Child protesters

Reading Drudge this morning I see that a (another?) child has been arrrested for trying to take a glass of water to Terri Shaivo. It reminded me of a group here in NZ - The Destiny Church - that was very active in protesting against same-sex marraiges in NZ. They put children at the forfront of their protests, had them interviewed by reporters/tv and incorporated them in marches etc. To be completely fair they were protesting for "family values" so kids maybe were there to represent the complete family .....maybe.

Is this a new trend for protests, putting children at the forefront. To define terms:

This boy is 10 years old.
Police officers arrest 10-year-old Joshua Heldreth

The ones used by the Destiny Church were even younger. Sorry I am looking for a link to an example of that, but no luck so far.

Found this, but the links back to the actual article no longer work:
"Destiny Church defends use of children in protest - 15th August 2004
The controversial Destiny Church is under fire for using children in a campaign against gay marriage and other reforms it claims are ruining society.

In this I don't actually care what the cause is. Either way you support those two issues (Terri S & gay marraige) they are but examples here and not relevant. My question is is it right to use kids as political protest tools when they most likely only reflect their parents values without having formed their own? Is it a growing trend?

Admittedly I have had only brief news items to go by, but I presume this kid didn't turn up without parents and decide off his own bat to bring Terri S a glass of water. So have his parents deliberately put him in a position where arrest will follow, as a politcal tool? If so I would find that kind of obscene.

Do these people understand that if they give her a glass of water that she will drown? She's a freeking vegetable, she can't drink, they needed to cut her open and force a tube directly into her digestive tract in order to get nutrients to her.


Arrest any kid, not matter how young who does that. They're obviously not just innocently inspired to do it. And threaten to take anyone else who does it away from their parents, these parents shoudl be ashamed of themselves, using their kids like this and getting them arrested.

The child protesters are used by the parents and the groups in charge of the protest to cause as much impact as they can in from of the cameras.

Many of them only knows that they are told that what they are doing is OK.

No even taking in consideration that they don't even realized how they have been used.

I see it as a type of child abuse, adults know what they are doing but most of the young ones do not.

I agree with your concern. Children are too young to understand the issue and decide for themselves, so putting them "in harm's way", so to speak, is morally wrong and a form of child abuse.

I agree. Children should not be allowed to protest anything until a certain age. Say 16, the legal driving age. Though they should be allowed to form an opinion of their own at any age. And even that should be without the "help" of an adult.
Children are very smart small people.
In the Schiavo case children should be allowed to send well wishes is they so wish to do so. Just my honest opinion.
My children, son ten years old and dughter 7 are both sad for this lady and her family. But both also understand that it is not a childs place to protest. They did add Mrs Schiavo to prayers everynight since this whole ordeal began.
Throwing kids in the middle of adult affairs only force them to grow up all to fast...they do enough of this own their own.

I, too, feel that parents should not "use" their children to further their own political and/or moral agenda.
As for the use of children in the past, there is a fairly long history of this occurring. It certainly was a tactic during the Viet Nam War protests and was a major tactic during the civil rights protests of the 50s and 60s.
Even though I might endorse a cause, I would not feel right placing my child in suchy an atmosphere and, possibly, in harm.
But, yes, it's been done by various groups for a long time. Children, sadly, are attractive targets for the news cameras and that's why many groups utilize them.
joey

Child abuse indeed - take them away from the parents or arrest & fine the parents for their stupidity. Almost as bad as those who teach their children to hate others because their religion or race.

The plug is pulled on people every single day here. I dont see why she has become such a big deal. Whether or not she wanted to live, I'm sure this isnt how she wanted to be remembered.

Originally posted by spliff4020
The plug is pulled on people every single day here. I dont see why she has become such a big deal. Whether or not she wanted to live, I'm sure this isnt how she wanted to be remembered.

I fail to see what the big deal with the media coverage is either. Someone involved must have a personal connection with one of the media organizations.

I wouldn't mind being kept alive for a few years just to make sure they couldn't get me going again, but 15 years would be torture even if I could see what's going on - that would be like 15 years in a prison cell where all the guards were deaf & blind you weren't allowed to communicate with the outside world. If you weren't mad in the first few years you'd surely be mad after 15.

Stop the torture & let her die.

i would have to say that in this case indeed a child in my opinion would not realy understand what is happening. this does not mean however that their protesting anything should not be allowed. there are cases where children have gone so far as to start up charity drives, are their parrents involved in that it is of course a possibility. in this one case of a child trying to bring her water did his parrents put him up to it i honestly do not know. it is something however i can see a child not realizing that this could actualy kill her. there is a good possibility he did do it on his own.

even though children do not always understand the situation(even adults can be guilty of this), they are still entitled to protest what they see as wrong. yes their parrents values are part of their thinking. indeed how many of us share values with our parrents? i would imagine a great many of us, unless we have found some point(s) that do not seem as right to us. after all this is the fundimental relationship that we should and do learn our moral values in. if a parrent is a murderer would that not mean that a child will take this as a normal situation? that is where school, religion and society take there place. after all don't a great deal of abused children come to the realization that this abuse that they are told is normal is in fact not? where than did this relivation come from? certainly the child may feel instinktively that such behavior is wrong, backed up by what friends, school, tv. and religion tells them.

in this case children are being used as i don't think many of them truely understan what is going on and what the stakes are. i am sure many adults don't realy know either. i am sure many just see this as a simple case of attempted murder. it is about putting someone to "death for their own good". that is the basic foundation. i admit in this case i am not totaly convinced one way or another, i do not have all the facts. my main concern however is the isue at hand , is it all right to kill someone just because the value of their life will be "poorer" (are we even sure of this, after all we are not the person so afected) due to their condition.

i have a co-worker who was in a atc accident, he will even admit what happened was his fault. rideing while drunk with no helmet. he was in a comma over a year( i am sure he has told me but i can't remember). long enough that his wife divorced him and remarried, due to thinking there was no way he would survive or not be a vegitable. he dosen't even hold this against her. he is certainly not where he used to be but for the most part is satisfied with his currant life. mabe while he was in a comma it was thought that "pulling the plug" would be best for him. i certainly am glad that didn't happen, i am better for knowing him. i am also sure that he is gratefull to be alive.

in this patcular case i would if the power was mine look into and met justice. from my currant understanding. declare a devorce give the apropriate settlement. apparently more than enough to have a good life with. and divide the rest up amonst the rest of the family. also removeing the husband's" right to go so far against the wishes of the family". as from my understanding. she seems to have wanted a divorce and the attitude displayed by the husband seems to be suspicius to say the least.

Originally posted by outsider

Originally posted by spliff4020
The plug is pulled on people every single day here. I dont see why she has become such a big deal. Whether or not she wanted to live, I'm sure this isnt how she wanted to be remembered.

I fail to see what the big deal with the media coverage is either. Someone involved must have a personal connection with one of the media organizations.

American media is like that - they manufacture sensationalism. Thereare many more "Terri Schiavos" in the US, but they choose to focus on this one.

Same as the Scott Peterson murder trial. Horrid and disgusting, but then again, nothing unusual. Yet the airwaves are bombarded for months with every detail about the incident and the trial.

The media tells us what we should be interested in.:shk:

Drogo - Terri Shiavo was brain dead for ten minutes.

Her body may only be reacting to stimula, as a person, she may have been gone a long time now.