Horton Hears a Who?

[il-rummana]

Of course the good doctor intended some of his books to be political parables. This one, however, was certainly not intended to be about abortion. If anything, it was intended to make a comment about equality and not dismissing something simply because it goes against what you've always known to be "true."

[IkmalE]

Because murder of the unborn transcends politics. Simple, really.Edit: A word on the alleged "hijack" of Seuss by the pro-life crowd. Since when is it a hijack to recognize a profound principle of reality well-spoken by someone? "A person's a person, no matter how small," and when it comes to wee babes that's the sum of it all.Edit2:I wonder if everyone here is aware that even the supposedly "scuzzy" pro-life people are freely acknowledging that Geisel (Seuss) was definitely pro-death. Doubt me? Look at it here: http://www.operationrescue.org/?p=890What y'all need to recognize is that Christians do not need to have the buy-in of the one who speaks words of truth, as long as the words themselves are true. This goes back to the Bible. The high priest in Israel, Caiaphas, who hated Jesus, declared that it was necessary for one man to die in order that a nation be spared. Ironic, that. Prophetic even. But God can do that. He can speak a truth through the mouth of His enemies. No problem.Tehabwa, you make some interesting and thoughtful points, but I must ask you this. You say the god story doesn't provide a sufficient basis for reclassifying a clump of cells into a person. Great. What does? What metaphysical principle are you going to invoke, what story are you going to tell, that accomplishes that magical transformation? Now I suspect we actually would agree that an unfertilized zygote has not attained that status, but we would part ways on the status of a fertilized zygote, i.e., an embryo. Why? When does the embryo cease to be a mere clump of cells and become a "person?" When the law says so? What if the law is wrong? What if the law is arbitrary? Or perhaps you are a functionalist. If so, you believe that when x number of human-like functions come online the embryo becomes a person. But that is a metaphysical justification. You have an abstract concept of what a "person" is, and when a biological entity acquires enough attributes to qualify under that abstract concept, then they are a "person." Is that your meaning? Because that's the definition of "person" that was used in Germany last century to wipe out millions of unwanted "sub-persons." Or perhaps you remember the Dred Scott decision, that codified (briefly) into American law that one's skin color was a prerequisite to "person" status under the law. Do you see your problem here? There is no sustainable definition of person that does not rely on a metaphysical concept hidden somewhere in the equation. You cannot escape the problem. Indeed, Singer and other leading philosophers are coming to grips with the problem and coming down on the side, not just of abortion, but infanticide and more. Without the metaphysical meaning of "person" operating in the background, all the rational barriers to arbitrary personhood drop.That's what's so great about Seuss' line. It exposes the cognitive dissonance in the pro-death mind. You must hang your meaning of person on something invisible. I love it.

[iheart_you_too2]

As a pro-choice atheist, I'm going to go out and kill a bunch of flowers in protest. Just in case there are any free-loading Whos living in them.

[Iknowsomestuff]

They see an advantage and they will use it.I read that there was a protest at one of the screenings for that movie and it was someone protesting against abortion.That movie was soo good and cute...But people will use whatever they can to amend it to their agendas.

[ikg80]

I would like to see this direct quote from Dr. Seuss. Anyway its just the nature of people to interpret literature as they wish. Unless the author tells you exactly what they meant you can come to any conclusion you want to about it. Ever taken Literature in college and had to debate what you thought a book was about? Everyone will have a different opinion.

[iknowball]

From Wikipedia....The book (most notably Horton the Elephant's recurring phrase "a person's a person, no matter how small") has found its way to the center of the recurring debate, in the United States, over abortion. Several pro-life groups have adopted the phrase in support of their views. Such appropriations are frowned upon by Dr. Seuss' widow, Audrey Geisel, who "doesn't like people to hijack Dr. Seuss characters or material to front their own points of view." According to Philip Nel, who wrote a biography about Geisel/Seuss, Seuss threatened to sue an anti-abortion group for using his words on their stationery.

[iizzyy_is_back]

Dr. Seuss didn't just write a story from his imagination. "Horton Hears a Who" is a true story, Seuss just documented it. It's an amazing story accounting the adventures of a talking elephant and his tiny friends. Some religious nuts need to learn the difference between fact and fiction.

[Ikkin]

I remember when the first Lord of the Rings movie was about to be released. There were some in the Christian Community claiming it was a Christian film. I even saw the books beginning to appear in Christian book stores!There's no telling how these fallacies begin.

[IJustWantAnswers]

You seem to be begging the question - whats the RATIONALITY in starting a new human life in your own body and then killing it?

[IHimSoMuch]

Uh, it's simply not true to say he was never making political points in his book -- Lorax, anyone? Sneeches? Even the Who's Horton hears -- these are politically motivated books.There's a lovely little PBS documentary, in fact, called "The Political Dr. Seuss."But, yes, I'm sure he would be, and his family IS appalled at use of Horton's little buddies as "proof" abortion is wrong. What these people miss is that a zygote is NOT a person. (I had someone here bring that up; I thought it was just them; didn't know it was a thing.)Corruption? No. I don't see how that's indicates corruption -- well, suggesting Geisel supported them when he didn't does.Thing is, IF you think god stuff a soul into the zygote the moment the sperm its it, then you do have to conclude that abortion is murder. Problem, of course is that not everyone buys the story, and there's no evidence for it, so it's wrong to impose the implications of that view on everyone.But there's nothing inherently wrong with taking morals from childrens' books; that's what many ARE (including many of the Good Doctor's).I guess what I'm saying is, it's not saying "a person's a person no matter how small" that's wrong, or even using that idea to make one's case; it's for others to show why it doesn't apply to the single-celled.IF they're claiming, without sufficient evidence, that Giesel opposed abortion, that's wrong, a lie, and, frankly, typical (reminding me of using Dawkins and Gould to support creation/ID "science") -- and is scuzzy.