No liberal love for disabled kids named Palin
Know what doesn’t go over well with advertisers? Making fun of disabled children.
… [P]olitical blog Wonkette published a post titled “Greatest Living American: A Children’s Treasury of Trig Crap On His Birthday“….
[C]onservative bloggers stumbled across it and… people of all stripes… started demanding that advertisers pull ads.
So far, the Twitter presences for both Papa John’s and Huggies have decried the post [and removed their ads from the site].
Wonkette… responded… by calling Papa John’s “homophobic” and tweeting “Boycott Papa Johns, spread the word! (Your waistline, heart and tastebuds will thank you.)”
~Ken Wheaton, Ad Age, April 20
Apr.21, 2011 7:00 am |
Breaking News |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Hopefully the other advertisers will see how Wonkette reacts to criticism and pull their ads as well. I think I’ll order a Papa Johns’ pizza for breakfast.
Mmmm, Papa John’s! It was already my favorite pizza brand, but this just seals the deal.
How does “homophobic” follow from not supporting insults toward a child with disabilities? Anyone know what they’re talking about?
Kelsey, I think it was a toss-up between that and “racist” and so Wonkette went with “homophobic”. Others in the running were “misogynist” and “patriarchal” — the latter might have actually been clever for Papa John’s, but it’s obvious not too much thought goes into what’s spouted.
Trig’s adorable!
Boycott Papa John’s? As if. It’s the best pizza money can buy, and they have that lovely garlic dipping sauce!
Also, after reading the article, I agree with Kelsey. Not being ablist now equals being homophobic? How does that work?
Wonkette does political satire geared towards a liberal audience (and most of it’s pretty good). In that context, the blog article wasn’t really that offensive. Its purpose was more to make fun of the obsessive, borderline-stalker Palin fanatics that do things like write poems and make video tributes to the children of their political idols than it was to actually insult Trig Palin.
joan is obviously homophobic. two can play at this silly little liberal game.
Papa John’s for breakfast and Chick Fill A for lunch. That is my day. The classless author went around the bend on this one even readers starting chastising him in the comments column. I guess they are all homophobic too.. He gave this update which is pretty half hearted. Maybe he is a closet homophob himself…..
He is clearly a homophobe.
Turns out Vanguard group, Holland America Line Cruises and Nordstrom’s are all pulling their ads.
That’s social justice for you.
Joan, is there any type of child it’s not okay to mock or belittle? Or discriminate against? Or kill? Is there any child sacred to you? Or is it only offensive to insist that children have the right to live?
Add two more: Reliant Energy and Bob Evans Farms.
Keep the justice coming!
Check it all out at Big Journalism.com
Pardon me, but your slip is showing…
The undercurrent of liberal hate sometimes breaks surface and folks get to see the true nastiness of how far and low the left will go. Nothing is sacred, nothing holy.
The Unborn don’t matter, Conservatives don’t matter, Women don’t matter, Elderly don’t matter, Children don’t matter, and now Special Needs People don’t matter either.
Oughta make one feel real good to NOT be a liberal! They ought to be ashamed, but they don’t care.
Oh, the libs were just having a little fun, eh, Joan?
You are among those who think all pro-lifers are conservative, so let’s pretend you’re right. Now, if the opposite is true, most libs are pro-abortion, right? What we do actually know is that something like 90% of children diagnosed with Down’s are aborted and not allowed to live. So, the libs, who already kill as many children in utero as they can get away with, also like to make fun of the children they kill. They aren’t satisfied with either murder or mocking, so they do both. And if you don’t like it, you’re homophobic. Riiiiight. It’s all just harmless fun.
And I can’t help but connect the dots between Obama signing Rosa’s law so we don’t use the word retarded, while at the same time working as hard as he can to kill these children so their parents aren’t “punished” with them.
I miss the old days, when we were kids, and we made fun of other kids, but no one was killing kids by the millions. I’ll make a deal: let them all live out their natural lives, and you can mock them all you want.
Really, joan? This was just a detractor’s parody of how some people supposedly idolize the Palin kids?
Let’s look a little at the post: “Is Palin his true mother? Or was Bristol? (And why is it that nobody questions who the father is? Because, either way, Todd definitely did it.)”
and
“What’s he dreaming about? Nothing. He’s retarded”
Hmm, yep, I see the satire here. It’s all about Palin’s stalker-ish fans, like the one who rented a apartment next to the Palin’s house so he could spy on them Jimmy-Stewart-in-Rear-Window style. Oh, wait, that was a liberal nutjob who hated the Palins.
I’m not a Palin fan politically (I think she has great people skills but some of her weaknesses in technical areas worry me), but it amazes me how bent out of shape liberals get about her. The hatred becomes truly diabolical.
Papa John’s sounds like a wonderful option for supper tonight.
joan would know all about insulting Trig Palin and the Palin family, wouldn’t you, joan? Got a few unpublished comments around here to prove it.
I guess liberal compassion only goes so far.
I prefer Domino’s to Papa John’s (Domino’s has really fixed up their pizzas). But I have applaud Papa John’s for pulling their ads, and the others who have done it.
Making fun of kids (especially ones with disabilities) is not political satire, it’s just plain mean.
I read some of that “humor” and it was pretty mean-spirited. I’m not a fan of Palin, but she’s been keeping a low profile lately. Why all the hatred? If Palin never said anything about Trig and kept him at home all the time, her enemies would say she was “ashamed of him.” I guess she just can’t win.
Anyway, at my alma mater the prolife group had a “Cemetery of the Holy Innocents” display. Here’s some comments from the blog:
Hey PFL!
The Cemetery of the Innocents went really well today. On College Green, we set up 300 blue and pink flags, and posted signs saying “1 flag = 175,000 babies killed by abortion since Roe V. Wade” and “53 million babies have been killed by abortion since Roe V. Wade.”
We got a lot of positive feedback! A lot of people passing by were glad to see other pro-lifers, and said some really nice things. We were pretty excited that we got such a positive reaction from so many people, so we started writing what they said down, haha. Here are some examples: “I’m glad you’re out here,” “I want to commend you for doing this,” “Thank you, we’re going on a tour and thought it would be a big liberal show,” “That’s a good cause,” “Keep fighting the good fight!” And we got several “good job”‘s, and several people, some students, said, “I’m pro-life too.” A couple people even asked if we were accepting donations!
And I thought only “old” people were prolife?
Happy Holy Thursday, everyone!
I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who doesn’t make the connection between “upset about an inappropriate ‘joke'” and “homophobic.”
And Joan, if that was satire on Palin’s fans, it missed the mark. Having read the entire, “bash on Trig” post, it had more to do with hatred of the disabled than the fans. Your lack of compassion for this innocent child is unbecoming.
That was pretty tasteless, I might say. But in other news…my partner works with developmentally disabled adults, and services for people with disabilities were the first things to get the axe with (the tea party’s) budget cuts. How sad. Once these children lose their “innocence,” are they less worthy of social support?
Wonkette has sort of cleaned up the article and there is a pseudo apology at the beginning of the article. They are deleting many of the horrid comments that were made. Also they have deleted all references to this whole thing off of their Facebook page. Last night it was full of angry comments towards them. Today nothing! I also noticed that there are NO major companies advertising on their main blog page at this moment. I guess they got a good spanking from them. So, thanks for putting the word out about this blog. I know it helped shut them up. I just hope that they do the decent thing and offer a real apology to the Palin’s and to parents of special needs children. As the mother of a special needs child I can tell you that the article was beyond offensive!
They took the article down and posted an apology! I guess advertisers mattered to them :)
I already use Huggies and I think I will have Papa Johns for dinner! (I think I will email both as well and express my support.)
Gonna be a Papa Johns night!!!!!!!!
“Really, joan? This was just a detractor’s parody of how some people supposedly idolize the Palin kids?”
It was certainly the main idea behind it. The author obviously took the opportunity to have some additional fun, but it was nothing particularly egregious, especially for a satirical, edgy website. Would it belong in a Washington Post op-ed? No, but Wonkette doesn’t take itself that seriously.
“And Joan, if that was satire on Palin’s fans, it missed the mark. Having read the entire, “bash on Trig” post, it had more to do with hatred of the disabled than the fans. Your lack of compassion for this innocent child is unbecoming.”
It’s certainly a reasonable position to take that this particular piece missed the mark. Not all satire is good satire. (Though I actually think it very much hit the mark, and the response from conservatives in general and Palin-obsessed conservatives in particular proves it; if it had been some other disabled three-year-old not affiliated with a popular right-wing politician that had been featured in this satirical article, would the conservative blogosphere have had such a visceral reaction? Of course not.) As for “hatred for the disabled”, that’s just nonsense. Maybe a lack of what you consider to be the appropriate level of respect for the disabled by using them as a comedic foil in this manner? Fine. Hatred? No one is arguing that the disabled should be gassed here. Save such strong words for true demonstrations of vitriol and malice, or they lose their meaning.
“That was pretty tasteless, I might say. But in other news…my partner works with developmentally disabled adults, and services for people with disabilities were the first things to get the axe with (the tea party’s) budget cuts. How sad. Once these children lose their “innocence,” are they less worthy of social support?”
Good point. Outrage is cheap, but many of the “outraged” here are more than happy to cut funding to needed social services that would directly assist those disabled persons who are not fortunate enough to have millionaires for parents.
Thank God for advertisers with a conscience.
“No one is arguing that the disabled should be gassed here”
Of course not!! The moment they breathe air their lives are sacrosanct – no one would suggest killing them! *gasp*
Few days before that, though? Better take care of that “problem”. That’s why we just HAVE to allow late term abortions, right? For fetal abnormalities.
No hatred for the disabled, though.
Good point. Outrage is cheap, but many of the “outraged” here are more than happy to cut funding to needed social services that would directly assist those disabled persons who are not fortunate enough to have millionaires for parents.
Ooooh, millionaires are evil!! Overspending is good! Rude satire is acceptable!
“Few days before that, though? Better take care of that “problem”. That why we just HAVE to allow late term abortions, right? For fetal abnormalities.
No hatred for the disabled, though.”
If you detect “hatred” here, maybe you should take it up with the parents who are actually aborting because of fetal abnormalities, rather than the people who are defending their right to make that decision. Or are you suggesting that it is only hatred that would ever motivate someone to defend the constitutional right to an abortion, and therefore that the only way to stop promoting this “hatred” would be to roll over and let social conservatives have their way on this and any other pet issue of theirs?
for your information, Joan, YES! We would be just as outraged had someone elses child, (disabled or otherwise) been made fun of like this.. And we’d be just as sickened by the idea that there are people out there who would not only condone this bullying, but enjoy it.
But according to you, we are simply too uneducated to understand the satire of badmouthing a child …..
What? A constitutional right to Abortion?
Wow, I’m looking, but I don’t see that anywhere in the Constitution.
“for your information, Joan, YES! We would be just as outraged had someone elses child, (disabled or otherwise) been made fun of like this..”
I don’t doubt you when you say that you yourself, personally, would be just as appalled at this no matter whose child it involved. However, the odds are that you would never have even heard of it if it hadn’t been the child of a popular conservative celebrity, because the conservative blogs simply wouldn’t have cared enough to make it an issue. Their reaction has been in defense of Sarah Palin, not in defense of children with Down Syndrome.
“But according to you, we are simply too uneducated to understand the satire of badmouthing a child ….. ”
Is that what I said? No, I don’t think it is. I wonder how many people voicing their gut reaction to what they think this article contained even bothered to read the entire thing themselves?
I repeat:
Joan, is there any type of child it’s not okay to mock or belittle? Or discriminate against? Or kill? Is there any child sacred to you? Or is it only offensive to insist that children have the right to live?
You can keep repeating yourself, Jen, but until you have a question for me that isn’t a transparent cover for essentially calling me an evil baby-eating monster who hates disabled children, I’m not going to have much to say to you.
Joan, you’ve been commenting here at least as long as I, and you do seem to be impersonating an “evil baby-eating monster who hates” all children, even the so-called normal. YOUR words, not mine.
Do I make a distinction between the Pharisees who called for the crucifixion and the Romans who carried it out? Nope. All guilty. Do I make a distinction between people who advocate for abortion, and the butchers who perform it? Nope. All guilty. Which means: I consider YOU as guilty as an acting abortionist with a rusty pair of scissors in his hands. It means I consider that you, and Gosnell, and Cecile Richards are all in the same category.
Is there a constitional right to abortion? No. And there is no Easter Bunny, no tooth fairy, and the moon is NOT made of green cheese either.
If you detect “hatred” here, maybe you should take it up with the parents who are actually aborting because of fetal abnormalities, rather than the people who are defending their right to make that decision.
That’s right. You only support the choice to kill people with disabilities before they’re born. You haven’t actually done it, so that totally makes it all okay. It’s not like you’re contributing to a system that unashamedly marks those with disabilities for death or anything.
“If you detect “hatred” here, maybe you should take it up with the parents who are actually aborting because of fetal abnormalities, rather than the people who are defending their right to make that decision.”
I take it up with abortion supporters in general for a couple reasons. Most importantly, pro-life people make the argument that the life of the fetus has value and deserves protection. One can choose to ignore or disagree with that argument, but that’s still the position. Given that, the standard cop out of “don’t look my way, I don’t like abortion, just abortion rights” is no response at all. It’s “I personally wouldn’t subjugate another human’s rights, but if someone else wants to, que sera sera”. It makes no sense unless we assume the pro-choice arguments about the fetus, which I do not. Thus, I look to all.
Secondly, I’m going to take some issue w/ the whole idea that most pro-choicers are somehow opposed or indifferent to the idea of aborting for fetal abnormality and merely “defending rights”. Fetal abnormality, in fact, is one of most pro-choicers sacrosanct exceptions. The cases they trot out when they MOST want to put a good spin on the need for abortion (along with life of the mother and rape). I might buy this argument if you were talking about abortions to maintain lifestyle (the vast majority of abortions, but the ones everyone likes to talk about least) – that’s when you tend to see people saying, “Oh no, obviously that’s not right, but you know who am I to judge.” Fetal abnormality is much more in the category of ‘Oh, of course I understand why you would have an abortion!”
“Or are you suggesting that it is only hatred that would ever motivate someone to defend the constitutional right to an abortion,”
Nope. I think a lot of arm chair pro-choicers just haven’t given it much thought. Others have bought into the very twisted idea of this as a “good” and will do anything to rationalize it. I think some of the rabid supporters are motivated by hate, but they’re the minority.
I don’t doubt you when you say that you yourself, personally, would be just as appalled at this no matter whose child it involved. However, the odds are that you would never have even heard of it if it hadn’t been the child of a popular conservative celebrity, because the conservative blogs simply wouldn’t have cared enough to make it an issue. Their reaction has been in defense of Sarah Palin, not in defense of children with Down Syndrome.
joan, you appear to have a very short memory. Remember the two high-school kids with Down Syndrome posted here that you made fun of on this very site? The ones you were apalled were being celebrated by their classmates as homecoming king and queen? Plenty of people here expressed outrage over your cruel and witless comments. I think that is proof that a) we do cae about Down Syndrome kids and b) You are cruel and bigoted.
The comments from detractors I read on Wonkette’s site practically all read “make fun of Sarah Palin all you want, but leave her innocent child alone!” Sounds real political to me.
Where do you get al your anger and hate, joan?
(By the way, I am by no means a conservative or a supporter of Sarah Palin, so don’t repeat any of your above tactics with me, OK?)
So what’s the big deal?
Libs are savaging a conservative woman via her infant child.
[Where’s the ‘news’ in that bit of reporting? As in what is ‘new’ about libs savaging cons or babies?]
When it comes to political correctness, I guess the bottom line, is the bottom line.
Two ‘evil corporations’ [who’s first priority is their ‘bottom line’] pull their ads from the offending web site and the next thing you know the ‘artistes’ at Wonkette get religion and dispatch the offending offending post to the lake of unquechable burning sulfur and appologize profusely and promiscuously and write it off to ‘poor comedic judgement’.
I believe the real ‘offense’ was marketplace ignorance.
The free market never lies and it is seldom wrong.
If the Vatican opened a pizza parlor they could call it ‘Papal Johns’!
Megan says: April 21, 2011 at 12:44 pm
“That was pretty tasteless, I might say. But in other news…my partner works with developmentally disabled adults,…”
====================================================================
Megan-omaniac,
Is your business a Limited Liability Partnership or some form of corporation?
Are you as concerned with the ’bottom line’ as Papa John’s and Huggies?
Or are you one of the rare breeds who puts principle above profits and/or politics?
“I don’t doubt you when you say that you yourself, personally, would be just as appalled at this no matter whose child it involved. However, the odds are that you would never have even heard of it if it hadn’t been the child of a popular conservative celebrity, because the conservative blogs simply wouldn’t have cared enough to make it an issue. Their reaction has been in defense of Sarah Palin, not in defense of children with Down Syndrome”.
Excuse me but that is a very bold statement with absolutely no foundation beneath it. How would you know why they comment the way they do? I am a conservative, maybe a Sarah Palin fan maybe not, I haven’t decided yet although I did like what she had to say during the last election, and a mother of a special needs child. The article on Wonkett made me furious and it wasn’t about Sarah, although as a mother I can only imagine how much that must have hurt her to see her son made fun of that way., but it upset me because it is a disgrace and shows me that common decency has died in America all for the sake of a “laugh”. The person who wrote that article must have been raised by wolves because he knows nothing of common human decency which includes the fact that all children are off limits and particularly special needs children. Furthermore, the people on that blog that made disgusting rude comments and those that defended him are just as sick and deranged as he is. There was simply no excuse for that article no matter how you look at it. It is true that it made people furious across the board conservative and liberal alike because there are decent people in both groups. So for “conservative” blogs to be offended at the article is perfect acceptable and they shouldn’t have to explain why they were offended. Common decency makes one offended!
Wait, Ken, that Megan might be pro-life Megan, not pro-abortion Megan. I’m not a moderator, so I can’t tell the difference.
But, if the Vatican opened a pizza restaurant, it might also be called “IL Papa’s” LOL!!!
“Do I make a distinction between people who advocate for abortion, and the butchers who perform it? Nope.”
When have I specifically advocated for a woman to have an abortion here? When have I recommended it on this site? Show me. Unless you can do that, you’re making the same mistake that the other people responding to me are making and confusing defense of a right with advocacy for the choice that is derived from that right.
“That’s right. You only support the choice to kill people with disabilities before they’re born.”
I support the right to have an abortion; I am strictly neutral on whether or not a woman, acting in her own individual circumstances, chooses to avail herself of that right. Your assertion that I support such and such “choice” on the basis that I support the underlying right to make that choice is specious and untoward and would be like smearing someone who defends the First Amendment rights of a group with offensive racial or religious views to express those views as “supporting the choice” to protest a soldier’s funeral or stage a white supremacist rally.
“It’s “I personally wouldn’t subjugate another human’s rights, but if someone else wants to, que sera sera”.”
Then you agree that defending the right of the Ku Klux Klan to march down Main Street, even while finding the views of the KKK to be despicable, would be akin to stating “I personally wouldn’t engage in political activity that would horribly offend minorities and any other right-minded, decent people, but if someone else wants to, que sera sera”?
“Secondly, I’m going to take some issue w/ the whole idea that most pro-choicers are somehow opposed or indifferent to the idea of aborting for fetal abnormality and merely “defending rights”.”
I never made the claim that most pro-choicers are opposed or indifferent to the idea of aborting for fetal abnormality. I just think it’s absurd to claim that “hatred” is a motivating factor in defending abortion as a right, when the specific reasons for why a woman seeks an abortion are her own.
“Fetal abnormality, in fact, is one of most pro-choicers sacrosanct exceptions. The cases they trot out when they MOST want to put a good spin on the need for abortion (along with life of the mother and rape).”
These reasons are cited because they are the most relevant to people who would normally not want or need an abortion, yet could possibly find themselves in a situation where they would. It’s an appeal to the empathy of decent people who, for whatever reason, might be less moved by a discussion of abortion’s status as a legal right.
“When have I specifically advocated for a woman to have an abortion here?”
Do you think we all have amnesia?! How can I even pick out a single example? Oh, let’s see, when Jill’s blog posted the article about a Chinese woman who was arrested, assaulted, and forced to endure an abortion, your words of wisdom were: She got what she deserved, she knew the law. So, you not only advocated for abortion but went so far as to defend forcible abortion and assault against a pregnant woman.
You used the phrase “decent people” twice in your comment. Wishful thinking. You don’t know the meaning of word decent or people.
Woah, Papa John’s pizza is ALMOST as gross as that joke!
;)
Your assertion that I support such and such “choice” on the basis that I support the underlying right to make that choice is specious and untoward and would be like smearing someone who defends the First Amendment rights of a group with offensive racial or religious views to express those views as “supporting the choice” to protest a soldier’s funeral or stage a white supremacist rally.
Except that, apparently, you do support “such and such ‘choice’ on the basis that you support the underlying right to make it.” Because, in this case, we’re discussing abortions in the case of “fetal abnormality” and you went on to defend that very thing further down in that same post.
These reasons are cited because they are the most relevant to people who would normally not want or need an abortion, yet could possibly find themselves in a situation where they would. It’s an appeal to the empathy of decent people who, for whatever reason, might be less moved by a discussion of abortion’s status as a legal right.
So, in this case, you are saying “Any decent person would agree that it is a good thing to kill someone with Down Syndrome before they are born.” Because we’re not talking in the abstract, we are discussing a specific disability. A specific person, even. So, as has been pointed out several times, you are saying–in so many words–that people who have Down Syndrome would be better off if they had never been born. Trig Palin, in particular…if his parents had decided someone with Down Syndrome was just too much trouble, that is.
Someone apparently needs to give that author a copy of ‘A Modest Proposal’ by Jonathan Swift so he can see how to write political satire. (And I can’t believe I’m the 1st person to make a Swift joke at the expense of this author’s failed attempt at ‘political satire’ directed at a child)
Megan
Would you mind providing some type of link to prove your 12:44 post. Thanks.
“No one is arguing that the disabled should be gassed here”
Of course not. That’s too Hitleresque. But there are those here who argue for the right to hack them to pieces.
As for homophobia…
To chastise those who mock the disabled is to be homophobic? Then by the author’s own admission, gays hate the disabled. The author suggests that you just can’t tell the gays they are less than perfect.
And of course, little Trig outclasses those who would have him and his peers killed in utero.
Then you agree that defending the right of the Ku Klux Klan to march down Main Street, even while finding the views of the KKK to be despicable, would be akin to stating “I personally wouldn’t engage in political activity that would horribly offend minorities and any other right-minded, decent people, but if someone else wants to, que sera sera”?
No I do not agree. Defending the right of the KKK to speak freely does not violate the rights of another. All rights are thusly limited. I know you don’t think abortion does that, but that’s my point. Your answers always beg the question without making the argument.
See – either we protect all humans, or those who deem certain humans SUB-human or not worth living are at risk.
Love all. Protect all. Save the baby humans – including the unborn. Save the disabled humans – born and unborn. Save the sick humans. Basically save all humans.
it’s not hard – it’s just humane.
“Because, in this case, we’re discussing abortions in the case of “fetal abnormality” and you went on to defend that very thing further down in that same post.”
No I didn’t. I simply pointed out that it’s a commonly cited reason because it’s something that resonates with people who tend not to think of rights in an abstract legal or philosophical sense.
“No I do not agree. Defending the right of the KKK to speak freely does not violate the rights of another.”
Says you. Many people would argue otherwise, and in doing so they would be on no less firm ground, legally or logically, than you stand upon when you argue that abortion violates the rights of fetuses.
What right does the KKK spouting off their nonsense violate? I said that the right to abortion violates the right of an unborn human being to be allowed to grow and live - you can take or leave the argument, but you can’t respond to it in any meaningful way with analogies that ignore the argument being made. If you think the right to free speech inherently violates another human right and is thus a good analogy then explain what I’m missing. What’s the “argument otherwise”, if you will?
“What right does the KKK spouting off their nonsense violate?”
Pick one. Make one up. The “right to emotional security”–the point is that there is no more a “right of an unborn human being to be allowed to grow and live” than there is a right not to be subjected on public property to a display of free speech that you find offensive. Hence why I said in my last post that a person claiming the latter would not be on any less firm ground, legally or logically, than you are when claiming the former.
“you can take or leave the argument, but you can’t respond to it in any meaningful way with analogies that ignore the argument being made.”
I was using my analogy simply to demonstrate the absurdity of your claim that supporting abortion rights while personally disliking abortion is tantamount to saying “I personally wouldn’t subjugate another human’s rights, but if someone else wants to, que sera sera.” Your argument only makes sense if you’ve already accepted the primary claim it turns on: that unborn humans possess rights. By the same token, my slightly reworded version of your argument only makes sense if you’ve already accepted the primary claim that it turns on: that people have the right not to be offended.
The right not to be offended, the right to wear plaid on Tuesdays, the right not to watch skinny people drink water, the right not to be inconvenienced by rain, the right to blink at leprechauns, yada yada. That’s right folks, just put the word ‘right’ in front of something and you got yourself one of those social justice thingies. Yep, the right not to smell vanilla in an ice cream parlour, the right to sneeze at two o’clock, the right to soft music in all hip hop clubs…
It’s late No guarantees on coherency:
Yes, my argument assumes that a human beings right to life is worth protecting at all stages of that human being’s development. Based on that, the “right” to abortion inherently comes into conflict with that right. I never denied that – that is the pro-life argument. But I did say that your analogy does not respond to it, b/c it assumes the opposite. That is – save the analogy and just write. The fetus doesn’t have rights that counterbalance the right to abortion. You didn’t initially make an argument about why you thought the analogy appropriate despite the fact that all it did was state the opposite premise.
Now, you have made an argument which I take to essentially be: the free speech analogy applies b/c any made up countervailing right can be used to make an equally logically consistent argument for limiting the right to free speech. I’m sure it will not surprise you that I disagree.
I didn’t just pick a right or make one up. It is an absolute fundamental principle of humanity, enshrined in our constitution that human beings have a right to life. I’m making an argument that it should be applied without discrimination to all human beings at every phase of our development. Clearly, in regards to the abortion debate, people have drawn a lot of arbitrary lines about when or if this right ever attaches to the unborn (or even infants among some) – birth, viability, brain waves, when the mother wills it…what have you). But the right to life exists – it’s a fundamental principle of society. We’re just arguing over application. So obviously, I don’t think a right randomly made up in order to eviscerate a long recognized foundation of a free society (free speech) really stands on the same ground of logic and principle.
You do seem to think such arguments are all the same, I suspect b/c you don’t think there are any rights that we possess by virtue of our shared humanity as opposed to those granted to us by our governments.
Joan’s comments constantly trample on my ‘right not to be offended.’
(CT, I hope you don’t think I was referring to your post; I was spoofing Joan.)
I think we should get all the 911 Truthers, Trig-ers, and Birthers in one place, give ’em various shillelaghs, cudgels and bludgeoons made of stiff foam, and let ’em have at it.
Once the fray is engaged, bring on two new cohorts. At one end of the field, open the gates to the tea party, armed with supersoakers filled with, of course, tea. At the other, unloose the fountains of folks who comment at Daily Kos and Huffington Post. They will be armed with words — “just words.”
Penultimately, cut loose the ankle-biter DU and MM crowd, along with the Freepers. They get rubber bands and spitballs, respectively.
Finally, let the NRA signal the end of festivities with a few thousand shots fired into the air to get everyone’s attention. Precisely simultaneously with the latter, arrange for our worst political demagogues to be flying overhead in hang gliders (darnit, now the White House Secret Service will be on me because they are smart and draw really good inferences, but surely they know he can’t be compelled to get into the hang glider).
This proves, of course, that I am a homophobe-ophobe incapable of gender confusion because that’s a construct anyway, and all rivers lead to the sea.
I’m reminded of the Monty Python sketch where philosophers play soccer…
Nope ninek, ’twas the “pro-abort” Megan. :D
Megan,
I don’t think the “tea-party” has been able to have any effect on any programs yet.
Then allow me to address your very earlier post, Megan. To summarize your issues about disabled children and adults:
1) “If you don’t support this person from cradle to grave, then let us kill them”
2) “You don’t care about people after they’re born!”
I DO want to see babies develop naturally without violently or chemically interfering to end their lives. I’m not a member of any tea, coffee, or flick-of-my-bic party (and if you get that reference you are older than me, readers, lol!).
I do not think that we need to support everyone from cradle to grave, because I am not a socialist or a communist. But does that mean I don’t care about born people? No. It is bad logic, faulty logic, and lack of logic to make that leap.
If I were not taxed so heavily, I could afford to give more of my own money voluntarily to causes that I support. When we give our own money to people or organizations in our OWN community, that is called SUBSIDIARITY. (I hope I’ve spelled it right). It is a way of supporting where money and resources are used most efficiently.
If, instead, we all pay our taxes to a central government, who then uses a vast bureacracy to determine and distribute the money, guess what? We lose efficiency. Our dollars have much less power, and we support people behind desks rather than the people we want to help. What happens historically with communism and socialism is two fold:
1) people lose their incentive to produce because the product of their labor is taken away from them.
2) the bureacracy then must cut funding or cut PEOPLE.
And how do our current American libs intend to do this? By cutting people both before they are born (poor women shouldn’t have more children! disabled babies should be aborted!) or when they are older (assisted “suicide” which is actually coerced self-murder).
I give regularly to the Special Olympics, but I can’t afford much. If I had more of my own money to spend, my donations could be bigger. AND, I’d be able to donate more for daycare and special educational needs. That’s the fact, Jack.
Great response ninek.
Local response is the best – what plagues your city/area may not be a problem in mine. Local agencies, churches, organizations and individuals do a much more efficient job of helping – in part because so many volunteer their efforts.
When we are generous, we help others. And when we help others, we help young, old and everyone in between – in our area/state. And when everyone does that, we have helped our nation and the world.
Do I send help overseas? Yes. Do I help in other areas of America? Yes. Do I help locally? You bet. No good deed is wasted. No help is wasted. Love always wins.
Today delivered diapers,wipes and formula to a lovely woman – and we are meeting to visit next week. Tomorrow my husband and I are going to a wedding of a couple we have been helping – and we are helping with the reception and are blessed to be able to help in any capacity.
Loving action and help is a personal thing. When the organization is big and centralized, the individual heart is gone, and the help is diffused. Local help – in the form of church, business, organizations or families is a beautiful thing.
Mm, still a pretty sorry excuse. Do you feel the same sense of apathy when you pay tolls, believing that you yourself would do a better job at highway maintenance? I don’t think so. There’s a reason to centralize some things, at least at the state level, and it’s to ensure that the approach is systematic. A safety net shouldn’t have any holes. The existence of bureaucracy and red tape is justification for reforming the system, not tearing it down completely.
And unfortunately, the kids my partner sees at his organization (funded by a maternal & child health block grant) don’t have anywhere else to go because their families felt they couldn’t care for them anymore. It’s not a “support me from cradle to grave” situation–more complicated than that. Their parents chose life, and tried, and came to a point where they couldn’t do it anymore. Aging single moms couldn’t lift their adult sons up the stairs anymore. The family was evicted. Both parents work bizarre hours at the local factory. Nobody is adopting these kids. They need something to fall back on if their first line of support falls through.
“No liberal love for disabled kids name Palin”
Well, we recently saw a thread here that featured a pretty-much-obviously conservative or Republican person saying “retard” (when referring to Trig), even though the thread first tried to lay it on a liberal….
Do people think that “conservatives” automatically “love” the disabled? Among the “liberals” I know, and the “conservatives” I know, the conservatives are more likely to say “retard,” than are the liberals. The liberals tend to be more “politically-correct,” and not say “retard.” I’m not saying that “political correctness” is necessarily a good thing, either – personally, I feel that a lot of it is just plain silly.
Anyway, you want to find people that “don’t love the disabled”? Hey, first look for the “good old boy” conservatives….
Their parents chose life, and tried, and came to a point where they couldn’t do it anymore. Aging single moms couldn’t lift their adult sons up the stairs anymore. The family was evicted. Both parents work bizarre hours at the local factory. Nobody is adopting these kids. They need something to fall back on if their first line of support falls through.
Megan, good point, and the current conservative political momentum in the US is very aligned with cutting that support, rather than increasing or even just maintaining it.
I’m not a member of any tea, coffee, or flick-of-my-bic party (and if you get that reference you are older than me, readers, lol!).
Ha! Great reference, Ninek. 1973 – the first Bic lighter, and in the mid- ’70’s was when those commercials were on TV. 1988 – smoking on most US airline flights is banned – and even that seems like a long time ago, now. Lots of planes have only three rows of seats in First or Business Class, and used to be the last of those rows was its own little smoking section….
joyfromillinois
That’s what I believe that love always wins.
Doug,
I think much of the problem has to do with shutting down state institutions across the US. This threw many people onto the street and left many families with no options when caring for severely challenged children and adults.
Yes these places were in need of improvement, but they were the only home many challenged, mentally ill, and abandoned citizens knew, including a woman I knew, and closing them, though well intended and looking good on paper, had catastrophic consequences, including homelessness.
Certainly there were abuses, but shouldn’t those have been addressed instead of going to the opposite exteme? I certainly considered homelessness and extreme family difficulties abusive.
BTW, I recall watching a program on the rise of nazi Germany. One argument for disposing of the disabled was how many homes could be built on the space occupied by an institution.
Everything old is new again.
Mary, yeah – the will of the populace swings back and forth, back and forth…
Indeed, people have been pretty much just “put out on the street,” and it’s always a question of where to draw the line.
And when you two are just saying “kill them before it comes to this,” it’s rather hard to take your concern seriously.
Hard to see the sense of your comment if you were referring to Mary and me, young christian woman.