They are trying to make you aware of exactly what is happening when an infants' life is terminated. Until the sonograms became more advanced in recent years, approximately 2,400 doctors performed abortions. However, once they actually saw for themselves what was actually happening when they performed an abortion, about 600 doctors stopped performing abortions.

It is hoped that when YOU see what is actually happening to YOUR baby when the doctor aborts YOUR baby, you will decide not to mutilate YOUR baby in such a manner. You wouldn't mutilate your 1 year old baby. Why would you mutilate your 1 month old baby in the womb?

Yoadrian, I ask you again, Would you allow your own 6 and 8 year old children to view these pictures?

One more thought. Yes the pictures are graphic. But how graphic is X-Box or cable TV or some arcade games?

Yes, a 6 or 8 year old might be affected by the graphic nature of these pictures. Maybe they will be affected enough NOT to mutilate one of THEIR unborn children.

Yoadrian, I do understand what they are trying to prove but a young child can't. Why is this so hard for you to understand.

There is already an existing thread from last year's protest here.

OK. For all the pro-life people who thought this was an abortion forum. IT WASN'T!
If you would have read my ENTIRE post instead of just what you wanted to see you would have noticed that 1) I said I would consider myself a conservative. and 2) I would also consider myself more Pro-life before seeing those posters. I only was looking for INTELLIGENT insight on what to tell a 6 and 8 year old about pictures of dead babies! If I wanted to here someone rambling their opinions on abortion I would have pulled up the other day and asked one of the idiots holding the posters! I didn't ask how to explain abortion to a 6 year old because I know my child and I know he would'nt understand at this point. What I did ask was how do you possibly explain why people are holding pictures of dead babies! Should I tell them that this is the only way these people can drum their opinion into peoples heads because they can't reason with normal people without trying to graphically shock them? Yoadrian>> Yossarian has asked you 3 TIMES!! Would you want YOUR children exposed to these graphic pictures? I find it interesting that you can't give an answer for that simple question but can find the energy to rail on about your abortion opinions...To those of you (mostly regular posters) who actually read the post and came up with intelligent responses I appreciate the help. For those of you who think it is acceptable for small children to be subjected to these graphic images my prayers are for your children because we will be seeing them on Jerry springer before its all over

I would have told them my opinion that they shouldn't be showing them where little kids could see them because they would get very upset, as your kids surely did. And then I would tell them that, unfortunately, those pictures are the reality of abortion - that yes that's what abortion really does and it's horrible to think about, and that's the reason why you think it's very very wrong.

I agree that the pictures shouldn't have been so openly displayed. I also feel that they NEED to be seen by those who support abortion, and especially those contemplating abortion, because too few really know what's really going to happen to their baby in the process.

P.S. Of course what all are talking about is abortion. I think media bias is clearly demonstrated when they choose to call anti-abortion folks "anti-abortion" instead of the term they choose for themselves, "Pro-Life", yet whenever refering to the pro-abortion folks, they call them "Pro-Choice" which is the term that THEY choose for themselves. Either name them for the activity they support or oppose - "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" - or use the names they choose for themselves based upon the way they re-frame the issue - "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice". When you mix the terms, it shows a bias in support of whichever group you refer to using the name that THEY prefer, and then refer to other group using the name that they don't prefer. Just my opinion, but you see this kind of bias in all of the liberal media, AND in a lot of the media that THINKS it's being objective.

Yoadrian, I'm going to take your lack of response to my question as a negative. You have NOT provided any valid suggestions for explaining these graphic images to young children. You have expressed, in my opinion, your narrow minded views, and have refused to provide suggestions pertaining to the topic of this discussion.

Heather, thanks for posting the link to last years topic. I remember it not so fondly. If the "pro-life" people would provide a more respectful venue for explaining their message, others might hold more credence in their message.

In my opinion, holding up graphic images on a public street for anyone to see, does not persuade anyone to your line of thinking. To me, it's a somewhat terrorist tactic, somewhat akin to throwing a bomb into a crowded auditorium.

Sorry for veering off topic.

I think Ndano might have the right idea for how to approach this topic. Let's put the abortion issue (and its accompanying baggage) to the side for a moment and instead assume the protestors were a group of people commemorating the Holocaust, and were publicly displaying images of the death and concentration camps. Those grotesque and dehumanizing images would certainly be disturbing to children.

Should those images not be displayed in public for fear that they would upset small children or harm the image of Hagerstown?

No, they shouldn't be displayed where they can be seen by young children. Adult oriented stores are not permitted to display objectionable material to the public.

There are plenty of places and books, and films that explain the holocaust. When parents are ready to explain the holocaust to their children they can take them to the memorial/museum in DC, rent video or obtain books explaining this tragedy.

As far as harming the image of Hagerstown -- I don't think this has done anything to harm the image. I think most folks are mature enough to realize that this doesn't reflect on Hagerstown's values, and take it for what it's worth.

Thanks for trying to get us back on track, tfirey.

Did your children really get a good look at the pictures, Samy? Did they actually ask questions? I've never seen the pictures so I don't know how large and visible they are. I know how young kids get inquisitive though and ask about absolutely everything:

Where are you going?
To work.
Why?
To make money.
Why do you need money?
To pay for things.
Why do you have to pay for things?
Because nothing is free.
Why not?
How so?
What for?


I would have just went on about how it pertained to adult issues that didn't concern them yet and then change the subject to Barney or Blues Clues or whatever kids are into these days. It's really not something you can explain to children that young.

Why is the sky blue?-So we know where to stop mowing!!

Unfortunately my 8 year old got a good look and immediately asked me was that a picture of a baby and what was wrong with it. Not to gross anyone out but these posters were huge. I mean a good 3'X3' signs. The one my son first saw was of a head that looked like it had been ripped off of a body. Now I know this is a touchy subject and that feelings and opinions on it run the spectrum but I just find it hard to believe that this isn't considered offensive even to people that are anti-abortion.
Its not a subject I have ever had any personal dealing with so maybe I can't understand all the opposing viewpoints but I do know that what I don't want is someone telling me how I should feel and then try shoving their morals and ideals down my throat. I think Yossarian hit the nail on the head when he said its like a form of terrorism. The only way some people know how to get a point across is to do something so disturbing that it will shock everyone into paying attention to them

The protesters used to try to get attention by blocking the entrances to the clinics and if they were radical enough, bombing a clinic or shooting a doctor. That got them basically ignored or arrested, but didn't get them the attention they wanted. And now, it's illegal to block the entrances (I believe), and they get a much bigger impact by standing alongside the busiest roads such as they did last week. Whether we want to admit it or not, they've made the impression they wanted to, judging by how long this thread has gone on.

When my son & I lived in Northern VA, there was a clinic not far from the house that was picketed every weekend, but their signs were words, not pictures, and he was 10 years old. I don't know whether those pickets helped him form his opinion or something else did it, but he is 26 now, and definitely anti-abortion.

I'm surpised this wacko hasn't been beat up or sued yet.

I would just tell my children that the protestors were very bad people (taking the focus off the photos and putting on the uncouth protestors) If the children are sophisticated for thier age, you could go into more detail. This is not a free speech issue. Television programs that broadcast surgeries or any graphic contents must post a warning as do video games.

Good point!

It doesn't matter if you liked or didn't like those pictures. They had a right to be there. As for what to tell your children I would tell them the truth. Explain exactly what the pictures represented and why things like that happen. How to explain that to your children is entirely up to you. You know your children better than anyone so tell them in a way they will understand. Will they grasp the entire concept probably not, but children understand a lot more than what we give them credit for sometimes. Is it sad that you have to think about how to explain this topic to your children, YES but unfortunately it's the society we live in today.

I love the way that you folks skirt the issue.

Would you allow your very young children to view graphic images of aborted fetuses, Balmurfan?

I'll explain to my children that those were very, very bad people showing those photographs. That even in America, the right to free speech is protected, but some people take that to the extreme. I'll explain to my children that they will meet a lot of very, very bad people as they grow up, and point to these protesters as an example of a very bad person.

Yup, that's how I'll explain it. And, I'll go on to explain to them how very very bad people will do what they can to hurt people in any way they can. And, I'll continue to explain that they have a choice when they get older, to chose what is right for them.

Yup, that's how I'll handle it.