Why is CBR accused of insensitivity when children inadvertently see the aborted baby imagery we display in public but

t society merely shrugs when those same children see bloody news photos depicting war, terror, crime and natural disasters? One possibility may be that combat photos dont generally make parents feel the personal guilt which abortion photos often elicit. Parents who have been complicit in their own abortions, or complacent about other peoples abortions, generally dont want their children to ask them awkward questions about the issue. Even parents who dont allow their children to watch violence on television (as in violent cartoons, etc.) or play violent video games, often take them to grocery stores where check-out lines are flanked with magazine racks whose publications have cover photos which are inches away from young faces. These periodicals frequently exhibit bloody photos of dead and dying victims of violence. Parents are often oblivious to these horrors (or in massive denial about them) and almost always underestimate the trauma these images inflict on children. So to make our point, we have put up scores of examples at the bottom of this post. See for yourself. Some of those magazine covers and newspaper photos are as gruesome as any abortion photos and they have been seen by countless children whose clueless parents seldom even noticed. In actuality, we do more to shield very small children from disturbing imagery than the press has ever done. For instance, when possible, we post parental warning signs along avenues of approach to the locations at which we are picketing with abortion photo signs. Our abortion photo signs protect unborn children and our warning signs protect born children. But we reject attempts to impose on us an obligation to self-censor when the news media is encumbered by no such burden. We care greatly about the feelings of born children -- but we care even more about the lives of unborn children. As a consequence, we think children who are old enough to have an abortion, are old enough to see an abortion. And tragically, very young children sometimes become pregnant. On March 6, 2009, Reuters published a story headlined

Nine-year-olds abortion stirs Brazil debate. Wikipedia.coms list of youngest recorded birth mothers includes girls who were five-years-old, six, eight, nine, ten, eleven-yearsold, etc., when they became pregnant. Pregnancy as such early ages is mercifully unusual and that is why we would never display abortion photos specifically outside kindergartens or elementary schools. But very young girls can and do become pregnant and those who have seen an abortion photo -- even inadvertently -- are substantially less likely to willingly abort. Young girls who see an abortion virtually never decide it looks like the most appealing option for resolving problematic pregnancies. That is why abortion apologists work hard to hide these images from students of all ages. The need for all but the youngest of students to see the horror of abortion with their own eyes is heightened by outrageous federal court rulings which have empowered school officials to take a pregnant student out of class and into court, no matter how young she might be, to find a pro-abortion judge who will certify that it is in the childs interest to abort behind her parents backs even in states which supposedly require parental permission or parental notice as a predicate to abortions for minor children. Thankfully, students who have seen an abortion are seldom willing to have an abortion. Our photos are like a vaccine. They make students are far less vulnerable to the predations of the manipulative bureaucrats who trick tens-of-thousands of little girls into ruinous abortions each year. It is child abuse for parents and teachers and administrators to hide the truth about abortion -- and then misrepresent the procedure to bully students into terminations many would reject had they been shown the truth. We are determined to show them that truth because everyone else in their lives is trying to it cover-up. Its a matter of literal life and death. We have had countless women tell us that nothing less shocking than our abortion photos would have sufficed to dissuade them from killing their children. Many more have told us that had they seen these photos before aborting instead of after, they wouldnt have done it. Large numbers have confided that it took the photos to force them to stop trying to justify a sin needed to confess and of which they needed to repent. And virtually every person we have ever met in serious pro-life activism has admitted that it was disturbing pictures which made it impossible for them to remain complacent. If your very young child is inadvertently exposed to our photos and is distressed, explain that some parents do very bad things to their children but that he or she has been blessed with parents who love him and will always protect him. Tell him that what he saw in the abortion photo happened to a baby before that child was born. It never happens to children such as he or she, who are already born, so he or she will have nothing to fear from this bad thing. Tell him or her that violence is almost never the best solution to lifes problems and that love is always better than selfishness. If he or she asks why parents would do such a terrible thing, the answer is selfishness. Parents sometimes refuse to give up anything of value to make room in their lives for a baby. Your child understands selfishness because you frequently warn him or her against it. That ought to suffice until he or she is older.

If he or she remains upset, I hope you will derive some comfort from the certain knowledge that the lives of other children were saved by the same photos which disturbed your child. Had we not displayed them that day, those children would have been killed. Think about that. If you still believe allowing a born child to be upset is a greater evil than allowing an unborn child to be killed, you may be pro-feelings, but you are certainly not pro-life.