The other day I was reading the paper. I do not read the obituaries on a daily basis, but that day I was readig the page opposite and I noticed a picture of a baby. In the obit, the baby had died 3 hours after birth. In the picture, the baby had been laid on its side with its hands up around the face and it had a little blue cap on, but I still found it disturbing that I was looking at someone else's dead baby. Is this common practice these days or does anyone out there find this as bothersome as I do?
2006-10-09 03:36:05 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
I think no they shouldn't they might freak another person out
2006-10-09 03:38:40 · answer #1 · answered by PoppingBubbles<3 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
In the past pictures of infants who had died were taken and displayed on a regular basis. It was probably, as another poster mentioned, regarded as the only portrait the grieving parents would have of their child. I believe that I've seen these photographs called "Sleeping Beauties" or something like that and are considered collectibles by some.
Another practice of that time was to save hair of the deceased and have it woven into intricate designs to put on display in mourning jewelry and under glass in picture frames specially designed for that purpose.
That being said, in today's culture this is not a common practice and personally I can't see why it ever was. I will say that whatever gives a parent who has suffered such a loss comfort should not be questioned.
2006-10-12 06:13:32 · answer #2 · answered by Ally K 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It does not, and now all human beings is ultimately initiating to ascertain this conflict from a sparkling attitude. the reality that the U.S. seems to be like an unconditional "buddy of Israel" is absurd. We, of course will idly sit down by making use of except we've some thing to income or lose, this conflict has been happening for some years, what ought to Palestinians have probably achieved so in a diverse way this time, that could justify this? not something, yet i will say that Israel is only following by with us of a of america's occasion of potential and thought that bombing and killing many innocents is justified if we are concentrated on "terrorists". what's maximum shameful, is that of all communities Israel must be conscious and delicate of genocide, and that's precisely what's happening.
2016-10-19 02:04:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I, personally, don't like it. However, I have not lost a child and if that is what they need to do to deal with that type of overwhelming grief, so be it. I can't imagine the heartbreak and maybe it makes the parents feel better posting the picture of a real person who lived, if only for 3 hours.
2006-10-09 03:43:01 · answer #4 · answered by sassytxlassie 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not! They shouldn't just be able to post some poor, dead baby in the paper for everyone to see. Do their parents not have one ounce of guilt?!
2006-10-09 03:44:45 · answer #5 · answered by "Teh" Leester 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's probably the only picture of that baby that they will ever have, sad.
2006-10-09 03:40:25 · answer #6 · answered by kim_strng 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No way thats not nice, its hard enough to see dead grown people!
2006-10-09 03:39:16 · answer #7 · answered by DSPARKLE 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i think its upsetting.........but dont they have to get permission before doing something like that.so then its disturbing knowing the parents allowed it.
2006-10-09 03:39:42 · answer #8 · answered by stuffy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is a bit much. They don't show adult death pictures so why show a newborn's?
2006-10-09 03:41:19 · answer #9 · answered by Phoenix Rising 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
thats so sad, i've never seen that in my paper, but i guess it would be ok to some people, personally it would really bother me
2006-10-09 03:39:05 · answer #10 · answered by Crystal 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋