To: victoriaonbybirth:

My SINCERE apology------ my mistake!

And I will add that if everyone applied that (your last sentance) to their everyday lives & actions, not just these particular people, then this world would be a better happier place.

Why are you pointing that at me? I did not disagree with you.

victorianbybirth: Please read my last sentence in my previous comment.
That's all--Thanks

Guest1235...Now, now...don't give up. I've go to admit I never heard of such as you describe. If it had happened to me, I would have sued Wal-Mart and the idiot who tattled to CPS. I might have sued CPS as well. This is ridiculous in the extreme. Millions of parents take just such pictures as you describe with no consequences except for extreme embarrassment to the kid about the time their prom date is shown the pictures 17 years later.

This has been a huge year for intelligent design research. We took a look back at some of the most important breakthroughs. Until recently, Wired has been too hard on the proponents of creationism. To rectify that, our science desk has hired a full staff of religious zealots. Here is their first story:

10. T. rex ate coconuts
According to experts at the Creation Museum, our favorite predatory dinosaur would have fit right in at Whole Foods.

9. The Earth is only six thousand years old
Carbon-13 and potassium argon dating are myths created by the devil to cast doubt on the existence of God.

8. Stem Cells are evil
Curing terrible diseases is not worth the trouble of sacrificing some abandoned eggs from the deep freeze at a fertility clinic.

7. NASCAR is the official sport of the spiritually enlightened
Some forms of entertainment were meant for the pure of heart.

6. Guns were created by God to kill deer
It is our responsibility as humans to encroach on their habitats by building track homes and then blow the sweet crap out of them so that they don't starve to death in the winter.

5. Liberals are evil
Even though most of the truly bizarre sex scandals have involved republicans, and democrats prefer to have affairs with women of legal age, left-wing politicians are morally more morally bankrupt than their conservative counterparts.

4. Civil Liberties are for sissies
Under the benevolent Bush II theocracy, we don't need privacy. Like the Pope, he is in direct contact with God, so we can feel secure knowing that every one of his decisions will be fair.

3. President Bush can look directly into our souls.
Bush II looked directly the soul of Russian President Vladimir Putin and saw that he is a good man!

2. Iraq had ties to Al-Qaeda, was enriching Uranium, and all that jazz.
By bombing Iraq back into the stone age, then occupying it, we have protected our country from terrorism. Who cares if we destroyed our economy while in the process? Dubai is certainly not complaining.

1. Evolution is a myth.
Just ask Ben Stein, evil academics suppress any luminary who dares to question the mounds of evidence that life evolved gradually. Get your facts straight. It took seven days to make the earth.

APRIL FOOLS!
Everyone knows that creationists don't do real research, they just make stuff up!

If pictures of aborted fetus' are scarring the middle schoolers & offending the parents by forcing them to discuss the photos, how does one deal with explaining to ones child about the pregnant 6th grader in their class?

Itsallfunny, you would rather expose a toddler to the pictures, by wishing them to the mall, than a pre teen/teenager?

Middle schoolers are having sex, people. They are getting away with it because no one thinks they are old enough to worry about. I knew of far more pregnancies & ensuing abortions in middle schools than I knew of in high school.

I give up www, I can't please you no matter what I say.

I haven't pulled up anything on the internet to prove to you that people have gotten in trouble for innocent "bath time" pictures before, but suffice it to say, I have had one set of family friends that got child protective services called on them because of a bath picture they took of their daughter. It was the baby's first time to graduate from the small little baby baths they make into sitting up on her own while her mama sat beside the tub, washing and watching her. The child was having a blast, splashing and playing with toys, and they took a picture, that showed her front side. Walmart staff that developed the picture, with nothing else in the slightest incriminating or child pornographic on the roll, contacted CPS. The family was found to be capable of caring for their daughter, and no harm came of all of it, except for the hassle and worry they had to go through, from taking that innocent bath time picture. I'm just saying....if people can get in trouble for that sort of thing...

Anyways, you won't hear another peep from me on the subject, since I'm to be hassled no matter what I say. I just thought I'd share my opinion in a forum where I thought it was warranted.

While I haven't read all the comments. My opinion is simple: Demonstrate with graphics"with respect." How does that work? Well, for example: Right to life: show a picture of a fetus in the womb-NOT- a picture of an aborted fetus! Another example: Smoking: show a healthy lung beside a damaged lung. Example #3- the results of a drunk driving accident-graphic, yes, BUT don't show the deceased! Look how that young lady who mustered the courage to show what she looks like AFTER being hit by a drunk driver, and being burned beyond recognition, comparing to what she looke liked BEFORE the accident. THAT hit home with me! I tell my children who are of driving age what can happen. They have also seen the projects at school that try to deter drunk driving. I can go on(like I usually do), but I think you understand what message I'm trying to get across-Display with respect, good judgement, and good taste. It can be done and it has been done.

guest..."there's been all sorts of people persecuted and thrown in jail for taking pictures of their baby's first bath or diaper change."

I'm not saying you're wrong, but -- can you provide any documentation of such? I've known of lots of pictures of bare babies on bear skin rugs and never heard of anyone getting in trouble over it. Nudity -- even of adults -- doesn't equate to porn. Even, as Archie Bunker used to call it, full nudal frontity is acceptable. Perhaps not to everyone, but you won't go to jail for it.

It's not a freedom of speech. There's no speech involved in the display of an image.

And you can't say that I wouldn't be thrown in jail for showing a picture of a mutiliated woman's naked body on the side of the road to all who pass. I would, in a heartbeat. It's a graphic image.

Well, the image of the aborted fetus is also naked, and there's been all sorts of people persecuted and thrown in jail for taking pictures of their baby's first bath or diaper change. So why not apply the laws that got those people in trouble for innocent picture taking (obviously not child-porn incidents) against anti-abortionists who display graphic aborted fetuses to the public?

Argh...I shouldn't have gotten involved in this discussion. There's too much rage between all sides, and no one is ever correct.

Maybe these people have "rights" as afforded by the Constitution to do this, but maybe they shouldn't, since they infringe upon others inherent rights as individuals to see, believe, and teach as they want to in life.

guest12345...There is no right to not be offended. These people have the right "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The First Amendment also says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...."

I disagree strongly, not only with the pictures they display, but also with the message spread. However, they have the right to do what they do so long as they do not trespass on private property.

I really like pilots suggestion of displaying graphic sexual photos, but THOSE would probably land someone in jail. Some people just aren't ready for that much freedom of speech and press. Maybe someday.

I do not think people have a right to demonstrate with graphic images. Several years ago, while working downtown, I had one of these graphic abortion pamphlets left on the hood of my car, facing inward, in a privately owned and operated parking garage. I don't have any kids of my own, but many kids join their parents at the downtown banks after going to school at Nazareth, and climb in the cars for the ride home. I was already irate that I got left such a flyer, but if my children had seen it, I would have been livid. It's the same thing with these activists standing outside Howell Middle School.

I have a right to teach my child about life. It's like Pilot said, if these people have a right to show these graphic images in public, then there should also be a right to show graphic images of people having intercourse. (Or images on the street corner of people being executed, mutlilated, beaten, or raped.) I think most agree it's not appropriate, or right! Someone commented on the fact that there's enough of "that sort of thing" on tv, internet, youtube, talk among other children. Yes, there is! But, I, as a responsible parent, should be in charge of banning my child from certain websites, or blocking certain television stations, that I do not wish them to see. Just as it should be my right to inform my child about the facts of abortion and the termination of life that it causes. (And be able to block them from images relating to abortion that I have no wish for them to see! If you're standing there showing graphic images in public on my drive to school, this gives me no rights as a parent and responsible individual!)

If you want to teach others about how "anti-abortionism" is right in your opinion, do it the right way. Try to get the images you're displaying on the street corner adopted into a sex education program...where kids who are old enough, and have parent permission, can see the consequences of actions they take. Discuss with your own children and people you meet through work, life, church, etc. your stand, and why you take it. Take out an ad in the paper discussing the cons of abortion, and the effects it has on society and the people who participate in them. Rant and rave in your own personal blog about the situation. Stand on the street corner with signs that state your opinion, without being grotesque, and subjecting children and adults to horrific pictures, thoughts, and nightmares.

It is NOT right, nor acceptable.

You are concerned about children seeing graphic images? Have you seen the video games they are playing? The video games combined with the images on cable TV should make the images shown by anti-abortion groups subtle to middle school children.

I agree www. It seems people are voting no and not realizing the right is there, just good taste isn't.

thewaywardwind,

You're right on target. Apparently some people think that freedom of speech means you can say what you want as long as it isn't illegle, AND "if it doesn't p*ss me off"....funny how that works!

While I disagree with those holding the pictures, I am stunned that such a percentage of respondants say they don't have the right to demonstrate their beliefs. Of the 170 who answered the poll question, 96 say people don't have the right to demonstrate using the pictures. Fifty-six percent of those responding either haven't heard of the First Amendment or don't care about the protections guaranteed by it. I'd be willing to bet a Whopper to a Big Mac that 99% of those who say people don't have a right to demonstrate with graphic pictures of abortion results would be up in arms if, in another poll, they were told they didn't have the right to practice their religion(s).

Just because they should have the right to do it doesn't mean that they shouldn't exercise a little bit of discretion about where they do it. Why protest where a bunch of little children can see their graphic images unless you are trying to make the parents mad? If I had an elementary school child who might see those images, I might get arrested for disturbing the peace because I would have felt compelled to confront the protesters about it.

Ok, that might have been stereotyping a bit too much. I am suggesting a better place to show these graphic images and showing a bit more class than doing it near a school.

I guess I didn't read what school they were in front of. Yet, I still stand behind my words. Go to the malls where those kids are hanging out. There are some children at the school who haven't been exposed to that and perhaps before a schoolday isn't the time to do it. Give some parents credit for teaching their children right without showing graphic images at such an important place. Why must they do it near the schools? Go to a section 8 housing project and show the signs.

itsallfunny,

If you believe that 12 or 14 year olds are "children who don't even know what the images are about yet", you lead a very sheltered life.

Cute idea Pilot,

But deliberately showing pictures explicitly involving sexual intercourse to subteens could get a person thrown in jail as a pedophile.

That's great to show the effects. Just don't do it in front of children who don't even know what the images are about yet. Those people need to show some decency. If you want to reach out then go to the mall or something. People make their decisions based on what they need at the time and I am pretty sure graphic pictures will not change that. Go stand in front of an abortion clinic, not near a school where there are children. Obviously those parents made the right choice and don't need to be "saved".

They absolutely have the right to demostrate those images! People need to see the full effect of abortion, not just letters saying abortion is bad. Although very hard to take in, those images are the truth of abortion, and people need to know the truth. Teenagers especially need to see what abortion really is, I don't believe they have a clue.

As VHS said it's protected. And while I disagree with it I will protect/defend their right to do so Thats why it's called free speach. However classless it is .

I am always amazed that truth is threatening to so many people. Anti-abortionist are very brave people. No, I do not want abortionists murdered. That is no different than the murder of unborn babies.

I guess that I am not fazd by abortion pictures because science is my natural field. Who knew? Not until I was grown, did I know that this field was my passion. I taught science so many years, and enjoyed every moment. My 4th graders built DNA models, my sons dissected pig hearts and fetal piglets in 8th grade, and they were both altering DNA by 11th grade.

Stand in a middle school hallway and listen to the sexual activities of the much too young. I taught in two middle schools in 7 years. Babies were found in toilets in both districts. Flushable refuse.........sad.

Adults miss the most important truth. Females end up being the victim whether they choose to give birth, keep the baby, or allow adoption. If they choose abortion they can suffer from sterility, baby blues, abandonment, and usually much more. Loss of life, be it accidental or natural, is an emotion that is like no other. The premature loss of life can be easily discussed by uninvolved entities, but most women who have abortions suffer greatly from their decision. Girls, such as middle schoolers, need to understand life.

Let the churches teach this. Church is about salvation or should be. It is about the forgiveness of sin, even the wrong choice of abortion. Home is the place for these graphics. Very few homes teach morality. Television and its mores dominate thinking in most houses.

In the last days women will sacrifice their children.....sacrifice has many faces. Murder of innocent children is obvious and leads to outrage. Abortion is subtle and is the sacrifice of the unborn. This knowledge is always met with some kind of anger in the name of women's rights. I always thought God was in charge of life or death.

Although it might be classless, the protestors are protected by the Constitution to exercise free speech. I saw the same thing in Houston at protests at the Planned Parenthood HQ back in the early '90's. All the VISD can do is to get an injunction to get the protestors to stay a certain amount of distance away from the schools.

If protesters can throw red paint (PETA) & other stuff on random people, a graphic picture on a sign is no big deal.