Posted by
cornpone on Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:04:19 AM
In a recent column, Michael Medved resorted to
the favorite tactic of pro-life writers to cite outrage over animal abuse cases as evidence that everyone but they have warped values if thise who soeak against obvious animal abuse do not quickly in the same breath, vigorously condemn abortion and child abuse.
Never mind that abortion and child abuse get ten thousand times the attention and news coverage that is devoted to occasionally reported animal abuse cases.
Like many understandably frustrated pro-life activists, Medved is chagrined by the public's increasing fatigue and impatience with the emotionally draining drum beat of the pro life movements' constant attempts to keep the spectre of dying babies ever before our eyes 24-7.
So Medved predictably used the public outcry over the Vick tragedy
to lambast and assign guilt to those Americans who expressed outrage over Vick's animal abuse-presumably for their misplaced priorities.
And on the surface it would seem as though Medved has a case, since there was no apparent public outcry over recent revelations of an MFL football star who reportedly has fathered numerous children and shamefully refused to pay child support to the mother of his children.
However, it also is worth noting that the public at large probably was largely unaware of the irresponsible NFL father's neglect of his parental duties.
But regardless of the direction of the media's focus, it is also true,
that the actions of the NFL star do, as Medved contends, have a cruel effect on kids.
Still, unlike Vick, who clearly intended to be cruel when he body slammed wounded dogs to the floor to kill them, the irresponsible NFL star and part time "father" was at least not intentionally trying to be cruel. And that is a clear and obvious distinction which at least partially explains the difference in the public's (perceived) emotional response.
And if Medved's simplistic analysis is taken to its logical conclusion, then nobody has any moral right to complain about any social ill whatsoever-UNLESS he/she can first show that their particular issue or public concern is as important as the issues of abortion or cruelty to children-which would of course be extremely difficult to do.
So, basically to "prove" our priorities and values are in decent order,
we would have to abandon 99% of all charity and volunteer work on behalf of people or animals in America until abortion and child cruelty issues are first addressed-or else have our priorities questioned-and frankly that's ridiculous.
|