There is an essential difference between someone who harms a child on purpose and someone who harms a child by accident during combat in civilian territory.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
There is a 'sanctity' involved with bringing a child into this world: it is better than bombing one out of it.
If an adult uses violence on a child, the child will naturally assume that he too, has the right to use it on one smaller or weaker.
The unjustifiable severity of a parent is loaded with this aggravation, that those whom he injures are always in his sight.
As a child soldier, your rights are constantly violated.
I think in television and film, it's not usually the child's point of view. It's the story of an adult. If there's a child in a drama or an action-adventure movie, they're someone who needs to be saved, someone who needs to be protected, or if they're killed, someone who needs to be avenged. Their character doesn't matter much.
It's one thing to say you're for the war; it's another thing to send your kid to war - your daughter or your son.
More and more, we have been able to present the argument that recruitment of child soldiers is a social breakdown that leads to atrocities, because that's why they get them.
A kid in an abusive home has far fewer rights than any POW. There is no Geneva Convention for kids.
If war occurs, that positive adult contact in every shape is needed more than ever. It will be a matter of emotional life and death. There's not a handy one-minute way of talking to your kid about war.
It's hard for me to believe someone could harm a child.