Citations:think of the children

English citations of think of the children

interjection suggesting moral panic

						1996	2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2009 2011 2012 2013 2014
ME «	15th c.	16th c.	17th c.	18th c.	19th c.	20th c.	21st c.

1996

1996 May 5, David X. Cohen, “Much Apu About Nothing”, in The Simpsons, season Season 7, episode 23 (Television episode), via 20th Century Fox, Production code: 3F20; Episode no. 151:
Helen Lovejoy: Think of the children!

2000

2000 December 2, Jeremy Patrick, “Don't forget, GLBT people have children, too”, in Lincoln Journal Star, Nebraska, via LexisNexis, page B5:
In 'The Simpsons,' one of my favorite characters is Rev. Lovejoy’s wife. Whenever the citizens of Springfield discuss any controversial issue, her immediate and hilariously shrill reponse is 'For heaven’s sake, would someone please think of the children?'
2000 December 2, Jeremy Patrick, “Don't forget, GLBT people have children, too”, in Lincoln Journal Star, Nebraska, via LexisNexis, page B5:
Like Rev. Lovejoy’s wife, we do need to think of the children. However, we need to think of all the children. The existence of gay and lesbian parents is a fact, not ideology. Proponents of anti-gay laws may be trying to 'save the children,' but the ultimate effect of such laws is to harm the physical and psychological well-being of millions of children currently raised by loving GLBT parents.

2001

2001 September 12, U.S. Senator Ted Stevens, “Terrorist Attacks Against the United States--Continued”, in Congressional Record‎^[1], volume 147, United States Government Printing Office, retrieved November 3, 2014, pages 16885–16916:
I think we should bury our differences, find a way to move the appropriations bills, deal with the subjects we have to deal with, and go back to our homes to try to assist people in understanding why we are going to act as we must act; that is, we must deliver the most fierce retaliation against these people that the world has ever seen, because if we do not--if we do not--we are going to have some copycats around the world who think they, too, can take a crack at this country. That is something I would not like to see. But I hope we all keep in mind and think of the young people, think of the children, and try to explain to them what they saw and why we are going to do what we must do.

2002

2002, John Meany, Kate Shuster, Art, Argument, and Advocacy: Mastering Parliamentary Debate, New York: International Debate Education Association, →ISBN, →OCLC, page 65:
This fallacy is what it sounds like. Speakers routinely try to play on the emotions of the crown in lieu of making real arguments. 'I know this national missile defense plan has its detractors, but won't someone please think of the children'?
2002 January 18, Russell C. Pavlicek, “Rewarding punishment”, in InfoWorld‎^[2], InfoWorld, Inc., archived from the original on November 3, 2014:
'We need to do it for the children,' cry the politicos. 'Think of the children!' 'For the children.' That's the phrase politicians in Washington use to justify an action so irrational that it cannot be justified any other way.

2003

2003 June 12, U.S. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, “Class Action Fairness Act of 2003”, in Congressional Record‎^[3], volume 149, number 86, United States Government Printing Office, retrieved November 3, 2014, page H5281-H5307:
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Think of the children playing on playgrounds and broken equipment with a class action lawsuit and ultimately the company is bought by a foreign corporation. This amendment makes this litigation better on behalf of the consumers and the people who need justice in America. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

2004

2004 July 8, Andrew Kantor, “Won't someone think of the children?”, in USA Today‎^[4], Gannett, retrieved November 2, 2014:
Too many people these days are thinking of the children, or at least claiming to think of them. Keeping kids safe and virginal — protected from seeing the 'wrong' things — is the rallying concept so many people use to forward their agendas. Ban this, eliminate that, censor the other thing — it's all done in the name of protecting children. Not, heaven forbid, because anyone wants to force their morality and sensibility on the rest of us. Perish the thought.

2005

2005 February 16, Jack Marshall, “'Think of the Children!': An Ethics Fallacy”, in Ethics Scoreboard‎^[5], Alexandria, Virginia: ProEthics, Ltd., archived from the original on February 22, 2014:
'Think of the children!' is a tried-and-true debate-stopper, but more often than not one that succeeds because of its ability to inhibit rational thought.
2005 February 16, Jack Marshall, “'Think of the Children!': An Ethics Fallacy”, in Ethics Scoreboard‎^[6], Alexandria, Virginia: ProEthics, Ltd., archived from the original on February 22, 2014:
Unless society sticks to principles that require adults to be responsible regarding the welfare of children in their charge, the 'Think of the children!' reflex will suffocate order and justice.
2005 February 16, Jack Marshall, “'Think of the Children!': An Ethics Fallacy”, in Ethics Scoreboard‎^[7], Alexandria, Virginia: ProEthics, Ltd., archived from the original on February 22, 2014:
The welfare of children does not trump all other values and principles. When we 'think of the children,' we need to think about the society they are going to grow up in as well.

2006

2006, Phillip A. Cole, “Bad Seeds”, in The Myth of Evil: Demonizing the Enemy, Praeger, →ISBN, page 122:
'Won't someone think of the children?' is the constant refrain of Reverend Lovejoy's wife in the cartoon series The Simpsons. Whatever crisis or panic grips the citizens of Springfield, she places the children at the centre of attention. The child, for her, is an innocent and helpless victim in constant need of protection.

2007

2007 March 21, U.S. Senator Christopher S. Bond, “Vice President Al Gore's Perspective on Global Warming”, in Congressional Record‎^[8], United States Government Printing Office, retrieved November 3, 2014:
Well, that is pretty stark language, if you believe you can overstate the facts to get a message out. You justify this by calling global warming a moral issue. You say we should think of the children when we consider the issue. I agree with you. But I happen to agree that the moral issue here when we think about children may be represented by what I consider a moral commitment to the child pictured here, and many like her. The little girl appeared in Capitol Hill newspapers. I don't know her name, but I fear her plight because it is shared by many Missourians.
2007 June 1, Georgia Little Shield, “The Needs and Challenges of Tribal Law Enforcement on Indian Reservations”, in Congressional Record‎^[9], United States Government Printing Office, retrieved November 3, 2014:
We have to think of the children that is also affected. Them as they see what happens in the home and no one comes to help them, where do they turn? Please, if we get anything from this at all today, please think of the children that this is affecting.

2009

2009, Scott Beattie, Community, Space and Online Censorship, Ashgate, →ISBN, pages 165–167:
Children are simultaneously the victims of predators and vulnerable to exposure to dangerous images. All accompanied by the shrill cry of 'will no one think of the children?'

2011

2011 November, Margie Borschke, “Rethinking the rhetoric of remix”, in Media International Australia incorporating Culture and Policy, volume 141, University of Queensland, School of Journalism and Communication, via InfoTrac, page 17:
Lessig entreats us to think of the children. It is an appeal to emotion and a rhetorical ploy
2011, Rebecca Coleman with Debra Ferreday, “Reading Disorders: Online Suicide and the Death of Hope”, in Hope and Feminist Theory, Routledge, →ISBN, page 99:
Moral panic has become in current media discourse the inevitable outcome of any story involving 'youth': in the blogosphere, 'Won't someone think of the children!' — the imagined battle-cry of the faux-outraged columnist — is in danger of becoming the new Godwin's law'
2011 July 1, Cory Doctorow, “Four Horsemen of the 3D Printing Apocalypse”, in Make magazine‎^[10], volume 27, Sebastopol, California: Maker Media, →ISSN, archived from the original on October 31, 2013, page 31:
Since the early days of computer regulation, hysterics have made recourse to the 'Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse': child pornographers, organized crime, terrorists, and pirates. Invoking one or more of these terrible fellows is often sufficient to stifle further debate and end critical thought ... 'Won't someone think of the children?!'

2012

2012, Charles J. Ten Brink, “Gayborhoods: Intersections of Land Use Regulation, Sexual Minorities, and the Creative Class”, in Georgia State University Law Review, volume 28, Georgia State University, via LexisNexis, page 789:
The 'not-in-my-back-yard' (NIMBY) phenomenon was typically, sometimes hysterically, reinforced by a cry of, 'What about the children?' Any difference, particularly a difference of lifestyle, was a threat.

2013

2013, Brian M. Reed, Nobody's Business: Twenty-First Century Avant-Garde Poetics, Cornell University Press, →ISBN, page 110:
The sentence 'how many kittens must die,' for example, could be delivered in the same histrionic, moralizing tone as Helen Lovejoy's signature line 'Won't somebody please think of the children?' on The Simpsons (1989-). Audiences laugh in response not because they despise kittens or children but because moral crusaders can be infuriatingly narrow in their interests as well as politically correct killjoys.
2013, Mike Watt, Fervid Filmmaking, McFarland, →ISBN, page 233:
Movies subjected to the harshest cuts or outright banning during this early period were usually Italian- or American-made horror movies deemed too graphic in their portrayal of violence for sensible human consumption. They became known colloquially as the 'Video Nasties.' In modern-day language, it could be called the 'Hellen Lovejoy 'Think of the Children' Classification.'

2014

2014 January 5, Carol Hunt, “Don't use our children as shields to protect status quo; The Helen Lovejoy argument against gay adoption is simply discrimination in a 'caring' guise, writes Carol Hunt”, in Sunday Independent, Independent Newspapers Ireland Limited, via LexisNexis, page 27:
The problem with using the 'Won't anyone think of the children' defence when arguing against adoption rights for LGBT couples is that, because there isn't a shred of evidence to support your argument (on the contrary, it discriminates against children already born) -- what you're really saying can be interpreted as: 'Those gays can get married and do whatever it is they like to each other but I wouldn't trust some of them near a child.' ... This reference to concerns about children in relation to same- sex adoption is akin to the 'Helen Lovejoy defence' (see Alan Flanagan's Marriage Equality, The Iona Institute and Helen Lovejoy Syndrome), Lovejoy being a character in The Simpsons who, when rational argument had failed her, screeched, 'Won't someone please think of the children!'
2014 April 26, Edward Keenan, “'Won't somebody please think of the children!'; The Simpsons has taught us not to trust anyone who stoops to use the corruptibility of children to advance a political argument”, in The Toronto Star, via LexisNexis, page IN2:
'Won’t somebody please think of the children!' That’s the first argumentative refuge of scoundrels, cheats and liars, and despite being satirized fairly comprehensively by Lovejoy’s character for well over a decade, it’s still a surprisingly common — and depressingly effective — tactic.
2014 April 26, Edward Keenan, “'Won't somebody please think of the children!'; The Simpsons has taught us not to trust anyone who stoops to use the corruptibility of children to advance a political argument”, in The Toronto Star, via LexisNexis, page IN2:
You could call it Lovejoy's Law: If, during an argument, someone begs you to ‘please think of the children,’ they’re probably . . . hoping to distract you from the worthlessness of their position. Because when we really care about the children, we don’t let people use them to manipulate us into accepting their politics. Instead, we engage in real debate.

- 2004 July 8, Andrew Kantor, “Won't someone think of the children?”, in USA Today‎^[11], Gannett, retrieved November 2, 2014:
  Too many people these days are thinking of the children, or at least claiming to think of them. Keeping kids safe and virginal — protected from seeing the 'wrong' things — is the rallying concept so many people use to forward their agendas. Ban this, eliminate that, censor the other thing — it's all done in the name of protecting children. Not, heaven forbid, because anyone wants to force their morality and sensibility on the rest of us. Perish the thought.

Sincere plea

1996 July 31, U.S. Representative Deborah Pryce, “Conference Report on H.R. 3734, Personal Responsibility and Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996”, in Congressional Record‎^[12], volume 142, United States Government Printing Office, retrieved November 3, 2014, page H9392-H9424:
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to have the courage to set aside the status quo, to think of the children and families of this Nation and to embrace real reform. I urge a 'yes' vote on both sides of the aisle for this rule and the conference report.