In the wake of the Newtown tragedy where 20 children lost their lives to a gunman, kids have taken center stage in the debate about gun control. And both sides of the debate question these tactics.

Some believe that the NRA was wrong to point out that President Obama's children have armed security guards in their schools. There's been a lot of controversy about using President Obama's children in this anti-gun-control ad: "Are the President's Kids More Important Than Yours?" New Jersey Governor Chris Christie called it "reprehensible." The White House called it "repugnant and cowardly." 

Yet the White House released this video of children who'd written letters to President Obama for gun control. Children were included in the President's January 16 press conference. When Obama signed 23 gun control orders, he had these children stand behind him. He high-fived them, then signed the orders and hugged them afterward.

Is it exploitative to use children in the media in these ways? 

Because of the horrific mass murders of the children in Newtown, is there any other way to have this conversation without talking about--and involving--children in some way? I grew up in a "children are to be seen and not heard" era. As an advocate for today's children, I actually appreciate that children are being seen and heard in this debate. 

I appreciate that the conversation orbits what's right for children and their schools and their future.

Are there better ways to do this? Most likely. But I appreciate that the images of children we're seeing now are not the images of precious slain children, but the images of children whose lives are worth fighting for.

This isn't to say whether I'm pro or anti gun control or gun rights. I'm simply saying that children have a rightful place in this debate since so many of them (in addition to Newtown) have been victims of a broken system.