Wednesday, April 13, 2005


Wendy McElroy's excellent column, Disability Must Be Defined Before Debated, leads me to wonder about the following. Disabled advocates always get offended if disabled people are treated differently; even acknowleding they are disabled is considered offensive, hence the emergence of the stupid term "other-abled." Well, I agree! But why stop with those other-sited or other-legged in wheelchairs--what about the dead? Just because the person's body is inert and mouldering in a grave is no excuse to "label" them as no longer part of civilization. Why don't the other-animated have the right to vote? It's blatant discrimination to not let dead people vote.

Why stop there? What about those who never existed? What about all the kids I could have had if I had mated with more women and/or used less birth control? Their (sadly, never-formed) voices need to be heard! I say: give dead and non-existent people the right to vote and all other civil rights, too. It is the conceit of the living to think we are special. It is living-ism, or... existing-ism.

Of course, I apologize for this observation.

1 comment:

Vache Folle said...

It is offensive to refer to people who happen not to exist as the "non-existent" as if that characteristic completely defines them. The "dead" should be called, if you must bring up their deadness, people who happen to be dead.