Horton hears a pro-life protest

horton%20better.jpgHollywood A-listers and families attending the March 8 premiere of the animated Horton Hears a Who in Los Angeles got a bonus feature: pro-life protesters who after the film ended began chanting the story's famous line, "A person is a person, no matter how small."

Celebrities included 2 of the film's stars, Jim Carrey and Steve Carell, along with Jenny McCarthy, Brooke Shields, and Victoria Beckham, all with kids in tow. All 12 American Idol contestants also saw the pro-life performance.

After chanting the pro-lifers placed red duct tapes over their mouths with "LIFE" printed on them and marched around the theater....

I'm a "no justice, no peace" kind of girl, so I endorse this sort of protest, sorry as I am that kids who beforehand were unaware of the epic moral battle of our time learned a sad thing or 2 Saturday afternoon.

Media and blog coverage, although disparaging, drew attention to Seuss's beautiful pro-life statement, intended or not. Otherwise anti-lifers would have ignored the dots and the mushy middle remained oblivious. Now to a even a small extent, they cannot.

horton%20good%20too.jpgWhich brings me to the pro-life dilemma with Horton Hears a Who.

Seuss's widow, Audrey Geisel, is a pro-abort who supports Planned Parenthood, which I've previously documented. It is purported Seuss was a pro-abort as well.

So do pro-lifers give business to a pro-life themed movie, the proceeds of which will go in part to support pro-abort causes?


Comments:

STOP ASSIGNING A POLITICAL AGENDA WHERE IT DOES NOT BELONG, IE: A CHILDREN'S STORY!!!

Posted by: Leah at March 11, 2008 9:32 AM


Makes me think the Good Lord has a great sense
of humor and irony!!

This movie's tag line couldn't be out at a more perfect time!

Posted by: lesforlife at March 11, 2008 9:37 AM


Really?

Yeah, why don't you wave your bloody fetus photos outside the Chuck-E-Cheese, demonstrate outside homes with children on Christmas and ruin the "Horton Hears a Who" pemiere?

It's more "love the fetus, hate the child."

Posted by: FetusFascist at March 11, 2008 9:40 AM


We're about a lot more than a political agenda here, Leah...

If we see a real-life or popular culture example of pro-life themes in action, forgive us for highlighting them. "A person is a person, no matter how small."

Celebrities, embracing motherhood...
Juno, showing how great adoption is and how teenage pregnancy can be a chance for people to grow...
A children's book that expresses how respect for life of all shapes and sizes is important...

The fact is that life exists in the womb; and we are going to get that message across, by whatever means necessary, whether you want us to or not.

Posted by: Alex at March 11, 2008 9:49 AM


Who says we hate children, FF?

Posted by: Alex at March 11, 2008 9:50 AM


Celebrities, embracing motherhood...
Juno, showing how great adoption is and how teenage pregnancy can be a chance for people to grow...
A children's book that expresses how respect for life of all shapes and sizes is important...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yesterday's "Quote of the Day" featured a pro-choice mother, and both Juno and Horton were whritten by pro-choice authors.

Posted by: FetusFascist at March 11, 2008 9:52 AM


To answer the direct question...we saw Juno didn't we? We're going to have a Lake of Fire party aren't we?

And while I respect Jill and her opinions immensely, I'm sort of on Lauras side here...I emphasize sort of.


While I wouldn't mind a pro life presence at the movie, especially when the actors/directors/writers etc would be there, I am uncomfortable thrusting the "Ugly" side of the fight in front of unsuspecting children this way.

Wearing pro life tshirts to attend? Absolutely. Carrying signs with the "theme line" on them? Okay.

Graphic pictures and in your face protesting? Not so good.

I attend Face the Truth tours and have no problem holding these signs up there, but there are warning signs up so people have the option of taking a different route.

This was a place where children were specifically targeted and that concerns me.

Jill, You don't say if there were graphic photos or not. If not, then I don't have as much of a problem with it.

Posted by: mk at March 11, 2008 9:59 AM


No graphic signs were mentioned in any of the articles I read, which were many.

And I think they would have been, fer sure.

Also, the pro-lifers started chanting inside the theater, after the movie, from how I can piece together the scenario. They likely would not have been able to sneak in graphic posters had they been so inclined.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 11, 2008 10:04 AM


I liked MK's statement in another post that although he was pro-choice during his earthly life, "Giesel knows the truth now..."

Excellent point! MK, I think that was you (correct me if I'm wrong!)

S.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 11, 2008 10:14 AM


So if I went to the Sacred Heart Easter festival and chanted "Roll eggs while children starve in Darfur!" or "Children your age are killed every day in Iraq" or "Beware of pedophile priests!" it would be OK as long as I was addressing a social injustice? NO!

NO, it would just make me an a-hole, just as the people demonstating at "Horton Hears a Who" were a-holes.

Can't the kids have a silly little romp without having someone's political agenda stuffed down their faces? (A neighbor once put "Chick Tracts" in my nephew's trick-or-treat bags on Halloween. I responded badly...)

Posted by: FetusFascist at March 11, 2008 10:16 AM


Laura,

you said yesterday you were not sure if you would ever have an abortion. let's say your unborn child was "unwanted", would you have an abortion then?

Posted by: jasper at March 11, 2008 10:18 AM


So they scared some kids and disrupted a family gathering to prove what jerks they are, and Jill worships them and their tactics.

Pathetic losers, all.

Posted by: anonymous at March 11, 2008 10:19 AM


Also, I think a non-graphic protest is appropriate. Graphic photos are not appropriate for young children. If my children were to see that, however, I would most certainly think that would provide us with a "teaching moment" that I would otherwise save until they were a bit older.

As for supporting the movie, I probably will, even though royalties may end up in donations to PP. I prefer to support the message, and, to be honest, I haven't given the Giesels any royalties for a VERY LONG TIME, since I've not bought ANY Dr. Seuss books for my kids (DH and I had just about all of them from childhood, so why buy them again??) The cost of 3-4 movie tickets won't provide much to PP!
S.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 11, 2008 10:19 AM


Jill,

No graphic signs were mentioned in any of the articles I read, which were many.

Well, then I have less of a problem with it. I marched outside of the American Girl Store with Mary Pat 2 years ago. But there were no graphic pictures and no LOUD protesting. Just girls and their dolls holding fairly tame signs.

I wish they could have passed out buttons that said "A person is a person no matter how small" which of course they couldn't for copyright purposes.

Posted by: mk at March 11, 2008 10:24 AM


Yes, S, that was me...

It's incredible how he could so beautifully capture the whole concept in a childrens book so that 3 year olds could understand it, and yet it eluded him...

and his wife...

that's so sad.

Posted by: mk at March 11, 2008 10:26 AM


Honestly...seriously? At a KIDS movie?

Can't we at least let kids reach the tender age of, I dunno, beyond kindergarten before we start shoving this stuff in their faces?

Is it REALLY fair to force a 5 or 6 year old to ask his parents, regardless of their views on abortion, on the way home "Mommy, whats an abortion?" Do you REALLY want to have to explain that to your little kid without having a choice or a chance to prepare?

I don't care WHAT side your on in this debate, can't we let kids be kids?? They can't even go see a CARTOON without having it turn in to a political debacle?

...DISGUSTING...

Posted by: Amanda at March 11, 2008 10:30 AM


Amanda,
Would you consider sitting children down when they are older and discussing what an abortion is? Just curious. Do you think most parents do?
My children(8 and 10)and I had a good long talk about mine.

Posted by: Carla at March 11, 2008 10:34 AM


(A neighbor once put "Chick Tracts" in my nephew's trick-or-treat bags on Halloween. I responded badly...)

No way, YOU? respond badly? lol

That's the part I'm agreeing with. If they were just saying the slogan over and over, "a person is a person..." I wouldn't be to upset, but even the red tape kind of creeps me out.

I also am not comfortable with them being "in" the theater. I'd feel better if they had protested outside of it...the message would have gotten across but it wouldn't have been so "threatening" to the kids.

Also, doesn't the movie speak for itself. Don't you think that more than one person will connect the dots, without protests. And not be put on the defensive?

What they should have done is bought free popcorn for everyone with a discreet card saying who they were and what their message was...

Posted by: mk at March 11, 2008 10:34 AM


Amanda,

Good point...but on the flipside, do we really need to start sex ed in schools in kindergarten? Reading books about gay princes and teaching them that "families" come in all shapes and sizes...

Isn't this the same thing? If kids should be kids, then it should be across the board. No?

Posted by: mk at March 11, 2008 10:37 AM


Yes, Carla - I would certainly explain it to my kids, but I'd want to be able to choose when, and prepare for it a bit, not just be blindsided when I take them out for a fun night at the movies. I'd also want it to be a personal discussion with them, not a result of some politically charged demonstration.

MK and Carla - My mom was blindsided in a similar way to the way the parents were who took their kids to this movie. And its not fair.

A boy in my 2nd grade class took his big brother's Penthouse magazine to school and showed all of us at recess. All my mom got was an apologetic phone call from the teacher explaining what I'd seen. Needless to say I stepped off the bus that day with a LOT of questions. Questions my mom was not prepared to answer, questions she didn't get a chance to think about, and questions that would take away a lot of my childhood innocence that she wanted to preserve just a little bit longer.

So no, I do not believe parents should be forced in to these situations. Programs can be offered and parents who are willing can have their children particiapte. But I don't see anything wrong with holding off mandatory sex ed to 5th/6th grade - which is when I would have had it through my public schools had I not already learned most of it in 2nd, by accident.

Posted by: Amanda at March 11, 2008 10:44 AM


FF,

Even better if they're the ones that say it.

Posted by: Alex at March 11, 2008 10:48 AM


I am sorry Amanda!
I can relate.
My son was in 2nd grade and he raised his middle finger. He had NO IDEA why he was sent to the principal by the lunch ladies. Poor thing. He had to write out a Think Plan. What he did, how he would never do that again. He was completely clueless!! My husband and I had to tell him long before he needed to know. Why would everyone assume children know that?!

Posted by: Carla at March 11, 2008 10:55 AM


Good posts Amanda, but you must realize that anti-choice extremists only wish to shock, threaten, intimidate and annoy, and what better way than to attack families and children.

Since their intellect is so limited, they have to use posters of mutilated fetuses to express themselves.

These activities alienate reasonable people, and thus help keep abortion safe and legal

Posted by: anonymous at March 11, 2008 10:58 AM


Carla -

Thats one of those things, just like my story, its funny in retrospect, but at the time, its not funny AT ALL, being put in a position to have your child grow up a little faster than you'd like.

Imagine my poor Mom needing to sit down and explain a "blow job" to her 2nd grade daughter, because she knew I'd already seen a picture and there was no point in lying. We make jokes about it now of course that I'm in my mid-20's, but I do very clearly remember her crying quite a bit that day.

Posted by: Amanda at March 11, 2008 11:07 AM


Yes, S, that was me...

It's incredible how he could so beautifully capture the whole concept in a childrens book so that 3 year olds could understand it, and yet it eluded him...

and his wife...

that's so sad.

Posted by: mk at March 11, 2008 10:26 AM
........................................................................

No one could possibly love children and women too. It's all about vilifying women and exaulting concepti to higher importance. To hell with children.
This is totally disgusting and exemplifies the PL desperation to twist anything and everything to suit their agenda. And be damned the harm they do in the process. This kind of aggressive behavior can frighten children. Moral battle? Obviously children are considered collateral damage in your war. Could you all possibly be more hypocritical.

Posted by: Sally at March 11, 2008 11:09 AM


Ugh. I can't imagine.
Those kind of moments make me long to homeschool again. :)

Posted by: Carla at March 11, 2008 11:10 AM


Amanda,
Would you consider sitting children down when they are older and discussing what an abortion is? Just curious. Do you think most parents do?
My children(8 and 10)and I had a good long talk about mine.
Posted by: Carla at March 11, 2008 10:34 AM
.............................................

What was your message to them Carla? Mommy was a slut and in a state of sin murdered your sibling? Is that not the message of the PL? Women that don't want to be pregnant must be having sex with everyone in town and abortion is murder? I'm curious.

Posted by: Sally at March 11, 2008 11:17 AM


Amanda,

Good point...but on the flipside, do we really need to start sex ed in schools in kindergarten? Reading books about gay princes and teaching them that "families" come in all shapes and sizes...

Isn't this the same thing? If kids should be kids, then it should be across the board. No?

Posted by: mk at March 11, 2008 10:37 AM
............................

Of course not mk! It's so much better to only represent 'traditional' families in children's literature. It is so much better for children to feel ostrasized by society because you don't consider their family to be a family. Hate children much?

Posted by: Sally at March 11, 2008 11:24 AM


Sally, you keep spewing ok?

Posted by: Carla at March 11, 2008 11:27 AM


I agree with Sally when she says that agressive behaviors like this can frighten children. I think that this is taking things too far.

Posted by: Carrie at March 11, 2008 11:31 AM


I just saw Sally's most recent comments. I wanted to make clear that I was only agreeing with her points that protests like this frighten and harm children. I don't agree with her personal attacks on Carla and MK.

Posted by: Carrie at March 11, 2008 11:35 AM


So abortion, according to pc'ers is supposed to be something that they don't want to happen but the woman should still have the choice.

My question, directed to pc'ers, is that why is what they did at the theatre such a bad thing? Young children, at the tender age of even three are aware that mommy has a baby in her tummy. The protestors, if you want to call them that, were just chanting the line, "A person is a person, no matter how small", the main theme of the movie.

Couldn't the parents have just used this opportunity to tell the kids that some people don't think that a small baby in a tummy is really a baby, and the people that were there "protesting" were just trying to say what Horton says, "A person is a person, no matter how small."? I mean, they don't even have to go through the whole abortion story with them, just that a baby is still a baby even if it's tiny...remember, nobody WANTS abortion to happen?

I'm not understanding why this is such a bad thing, unless these parents do not have a drop of creativeness in their thoughts!

As for your question, Jill, "So do pro-lifers give business to a pro-life themed movie, the proceeds of which will go in part to support pro-abort causes?"

I don't think it made a difference one way or the other. Dr. Seuss stories are loved by all ages, and the movie will therefore promote itself on its own, regardless of the "protest". Unfortunately, PP will probably get a donation on behalf of Dr. Seuss' widow because she'll probably do that regardless...now there will just be more money to donate, depending on the success of the movie.



Posted by: JLM at March 11, 2008 11:45 AM


Sally - think of it this way though - if schools can force kids to read certain books, what if one particular teacher took it upon herself to read a book about how gay families were bad, and preaching about how the only real family is a family with one mom and one dad and kids?

I'd be LIVID.

I think there's a lot to be said for sticking with books that only get as preachy as telling kids to use manners and be nice to everyone until 4th or 5th grade. This may be idealistic of me, but they've got an average of almost 80 years to be grownups, why not leave it up to Mom and Dad to determine how much socio-political controversy they want to expose their kids to?

No one read me any books or had any sit-down talks with me about my aunt being gay, and I think the fact that no one made a big deal out if it is why I was never ashamed or embarassed by having a gay relative. I just always had an Aunt and Aunt, instead of Aunt and Uncle. It never struck me as odd or atypical. It was just the way my family was. I don't think I ever asked a question about it until 6th grade when we had comprehensive sex ed, and I went home and just said "L and R are a gay couple, right?" and my mom said "yup!" and I said "ok" and that was that.

Posted by: Amanda at March 11, 2008 11:48 AM


Hi JLM. From my perspective,this is a bad thing because of the nature of the setting. The children were stuck in an enclosed room with chanting adults who then stuck red tape on their mouths. Very scary,imo. I think they should have stayed outside.

Posted by: Carrie at March 11, 2008 11:50 AM


Carrie,
I see your point. However, the "protestors" didn't start chanting until after the movie was over. I see the "unexpected" shock in that, though, and I don't know if the red tape was necessary. I'll admit, the red tape over mouths really freaked me out, too, when I first saw it. I still don't quite understand, it. I mean, I get it when they aren't speaking, but they did at this even, then stuck it over their mouths...that doesn't make sense to me.

Jill, do you know if they were marching around the theater on the inside of it, or outside after the movie and red tape?

Posted by: JLM at March 11, 2008 11:58 AM


JLM - Re-read your passage, but sub in Pro Choice for Pro Life, keeping in mind they have the same rights to demonstrate, regardless of my opinion or yours. How would you feel if you took your 5 year old to see a CARTOON and had shouting protesters in the theater, walking around with tape on their mouths and discussing abortion?

Is it so hard to just look at this objectively and say that no matter where you stand, you wouldn't want this shoved in the faces of your young kids when you have no say in the matter?

Is what they did completely legal? Yup.
But was it tasteless and unfair to the kids exposed and their parents who had no idea this was going to happen? Absolutely. They should be ashamed.

Posted by: Amanda at March 11, 2008 12:01 PM


Amanda,
I also see your point, but from what I read, they only chanted, "A person is a person, no matter how small."

I don't see anything else from this story that the word "abortion" was even used.

That being said, if it was, I would have a different opinion.

Posted by: JLM at March 11, 2008 12:05 PM


Good question JLM.

Posted by: Carrie at March 11, 2008 12:08 PM


JLM, 11:58a, said: "Jill, do you know if they were marching around the theater on the inside of it, or outside after the movie and red tape?"

From what I can gather, they chanted after the movie inside and then moved their duct-taped march outside. I think there would have been good cause to arrest them had they marched inside.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 11, 2008 12:12 PM


Sally - think of it this way though - if schools can force kids to read certain books, what if one particular teacher took it upon herself to read a book about how gay families were bad, and preaching about how the only real family is a family with one mom and one dad and kids?
..............................................

What are you saying? That books involving families should not be allowed? No one tells kids that a man and a woman live together so they can have sex and then goes on to describe the sexual acts they may enjoy. I don't think kids want to know. Why the fantasy that same sex relationships need be explained in a sexual nature?
I believe that bigots are afraid their kids are going to 'turn' gay if homosexuals are not dehumanized.

Posted by: Sally at March 11, 2008 12:15 PM


Jill: Thanks for clearing things up for me. I am glad that they didn't march inside the theater. I do not have an issue with an outside presence. If the inside march had happened,then I think the children would have felt physically intimidated and I don't think that children should ever have to feel that way.

Posted by: Carrie at March 11, 2008 12:19 PM


okay, Jill! I got it the first time! (just kidding! - I hate it when that happens!)

That makes sense, the legal aspect of it. I didn't think about that!

Well, based on that, and from the "hoopla" outside with the congestion of media, paparazzi and stars, I don't see a problem with the red tape at all. The parents surely could have taken their kids to another area. But, as they do want their mugs on cameras as much as possible, I'm now thinking that they could have made the choice to remove their kids from the area if they thought it bothered their kids, but didn't because they would loose their own publicity... speculation, maybe.

I'm sure the pro-abort parents were making more out of "silenced red-taped mouths" than the kids.

Thanks for your clarification, Jill!

Posted by: JLM at March 11, 2008 12:22 PM


No Jill - they were INSIDE the screening.

All of the articles I found on it stated that they were chanting INSIDE of the theater and walking around "in the room" with the tape on their mouths.

http://www.enews20.com/news_Horton_Premiere_Ends_Up_With_Anti_Abortion_Protest_06412.html

Posted by: Amanda at March 11, 2008 12:27 PM


I believe that bigots are afraid their kids are going to 'turn' gay if homosexuals are not dehumanized.

Yeah, Sally, that's it.

Not.

Helllllooooo...I wouldn't want my kids in a class that tells them the ins and outs of drug use either...I personally think recreational drugs are also sinful, not to mention harmful, but there are people on this very board that think they should be legal. Fine. They have the right to their opinion, but they don't have the right to present these ideas to small children in a classroom setting.

To us, homosexual sex is immoral. A sin. The whole idea doesn't need to be introduced to young children.

There is nothing to be gained from focusing on families that have 2 parents of the same sex. It just doesn't need to be discussed. It's not necessary.

If it comes up because Sally has two moms, that's different.

But event then I would send a note home to the parents telling them that they might want to discuss this with their kids, as it is of a sensitive nature and questions are being asked.

Sex Ed does NOT belong in the mainstream curriculum...at any age.

Have voluntary classes after school if you must, but it's not right to present behavior that is morally objectionable to the majority of people in order to please a teeny, tiny minority.

It is inappropriate and unnecessary.

Posted by: mk at March 11, 2008 12:49 PM


Helllllooooo...I wouldn't want my kids in a class that tells them the ins and outs of drug use either...I personally think recreational drugs are also sinful, not to mention harmful, but there are people on this very board that think they should be legal. Fine. They have the right to their opinion, but they don't have the right to present these ideas to small children in a classroom setting.
.................................................................

Allowing children the knowledge that there are same sex families is in no way teaching them the 'in and outs' of homosexual sex practices and more than teaching kids there are single parents families or opposite sex families teaches the 'ins and outs' of their sexual practices. You gonna ban such folks from school activities and events? Way to teach your kids ignorance and intolerance. You have no right to teach other people's children bigotry.

Posted by: Sally at March 11, 2008 1:05 PM


To us, homosexual sex is immoral. A sin. The whole idea doesn't need to be introduced to young children.
..............................................

You are not the authority of what or what not needs to be introduced to young children.

There is nothing to be gained from focusing on families that have 2 parents of the same sex. It just doesn't need to be discussed. It's not necessary.

If it comes up because Sally has two moms, that's different.

But event then I would send a note home to the parents telling them that they might want to discuss this with their kids, as it is of a sensitive nature and questions are being asked.
........................................................

So it comes down to visiting the 'sins' of the father upon children. Children of same sex families should be shamed and others warned of their presence. Your kids might get cooties.
You aren't sounding pro child here mk.

Posted by: Sally at March 11, 2008 1:12 PM


Sex Ed does NOT belong in the mainstream curriculum...at any age.

Have voluntary classes after school if you must, but it's not right to present behavior that is morally objectionable to the majority of people in order to please a teeny, tiny minority.

It is inappropriate and unnecessary.
.........................................................

You are completely out of touch with reality if you believe that the vast majority of parents do not support sex education. Sex ed is appropriate and necessary. You don't like it, home school. Send them to a private school supporting your bigotry.

Posted by: Sally at March 11, 2008 1:16 PM


Sally,

why stop at homosexual parents, I know a mormon family which has 4 mothers, another family which has 3 Daddies. I hope you will allow these families to be discussed as well?

Posted by: jasper at March 11, 2008 1:19 PM


Sally,

The majority not believing that the homosexual lifestyle is the norm...

Not the majority believing sex ed should not be in schools.

And I'd be curious to see whether or not the majority want sex ed in schools...

Posted by: mk at March 11, 2008 1:21 PM


Sex Ed does NOT belong in the mainstream curriculum...at any age.

Have voluntary classes after school if you must, but it's not right to present behavior that is morally objectionable to the majority of people in order to please a teeny, tiny minority.

Most parents want sex ed (and not abstinence-only, either) taught in schools. The teeny, tiny minority are the ones who don't.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1622610

Posted by: Jen R at March 11, 2008 1:26 PM


Sally, you keep spewing ok?

Posted by: Carla at March 11, 2008 11:27 AM

.......................................................

Too uncomfortable to answer the question Carla? It's fine to use the bumper sticker slogans but impossible to defend them when it comes to yourself?
I really want to know how and why you felt you needed to discuss your abortion with your young children. You are the one that brought it up.

Posted by: Sally at March 11, 2008 1:34 PM


I was having a nice conversation with Amanda and then you interrupted. I am not uncomfortable. In fact I typed it all out in January and was treated very kindly by many of the PL's on this blog. If I honestly thought you were compassionate and asking out of concern for me or my children I would answer you. Sadly that is not the case. That is not how you operate. Spray your contempt elsewhere.

Do the words SHOP VAC ring any bells, sweetie??!!

Posted by: Carla at March 11, 2008 1:48 PM


MK - Id have to disagree with you on the "teeny tiny minority" bit.

Fact is, its actually the majority of parents who DO want comprehnsive sex ed provided to their children in schools.

And also, considering the majority of Americans are opposed to the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, I'd say its a WHOLE lot more than a "teeny tiny minority" who believe being gay is perfectly okay.

Posted by: Amanda at March 11, 2008 1:57 PM


No way, YOU? respond badly? lol

Posted by: mk at March 11, 2008 10:34 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No, seriously, I did! (Hard to believe!)

Kids and critters - that's where I draw the line. (Human adults are fair game.)

Posted by: FetusFascist at March 11, 2008 2:05 PM


Quick Question?

Why do y'all keep using that line as a PL Slogan when the author said numerous times it was not meant in the context y'all use it, and (correct me if I am wrong) he wasnt even PL?

Posted by: midnite678 at March 11, 2008 2:21 PM


midnite,

Because it's true, no matter who says it.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 11, 2008 2:31 PM


Ok, that's not an answer Anonymous, that is simply a "b/c I said so" answer.

Posted by: midnite678 at March 11, 2008 2:32 PM


"Why do y'all keep using that line as a PL Slogan when the author said numerous times it was not meant in the context y'all use it, and (correct me if I am wrong) he wasnt even PL?"

He doesn't own all aspects of those words. Sure, others cannot use them in connection with the sale of goods or services; nor could we take and make unauthorized copies or distribution of the book (or portions of it) in question; but to say just those words in whatever context we want is a fundamental part of a person's first amendment rights. It's a fair use. At the very least, it could be considered a critique of Giesel's position on the matter.

Plus, whatever MK said before!

S.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 11, 2008 2:34 PM


Anonymous:

Well, I still find it quite odd that y'all continue to that line as a slogan when he specifically asked PL's not to, and said he was Pro-Choice. Considering the fact he is dead, I find it a little disrespectful too.

Posted by: midnite678 at March 11, 2008 2:44 PM


Pro-aborts are not deserving of any respect.

Showing respect to a pro-abort cheapens your respect for those who actually deserve your respect. It makes your respect garbage.

"I respect you Lord Jesus Christ. And I respect you too Joseph Stalin."

What do you think Jesus would think of your "respect" if you said or thought that?

Posted by: zeke13:19 at March 11, 2008 2:49 PM


Midnite -

I personally don't use that line as a slogan. Slogans do not appeal to me - I actually cannot think of any slogan that I've used recently!

But I think that, under the laws of copyright and trademark in this country, PLers do have a right to use it non-commercially or say it. I don't think the fact that he is dead has anything to do with it. People use the words of dead people all the time, sometimes as people intended, sometimes not. I think that's a risk of putting your words out there - people will interpret or misinterpret them and you have no control over it (that happens all the time on this board!). His copyrights, as well as his right of publicity, will last many years beyond his death, and his heirs are still here to police his estate if they wish to do so.

S.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 11, 2008 2:54 PM


I was having a nice conversation with Amanda and then you interrupted. I am not uncomfortable. In fact I typed it all out in January and was treated very kindly by many of the PL's on this blog. If I honestly thought you were compassionate and asking out of concern for me or my children I would answer you. Sadly that is not the case. That is not how you operate. Spray your contempt elsewhere.

Do the words SHOP VAC ring any bells, sweetie??!!

Posted by: Carla at March 11, 2008 1:48 PM
.................................
Perhaps you should keep your comments to private email if you are looking for sympathy.
There is nothing nice about people that advocate the removal of reproductive rights. There is absolutely nothing compassionate about your pl stance. If you must whimper every time you are asked a tough question, perhaps you need to evaluate your contemptible position shookums.
I find the concept of removing women's right to gestational self determination serious business. Apparently you joined the PL to be part of a chit chat club.

Posted by: Sally at March 11, 2008 3:07 PM


Copyright symbolized "" is a legal concept, enacted by most governments, giving the creator of an original work exclusive rights to it, usually for a limited time. Generally, it is "the right to copy", but also gives the copyright holder the right to be credited for the work, to determine who may adapt the work to other forms, who may perform the work, who may financially benefit from it, and other, related rights. It is an intellectual property form (unlike the patent, the trademark, and the trade secret) applicable to any expressible form of an idea or information that is substantive and discrete.

A trademark or trade mark[1] or mark is a distinctive sign or indicator of some kind which is used by an individual, business organization or other legal entity to identify uniquely the source of its products and/or services to consumers, and to distinguish its products or services from those of other entities. A trademark is a type of intellectual property, and typically comprises a name, word, phrase, logo, symbol, design, image, or a combination of these elements. There is also a range of non-conventional trademarks comprising marks which do not fall into these standard categories.

The owner of a registered trademark may commence legal proceedings for trademark infringement to prevent unauthorized use of that trademark. However, registration is not required. The owner of a common law trademark may also file suit, but an unregistered mark may be protectable only within the geographical area within which it has been used or in geographical areas into which it may be reasonably expected to expand.

The term trademark is also used informally to refer to any distinguishing attribute by which an individual is readily identified, such as the well known characteristics of celebrities. When a trademark is used in relation to services rather than products, it may sometimes be called a service mark, particularly in the United States.

Posted by: midnite678 at March 11, 2008 3:11 PM


Sally,

The majority not believing that the homosexual lifestyle is the norm...

Not the majority believing sex ed should not be in schools.

And I'd be curious to see whether or not the majority want sex ed in schools...

Posted by: mk at March 11, 2008 1:21 PM
.....................................................

There is no 'norm' mk. If the majority did not want sex ed in school, it wouldn't be there.

Posted by: Sally at March 11, 2008 3:13 PM


Dear Sally,
Whatever. Perhaps you should keep your contempt to yourself. Who can ever converse with you when all you ever do is attack those that disagree?? Ever noticed that other people here can actually hold a real conversation? Agree to disagree? Sheesh, lighten up Francis. Was I whimpering? Sorry.
YOU ARE SOMETHING ELSE YOU KNOW THAT?!

Posted by: Carla at March 11, 2008 3:13 PM


Midnite - I know that (I'm a lawyer).

It is arguable whether that one-liner is subject to copyright protection, due to the fact that it is a slogan, which is not typically copyrightable. (see www.copyright.gov - What Is Not Protected by Copyright? Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:.... Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans....) Assuming for a moment that it is, however, the "heart of the work" (which it may be - who knows?), and that it is copyrightable, it would still be subject to the defense of "fair use" (which allows use of copyrighted material for certain purposes such as education, critique, commentary, satire, news reporting, etc.) I don't think that the one-liner would qualify as a trademark either, because it is not used to identify the source of goods or services in commerce (at least it wasn't up till the production of this movie, but it probably will be now). But again, trademarks are subject to fair use as well. In other words, others can use them in a linguistic sense, for critique, commentary, satire, comparative advertising, or to identify the product or services in a linguistic sense; they cannot, however, use them to sell similar goods or services.

In a nutshell - PLer's use of the slogan would proabably be considered a fair use. Although I understand that Giesel did try to sue at one point, and I'm not sure what the outcome was. (It may have been a defamation or publicity rights suit).

Posted by: Anonymous at March 11, 2008 3:38 PM


Sally said:

"There is no 'norm' mk. If the majority did not want sex ed in school, it wouldn't be there."

OMG! What a friggin ignoramous!!

The public school curriculum is NOT BASED UPON WHAT PARENTS WANT but on WHAT THE NEA WANTS.

The public school system does not function as some sort of democracy. Its a totalitarian entity made up of liberal, child sex advocates in the NEA. They think that freshmen in high school should be having sex using condoms.

No need to take my word for it. Just check out the sex ed curriculum that is common among public schools.

Posted by: zeke13:19 at March 11, 2008 3:40 PM


Anonymous I so happy for you that you are a lawyer. Would you like a cookie?

Posted by: midnite678 at March 11, 2008 3:45 PM


"Would you like a cookie?"

Yum! I would!

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 11, 2008 3:53 PM


You can always some cookies Bobby! Hows the wife and daughter doing?

Posted by: midnite678 at March 11, 2008 4:03 PM


Zeke - parents have to sign consent forms in public schools for their kids to participate in comprehensive sex ed. Overwhelmingly, parents DO consent to their children's particpation in comprehensive sex ed curriculums.

I do not believe a parent who is opposed to a sex ed curriculum should be FORCED to have their child participate, but whether you want to believe it or not, the MAJORITY of parents DO want their children to learn this stuff.

Posted by: Amanda at March 11, 2008 4:13 PM


This was pretty unnecessary. As people are saying, let kids be kids and then have the abortion talk later.

Reminds me of Jesus Camp... *shudder*

Posted by: prettyinpink at March 11, 2008 4:15 PM


Theodore Giesel (Dr. Suess) was NOT a right-to-lifer and he once threatened to sue a right-to-life group for using the slogan "A person's a person, no matter how small."

Posted by: SoMG at March 11, 2008 4:17 PM


Sally -

I'm finding your posts a little off putting today, as a supporter of a woman's right to choose.

a parent having the right to CHOOSE goes beyond abortion, a parent should also be able to CHOOSE what they want their child to know/not know. we can hope that as the world becomes more progressive, more and more parents will CHOOSE to pass on a message of tolerance and acceptance to their children, but if we force it down their throats, we are no better than the pro lifers making a scene at a kids movie.

I think when it comes to controversial socio-political issues, there is a huge and important difference between teaching bigotry vs. just not bringing it up and leaving it to the parents to decide how they want to handle a topic.

I also don't think its any of our business how Carla discussed her abortion with her kids. She already made her CHOICE, and her choice was to have an abortion. Like all choices, some people end up regretting them, some people end up being perfectly satisfied with their choice. I don't believe its up to you, me, or any pro lifer or pro choicer to tell someone how they should deal with their CHOICE. The only thing that matters to me is that they have the ability to make it and own it.

Posted by: Amanda at March 11, 2008 4:20 PM


Hi Amanda,
I kind of made it our business though didn't I?:)

Posted by: Carla at March 11, 2008 4:30 PM


Sally -

I'm finding your posts a little off putting today, as a supporter of a woman's right to choose.

a parent having the right to CHOOSE goes beyond abortion, a parent should also be able to CHOOSE what they want their child to know/not know. we can hope that as the world becomes more progressive, more and more parents will CHOOSE to pass on a message of tolerance and acceptance to their children, but if we force it down their throats, we are no better than the pro lifers making a scene at a kids movie.

I think when it comes to controversial socio-political issues, there is a huge and important difference between teaching bigotry vs. just not bringing it up and leaving it to the parents to decide how they want to handle a topic.

I also don't think its any of our business how Carla discussed her abortion with her kids. She already made her CHOICE, and her choice was to have an abortion. Like all choices, some people end up regretting them, some people end up being perfectly satisfied with their choice. I don't believe its up to you, me, or any pro lifer or pro choicer to tell someone how they should deal with their CHOICE. The only thing that matters to me is that they have the ability to make it and own it.

Posted by: Amanda at March 11, 2008 4:20 PM
....................................................

Amanda,
If a parent wishes to shield their children from various realities it is of course their right to do so. But not at the expense of the children of others.

As for Carla, she stands with the crowd that repeatedly ask the question, 'have you told your children that you murdered their sibling'. I haven't seen her get bent out of shape over such impudent questioning of others.

Carla brought up her abortion. She is not mandated to expound upon anything she shares on this blog as far as I know. Flying into dramatics when asked a question formed in PL questioning techniques seems hypocritical to me. The technique clearly puts you off no matter who uses it. I wonder why it doesn't Carla.

As long as I am touted as a baby killer, I see no reason for tactful consideration of other's delicate feelings. Especially after Jill's defense of what I recognize as borderline child abuse by barely out of childhood PL extremists as in the Seuss ugliness.

And yes, particularly today I am completely outraged over Jill's serious lack of consideration in what she adds to her blog. And everyone that supports her thoughtless views.

Posted by: Sally at March 11, 2008 5:35 PM


Dear Sally,
Whatever. Perhaps you should keep your contempt to yourself. Who can ever converse with you when all you ever do is attack those that disagree?? Ever noticed that other people here can actually hold a real conversation? Agree to disagree? Sheesh, lighten up Francis. Was I whimpering? Sorry.
YOU ARE SOMETHING ELSE YOU KNOW THAT?!

Posted by: Carla at March 11, 2008 3:13 PM
.........................................

Thank you Carla! 'Something else' is so much better than 'little miss shit who wouldn't say so if she had a mouthful'.
Truce? You obviously don't know what you have gotten into with this discussion and I have treated you like a veteran. I was wrong to treat you like some war scarred old hag like me and Jill. My very, very bad.
Tell you what, I'll share something about myself and then, if you like, you can share. OK? You get to pick what you would like me to share. I am always unabashedly honest. Ask my mother.

Posted by: Sally at March 11, 2008 6:09 PM


Sally,
Your 6:09 post...although it may not matter to you, I'm very impressed.

Posted by: JLM at March 11, 2008 6:32 PM


Sally,
Truce. That is a breath of fresh air!! aaaaaahhhhh.
Here is the thing. I like you. I can hardly explain why. You have for the most part been quite nasty to me. I can see through that though. I love when you are sarcastic and witty and quick on the draw. Your timing is impeccable.
I can't think of any questions but would like to tell you that my abortion doesn't define me. It is something I did, not who I am. I do own it. But since this is a Prolife blog......you know. There are hurting women out there, Sally. Someone really may want to talk.
I appreciate you changing your tune. I promise I will never give as good as I get. That's just me.
Toodles.

Posted by: Carla at March 11, 2008 6:51 PM


Sally,
Your 6:09 post...although it may not matter to you, I'm very impressed.

Posted by: JLM at March 11, 2008 6:32 PM

...................................................

It matters. More importantly, you matter. Certainly not because I say so.

Posted by: Sally at March 11, 2008 7:01 PM


Sally,
Truce. That is a breath of fresh air!! aaaaaahhhhh.
Here is the thing. I like you. I can hardly explain why. You have for the most part been quite nasty to me. I can see through that though. I love when you are sarcastic and witty and quick on the draw. Your timing is impeccable.
I can't think of any questions but would like to tell you that my abortion doesn't define me. It is something I did, not who I am. I do own it. But since this is a Prolife blog......you know. There are hurting women out there, Sally. Someone really may want to talk.
I appreciate you changing your tune. I promise I will never give as good as I get. That's just me.
Toodles.
Posted by: Carla at March 11, 2008 6:51 PM
..............

My tune never changes. Just gets fuller and more robust.
You will never be happy if you believe you were born to be a martyr. How far are you willing to go with that?
Hei hei!

Posted by: Sally at March 11, 2008 7:20 PM


My life is not about seeking happiness.

Posted by: Carla at March 11, 2008 7:22 PM


Sally,

why stop at homosexual parents, I know a mormon family which has 4 mothers, another family which has 3 Daddies. I hope you will allow these families to be discussed as well?

Posted by: jasper at March 11, 2008 1:19 PM
..........................................

Why not? What would be your problem?

Posted by: Sally at March 11, 2008 7:28 PM


Carla, I admire your ability to admit to your abortion. You have really stepped up to the plate, and I admire your courage. I'm glad you came to the PL side:] I'm sure it's not always easy for you to be here. I wish there were more post abortive women out there like you.

Posted by: heather at March 11, 2008 7:33 PM


Hi Heather,
Thank you. As far as there being more women who regret their abortions and are willing to speak up- there are. :)

Posted by: Carla at March 11, 2008 7:36 PM


midnite,

considering that over 55 million innocent children are also dead...directly due to the "choice" he supported, i don't see where champions of that "choice" have any room to talk about disrespect.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 11, 2008 7:42 PM


Carla, I'm glad to hear that.

Posted by: heather at March 11, 2008 7:46 PM


It matters. More importantly, you matter. Certainly not because I say so.

Posted by: Sally at March 11, 2008 7:01 PM

I don't get it....

Posted by: JLM at March 11, 2008 8:20 PM


Hello there, JLM.

Posted by: heather at March 11, 2008 8:25 PM


Hello, there, Heather!
Sorry I missed your post, but I was on the phone!!!

Posted by: JLM at March 11, 2008 8:46 PM


"Anonymous I so happy for you that you are a lawyer. Would you like a cookie?"

Midnite - you don't have to be offensive. You asked a question "how can PLer's use his words?" I answered your question in a legitimate fashion, based on my own legal background and work experience. You posted general information about trademarks and copyrights. I explained further as to why that info may or may not apply in this situation.

And yes, I do want a cookie. Law school is freaking hard, and being a lawyer is a pain in the a$$ job.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 11, 2008 9:05 PM


The word "Life" on red tape across one's mouth does not translate as a traumatic experience for born children. "FF" true to disinformation practices of the ungodly, whose patron is the father of lies, made the graphic pictures statement as part of a generalized diatribe. Why are they so ashamed of children learning what they've allowed to be done to their would-be peers? A group of adults chanting the movie's catch phrase simply promotes a positive worldview... and liberals can't stand THAT!

Posted by: groovsmyth at March 12, 2008 3:09 PM


The word "Life" on red tape across one's mouth does not translate as a traumatic experience for born children. "FF" true to disinformation practices of the ungodly, whose patron is the father of lies, made the graphic pictures statement as part of a generalized diatribe. Why are they so ashamed of children learning what they've allowed to be done to their would-be peers? A group of adults chanting the movie's catch phrase simply promotes a positive worldview... and liberals can't stand THAT!

Posted by: groovsmyth at March 12, 2008 3:09 PM

It doesn't matter what the chant was, and it isn't about being ashamed. Rather, it is about the terrorist tactics used. Most everyone is aware that some on the anti-choice side have resorted to violence. The parents' uncertainty and anxiety of what would happen next is picked up on by the children. Remember the first time you saw your parents frightened and what that did to your world?

These protestors singled out and terrorized children - living , breathing, separate entity persons - unforgivable.

Posted by: phylosopher at March 12, 2008 11:06 PM


I think that a very big point has been missed here. "A person is a person no matter how small" does not, in anyway, shape, or form apply to the argument of pro-life. In fact you have just twisted it to fit whatever you can, I don't blame you, everyone can always use more support for their argument, but the quote itself has nothing to do with abortion or pro-life. It is, however, quite poitical. In a day and age when our government has completely lost sight of the people and the people have lost sight of the government, this movie could not have come at a better time. We need a Horton to take us somewhere safe, somewhere we can achieve stability. America is the Jungle of Noll and the government only sees the "big" people in it, not the specks. We need to rally behind someone the the Whos do and make people realize that our world is falling apart. Horton is a savior to the people not a vehicle to plug your pro-life propoganda. www.votenader.org

Posted by: Gregory at March 15, 2008 9:25 AM


All of you pro-choicers making comments on here sound just like the kangaroo.

Kangaroo is obviously the pro-choice character in this movie. She views her child as an extension of her own body... She tells him to 'stay in your room'. But at the end of the film, her son tells her 'no mom, i won't'.

She argues on behalf of the children in the Jungle of Noll, saying that Horton is threatening them with his foolish ideas. Just as you all are saying that the pro-lifers were threatening children with their ideas. She says that there will be 'anarchy' in the jungle, if Horton has his way. Just as you all pretend like the protest was some kind of violent thing.

Just thought I'd point out the irony.

Posted by: Tom Cook at March 23, 2008 7:56 PM


Dr. Seuss is classic; after seeing Horton Hears a Who i was reminded how much that guy can pack into a simple storyline...

Posted by: patrick at April 9, 2008 3:51 PM


Good idea!
P.S. A U realy girl?

Posted by: Memmorium at April 11, 2008 9:48 AM


Good idea!
P.S. A U realy girl?

Posted by: Memmorium at April 11, 2008 9:48 AM


Good idea!
P.S. A U realy girl?

Posted by: Memmorium at April 11, 2008 9:49 AM


my pics

Posted by: mypicst at April 12, 2008 7:13 AM


my pics

Posted by: mypicst at April 12, 2008 7:14 AM


my pics

Posted by: mypicst at April 12, 2008 7:14 AM


U need antivirus?

Posted by: antivirkaspersky7 at April 25, 2008 8:14 AM


U need antivirus?

Posted by: antivirkaspersky7 at April 25, 2008 8:14 AM


U need antivirus?

Posted by: antivirkaspersky7 at April 25, 2008 8:15 AM



i want to master how to install hid conversion kits

Posted by: HID Conversion Kits at May 22, 2008 2:34 PM