Disturbia, fiction, family, friends, and everything else between the lions.
Published on July 17, 2006 By Tova7 In Blogging

I took the boys to the water park today.  It’s in the 90’s here and there are only two places fit for mankind:  inside sitting in the air conditioning or somewhere with lots of cool clear water.

 

We arrived around noon.  It was our first time at this particular water park, my ten year old read the rules out loud to his brother and me.  They were the typical no running, pushing, be safe kind of common sense rules.

 

I blew up my three year old’s inner tube and we hit the water.  It is a small one, the kind made for toddlers.  He is three and can’t swim.  Inner tube or not I never take my hands off him when we are in the water.  But the inner tube gives him something to hang onto beside the top of my bathing suit and is basically just another water toy.

 

It was wonderful.

 

An hour later one of the life guards approached and told me we can’t use the blow up tube.  I asked her why.  She explained it was not approved by the National Water Safety blah blah blah.   I explained he wasn’t using it as a flotation device…it was essentially a toy.  He hung on and I dragged him around in the two foot pool.

 

Nope.  She wasn’t having any of it.

 

I told her I read the rules when entering and there was not a single one on the use or non use of flotation devices.

 

She looked uncertain and I felt bad.  She was all of seventeen and only doing what her boss told her too.  Besides we were only playing with it so really there was no point going to war.  We could easily play with the blow up ball we brought.  So that’s what we did.  And everything was hunky dory.

 

A little while later the kiddie pool was getting really crowded.  And in some areas I was  shoulder to shoulder with other moms helping their toddlers play in the water.  It was fun though.  Participating in water play with children is always a thrill for me.

 

I love the sounds of children playing in water.  Splashing and laughing and hollering.

 

I heard a plane off in the distance.  I looked up and saw a Cessna pulling a huge banner behind it.  I couldn’t make out the words but the picture beside it showed a bloody mass of tissue with a dime beside it.

 

I’ve seen the photo before and  knew immediately the bloody mass was an aborted baby.

 

I am pro-life, but get aggravated when I see pro-life billboards and commercials showing aborted babies.  They just put it out there and don’t really care who sees it.  It’s one thing for me to tell my child about abortion but another for someone else to decide when they look at it.

 

 

These thoughts were running around in my mind when the Cessna came closer a few minutes later.  The water park is fairly new and out in farm country.  There aren’t any other businesses around yet.  The Cessna flew over and around us at least seven times.

 

It was flying low enough that everyone stopped to look up the first time it flew by.

 

I was thinking some unpleasant things about pro-life extremists when I finally read the words printed in big black letters next to the bloody tissue and dime.

 

“10 week abortion.  Call 1-888-whatever.”

 

Pfft.  Same offense, different group.

 

It seems ironic to me cigarettes can’t be advertised on tv but someone can rent a plane, put a huge banner with an aborted baby on it, and fly around a place children of all ages gather.  No matter what side of the argument you fall on, it is at the very least in bad taste.

 

My ten year old just happened to be checking in at that time.  And there were some other kids in the toddler pool too, perhaps seven or eight years old.

 

I heard several, “what’s an abortion?”

 

My oldest asked me, “Isn’t abortion killing a baby?”

 

(Heh.  You may not agree, but my kids my rules.)

 

I said, “Yeah.”

 

He looked confused.

 

I said, “We’ll talk about it later.  Let’s just enjoy the rest of the day.”

 

I can’t imagine showing a young child a picture of an aborted baby.  Can you imagine the outrage if all first grade students were required to look at pictures of aborted babies?

 

Yet an advertiser can show them to anyone, any age without any problems.

 

It’s a sorry state of affairs imho.


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jul 17, 2006

I had occasion to visit a doctor's office that was across the street from an abortion clinic a couple of years ago.  There were the usual protestors there, waving placards with pictures of aborted fetus's on them.  What really got me pissed off, though, was the woman who had her 6 or 7 year old child there with her.  She had on of the more graphic signs, and she had that kid out in the cold with her, witnessing it's mother scream at the women who were entering the clinic, calling them baby killers and telling them they were going to hell.  Nice, huh?

Like you said, we can't advertise cigarettes on TV, but we any eejit can wave a graphic photo of a dead baby in front of your face.

Makes no sense.

on Jul 17, 2006

it is called Freedom of Speech (and actually only the fact that the Cigarette ban is Voluntary not mandatory is why it is in existance).  We dont have to like it, but I will defend both sides of the debate to my death.

And as for kiddie pools?  GOD I am glad I am through that stage!  More Urine than water half the time.

on Jul 17, 2006
woman who had her 6 or 7 year old child there with her.


I don't understand it.

Is there really any benefit to the child? Do they have to see the pictures?

I was an adult long before I ever saw one of those pictures. And it disturbed me.

It really makes me wonder what it does to kids.
on Jul 17, 2006

it is called Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech is one thing.  But I don't think anyone should have the right to show my child photos of something I don't want them to see.

If that banner were a picture of a naked man it would be illegal.

In mho, showing torn up dead babies is a lot worse than showing a naked man...but its ok cuz its "legal."

on Jul 17, 2006

Cigarette ban is Voluntary not mandatory

Actually Doc this isn't correct.

In 1969, Congress proposed a ban on all cigarette advertising on TV and radio. As expected, the tobacco companies were initially against it. However, they soon realized that a ban on TV commercials would free up funds for other types of advertising, and would also remove the anti-smoking PSA requirement. Rather than fight the inevitable, they decided to cooperate, and the proposal was signed into law by President Nixon in 1970.

http://medialit.med.sc.edu/tobacco_on_television.htm

on Jul 17, 2006
for some reason the link doesn't work so here it the addy with spaces so it will show....

http: // medialit.med.sc.edu/ tobacco_on_television.htm
on Jul 17, 2006

In mho, showing torn up dead babies is a lot worse than showing a naked man...but its ok cuz its "legal."

I support both sides.  I do not like it (either side actually), but I detest starting down the slippery slope of censorship.  They see dead babies all the time.  We call them Moles, Voles, and birds. 

Actually Doc this isn't correct.
In 1969, Congress proposed a ban on all cigarette advertising on TV and radio. As expected, the tobacco companies were initially against it. However, they soon realized that a ban on TV commercials would free up funds for other types of advertising, and would also remove the anti-smoking PSA requirement. Rather than fight the inevitable, they decided to cooperate, and the proposal was signed into law by President Nixon in 1970.

Voluntary in the respect that it has never made it to the SCOTUS.  It would not pass muster.  They decided not to fight it.  That does not make it constitutional.

on Jul 17, 2006
Tova,

I think what is even sadder is that there will be some kids that don't have anyone to explain to them what just happened. Your sons have you to talk it over with. Not everyone is like that.

You are right it was in poor taste, no matter what side you are on. Couldn't they think of a better audience?
on Jul 17, 2006

what is even sadder is that there will be some kids that don't have anyone to explain to them

Yeah this is true.  I heard a lot of moms shushing their kids.  Now if I don't think the water park is an appropriate place to discuss it with MY OWN CHILD.

Why would an ad agency think it would be a good place?

I dunno.

 

on Jul 17, 2006

Why would an ad agency think it would be a good place?

I dont think it was an ad agency.  I think it was some fanatics.  They just cant seem to get the message or the point.  So they try at every venue. It is really sad.

on Jul 17, 2006
I think it was some fanatics


Those planes can't be cheap to rent..and the banner itself probably cost a lot. I don't see the point though. If fanatics, what were they trying to say? 10 week abortions look worse than your imagination? hah

I shoulda wrote down the number and called it. Just to see.
on Jul 18, 2006

Free speech is one thing, but when you have a 'captive audience' there ought to be some standards of decency enforced.

That is so spot on LW.

Even people in their own yards, or on their own farms, were forced to endure it while the plane made its 7+ run bys.

Sad.

on Jul 18, 2006
Free speech is one thing, but when you have a 'captive audience' there ought to be some standards of decency enforced.That is so spot on LW.


Yes it is.

I guess the people doing it didn't think or care about where they were showing their message. That's sad.


I agree that it is good that you at least will take the time to talk to your kids when you feel it's right. Things like this can be mighty confusing to them.


The water park sounded like fun though!
on Jul 18, 2006

I agree that it is good that you at least will take the time to talk to your kids when you feel it's right.

I've already talked to my ten year old about some time back...can't remember when exactly...he asked me what it meant.

His question yesterday was more "Why is it being advertised?"

That is what we discussed on the way home.

The water park sounded like fun though!

It was....water activity is always fun!

on Jul 18, 2006
LW:
I wonder why on television they have to run disclaimers before broadcasting something that might be graphic, disturbing or inappropriate for young children ("viewer discretion is advised") and are even limited as to what times of day these images may be broadcast, yet there are no laws preventing this sort of material from being displayed in a public place designed to attract young children, during broad daylight, and with no way to 'change the channel?'

Free speech is one thing, but when you have a 'captive audience' there ought to be some standards of decency enforced.


Exactly!

I know for my children, seeing that would have been VERY upsetting.

As of yet, they do not know what abortion is. When I found out I was pregnant this time, I told them right away and I did explain to them that sometimes babies die before they grow enough to be born and that it could happen to our baby (preparing them, just in case).

However, they have no idea that anyone would do that on purpose, and at the ages they are now, I can't see any reason for them to need to know that.

Tova, I would have gotten the number and called to complain. I mean, wouldn't people be upset about a photo of a dismembered adult flying above a water park? Violence and gore are not things that should be forced on children.
2 Pages1 2