« We'll see you on Tuesday. | Main | No Hello Dalai »

Sunday, October 04, 2009



Lot of broad strokes... lot of false associations.

I don't see the negative painting of children in a negative light. I think I can make the statement "Using a child to punish a woman is wrong" without devaluing children. Actually, that statement in itself could be used as a defense of children from being used as a means toward some other political end. (I know, thin political ice... but I'm looking at Miranda's statement in isolation.)

Nor is there anything wrong with saying you and I have the right not to be parents. (Well, I voluntarily surrendered that right four years ago.) There is no devaluation of children or life in that statement in itself.

Polanski deserves prison, not my commentary. He defied the law and decency. He also risked imposing pregnancy and motherhood on a 13-year-old girl. But Polanski's crime and some celebrities' defense of him doesn't inform the debate about abortion policy.


[sorry about repeating "negative" in that first sentence -- bad editing on my part!]


There is a big difference between Polanski and the movie Birth. Birth got a bad rap--it was an absolutely exquisite movie about loss and love. The bath tub scene was tastefully done and fit the movie wonderfully. Why don't you look at some of those movies Brooke Shields did as a child? Those are far worse.


Cory: I'll agree that I used broad stokes here. I disagree on the second account.
I went back to look at the context of Obama's quote to see if he might have been
using it your way. He wasn't. Here's what he said, "I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16."

Now, unless we can assume that Obama was defending STDs or trying to protect them, I don't think we can assume he was "defending children."

Furthermore, there is plenty wrong with what Cho said. First of all, she is trying
to pretend that the violation of someone's most basic right is a right of its own. It is not. Last I checked, the founding fathers mentioned life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don't recall reading anything about "the right not to be a Mom."

Furthermore, Cho is referring specifically to abortion and therefore her comments are disingenuous. She argues that by banning abortion, Sarah Palin would take away her "right not to be a Mom." That isn't true. There are plenty of ways not to be a Mom, including adoption, abstinence, natural family planning and various methods of birth control.

But the point is that she views being a Mom as a bad thing. This "right not to be a mom" trumps a child's right to life. You cannot get much more negative than that.


Dani: Yes, there is a difference, and I mention that.
I don't think it's appropriate for a 37-year-old and a 10-year-old to bathe nude together, no mater how "tastefully done."


Somehow your post reminded me of this from Fernwood 2 Night: "Following an exhaustive, two-year study, Dr. Richard Osgood came on to announce some unsettling news: leisure suits cause cancer. It seems that perspiration causes the synthetic fiber of leisure suits to release a carcinogenic gas. Children who cling to Daddy's trousers may also be in trouble—but only if Daddy has sweaty legs. How did Dr. Osgood know? Why, he experimented with rats, of course, and to prove it he brought the rats out in their rat-size leisure suits. Unfortunately, Dr. Osgood had no solution, but he was testing leisure suits mixed with Laetrile."

Thank you Time.com. I wish I could find a video.


I can't speak to Cho's inner value system; I ccan only speak to the words you place on the record. A defense of a "right not to be a mom" does not entail a devaluation of children. That statement simply affirms that all people should have the right to choose when they will take on that awesome responsibility... a right Polanski and the absolutist pro-life crowd acting in concert would have denied the 13-year-old girl had conception taken place.

Your interpretation of the Obama comment is still a stretch. His words can be taken as a statement that children should not be used as a means toward the political/moral end of punishing women for having sex. That doesn't devalue children.


Cory: I'm sorry for the slow reply. I am in the middle of trying to buy a house, which has kept me from being as attentive as I would like to be. I do appreciate your comments. You are right, I ought to have at least included a link to the article.
Here it is:

As I mentioned in my earlier comments, Cho is not really talking about "the right not to be a Mom." She isn't worried that Palin is going to take away her right to an adoption, abstinence or any form of birth control. She is worried that Palin will take away the right to kill an unborn child. Now that may not sound negative to you, but it does to me.


Are you really making the case that the drugging and raping of a 13-yr-old girl compares to filming a nude scene in a movie? First off there was no sexual contact at all in that scene, let alone drugging a child senseless and forcing penetration. Secondly the two actors in that scene were not naked. They were wearing flesh-colored bathing suits. Thirdly, Cameron Bright and Nicole Kidman were never in that room at the same time when the filming was being done. They filmed all of their individual scenes separately and then cut them together. It's a fictional story about reincarnation. There was no sexual act. It's fiction. Why would anyone think this was equivalent? You say it's not as bad and yet you bring it up? Why?


Peggy: No, that is not the case I'm making. I specifically say there is a difference.
But I do think that movies like Birth contribute to a view of children that is not
healthy. Children should not be looked at as objects of an adult's romantic or sexual love. Hollywood forgets the value of innocence. It is nice to know that Bright at least was not made to film in the nude. Nevertheless, I dislike the idea of filming even fictional sexy scenes with children. Thank you for your comments.

The comments to this entry are closed.