another young disabled woman

a daddy says goodbye
puts his baby girl in the truck,
closes the door and watches her
as she slowly fades away

or at least that’s what the stories tells you
they don’t call this murder
they never do
but latimer was his name and really his little girl was one of us

i saw a forum the other day about yet another little girl
a lot of the same things were being said and when disabled people cried out
the moderators said “forgive us! we need disability 101, okay!”
but why does the fact that people should not be killed have to be taught?

i do not going around telling people they aren’t worthy of air
of education
of rights
of life

and if i did, i would not expect that getting awareness or taking a class would rid me of these thoughts
yes we need more understanding between people
but some thing shouldn’t need an explanation
afterall, aren’t we still human?

maybe i don’t want an answer to that.

Advertisements

14 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

14 responses to “another young disabled woman

  1. Is it just me, or as of late, does it seem that the animal rights folks get more pubilicty about the evils of euthanasia, and how wrong it is to do to all of these shelter animals, than the disabled community does where so many people seem to uphold that this act was ok to do to another human being?

  2. HOW SAD! Perhaps we have to think of it as becoming more human. History shows us how excessive violence was used in the past. Gladiators, torture, slavery etc. By accident I caught the end of Braveheart recently. I almost threw up. We have to get rid of that part of being human, the savage part. Oh there’s so much left to do…. Thanks for saying it.

  3. i don’t follow animal rights as much as i probably should but i think a lot of things get more attention than the evils of euthanasia. or at least get portrayed more correctly than stories about disabled people.

    : )

  4. It is rather interesting when you compare the 2. A lot of times, there seems to be more public support for the “small, cute and fuzzy” than there is for those of the same species. Even though the issues they claim are the same- they can’t speak for themselves, they don’t know nay better, they need “us” to decide for them and care for them, etc. I mean if you look at the number of ‘fundraisers’ just on the internet to raise money to ‘help Buddy walk with his crippling leg caused by physical abuse’ when really it would monetarily cost a whole lot less to just give the dog who has been running the streets for months and was severely emotionally & physically abused for years so has a lot more rehab than just to fix his leg, the euthanasia solution, but people support that, “fixing Buddy’s leg and then his later rehab” citing that he’s lived though enough, he just needs to find a loving home and given a chance, we can’t be so barbaric to take that chance of a good life away from poor Buddy, now can we? Yet, the overall consensus on the same thing for a person with the same supposed “intellectual” capabilities of that dog, it would be better to “put her out of her misery, she’ll never get enough out of life.” Just an interesting thing to have noticed.

  5. I don’t think that making disability rights and animal welfare (not animal rights- not the same movement) mutually exclusive will help further the cause of awareness of the sickeningly casual societal attitudes towards the death of people with disabilities. I have been an animal welfare activist for years and cared for many animals with disabilities, including many deaf and blind animals. It is an interesting observation to be sure, but to be angry that the cute and fuzzy is getting resources that could be allocated towards people with disabilities is misguided. People who have compassion towards those with limited voices to defend their own rights do not necessarily divide their compassion by species; they may simply not know that someone with severe CP who uses a communication device to communicate likes and dislikes is effectively in the same shoes as a dog, who, given a voice, would likely say, “Don’t kill me, darnit, just fix my leg!”

    It may be that people who advocate for animals yet support euthanasia for humans just are not aware of the parallels between the two movements. Reaching out to animal welfare advocates might be a good step and might help to direct awareness to the issue here.

  6. thanks for pointing that out veralidaine, that makes a lot of sense. just on a human rights level, i think it’s frusterating sometimes when people go to extreme measures to help animals and not humans (i.e. paying thousands for a surgery and then holding on tight to your money when it comes to people or those three dogs in the news that are sitting on $15 million) because it seems like having pets is something you can do if you only have money and to deny that by not giving money to other humans for whatever reason seem like an injustice (although people have the right to spend their money on whatever they want).

    but you’re right— there is no reason why being an animal welfare activist and being a human rights activist has to be exclusive; in fact it seems like the two would go hand in hand. thanks for also pointing out the difference between animal welfare and animal rights.

  7. “be angry that the cute and fuzzy is getting resources that could be allocated towards people with disabilities is misguided. ”

    yes, I agree. I’m not angry. I’ve been involved in animal welfare in the past and think it is a very necessary part of our world. And I live with a number of re-homes & rescue dogs at the present time, and I wouldn’t trade it for the world. I just think it is an interesting observation.

  8. It definitely is an interesting observation. I think there is something there, if you look at it long enough- my mother said something to me when I started blogging about disability that first shocked me and struck me as offensive, but now seems to make more sense when I analyze it. She told me, “Well, it’s sort of a natural outgrowth of your love of animals.” That first made me almost spit out my drink because it sounded so blatantly discriminatory- but thinking about it, she is right that the two types of activism, for me, connect- and maybe in that there is a way to reach out to the people who are passionate about animals and get them just as mad about inaccessible buildings and DNRs and discrimination in employment as they are about breed specific legislation and high-kill shelters. There is a perception that every human should be responsible for him or herself, and that there is inherent weakness in saying, “I can’t,” regardless of circumstances. But a dog doesn’t have to say “I can’t talk-” It can’t talk! Nobody is judging a dog for not being able to do things that, because it was born a dog, it is unable to do- and most animal lovers don’t really see animals as inherently less than people, just different. The comparison is only offensive when you look at it from the perspective that humans come first, human life has the greatest value, humans were chosen by a Supreme Being and given the right to subjugate animals- but when you think about it from the perspective of someone who is passionate about animal welfare, it becomes clear that we actually ARE giving rights to dogs that we aren’t giving to people in wheelchairs, and that this isn’t any reason to treat dogs worse- but it’s a DARN GOOD reason to treat people in wheelchairs a little bit better!

  9. Dipika Nath

    Actually, animal rights — in a serious sense, not as PETA or the Humane Society would have it — fundamentally challenges the notion of “human rights,” which draws on the Enlightenment model of the full human (and we know the profile of that one). It disrupts anthropocentrism and with it race-, gender-, sexuality, ability-based hierarchies. I don’t think that thousands of dollars should be spent on one animal — nonhuman or human. I do think that feminists and other politically progressive people ought not to exploit nonhuman animals. I am not saying they need to love animals or find comfort and companionship in them but that they they need to recognise that the tools that are used to “dehumanise” certain humans rely upon a prior desubjectivation of nonhuman animals as the ethically irrelevant other of humans. There is a close relationship between colonial theories of race, gender, class, and species difference. The consumerist and uncritical trend in all politics, not only in animal rights — which seems to be the real problem here — is reason to reclaim the political vision, not give up on it.

  10. Pingback: Link Love for 2008-01-04 | A Slant Truth

  11. I’m still crying from reading the comments in this newspaper,

    http://www.thestar.com/News/article/283184

    Where a whole bunch of “average citizens” weigh in to say that the guy was totally justified in murdering his daughter. I feel like telling those people, “oh, great, how about you give him a job doing it… and send him to your mom’s nursing home.” I’d say it, except if I did, they just might do it.

  12. Pingback: 2008 Starts with the Murder of a Young Disabled Man - Veralidaine

  13. I should’ve come around here when that was happening. Just, ugh… that thread was so frustrating to deal with, and that on top of the way the article Kay referenced was written in the first place.

    No one should need a class to understand why it’s wrong to kill another human or let her die.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s