It seems that’s **all **they’re going after.
(Sorry, I know that was way too easy.)
Sometimes they’re even picked for Vice President.
Ohhh gosh that almost struck a nerve. :rolleyes: Just because the word can be regarded as proper terminology doesn’t mean that there aren’t hateful and prejudicial connotations that surround it. I don’t like the word, some other join in that belief. If you feel that using a word surrounded by negative feelings makes your life that bit more confortable then be my guest.
Well, I don’t like the term “UK” or “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.” It makes me feel bad about the subjugation of my ancestors, and I don’t want to feel bad, so all of you stop using that name right now and call it “The Mostly United Kingdom of The Wholly British Isles and One Partially British-ruled Island, Parts of Which Ruled Part Don’t Want That Either.” Because even though “UK” is the right term, that doesn’t mean anything in the face of my being offended.
“Developmentally Disabled” just means “retarded” and “developmentally delayed” is wrong. Let’s just call a spade a spade.
On to the OP: If you can wrap your head around the concept of voting, can pick your candidate and articulate WHY you want to vote for that candidate, I say go right ahead and vote. Plenty of medically “normal” people vote on one issue anyway, and plenty more medically “normal” people flick the lever their church/ leader/ hero tells them to flick anyway. So if you are developmentally disabled and decide to vote for a candidate that will increase funding to mainstreaming/ job-placement/ home-care/ patients’ rights, then you are, in my estimation, a better voter than a single, male, virgin, religious nut who votes for the pro-life candidate for that reason only, simply because pastor says that’s the way to go.
::: puts on asbestos suit, awaits flaming from offenderati who didn’t finish reading the post :::
I’ve heard, from time to time, some real horror stories of infants delivered with forceps. It seems that they present a real and obvious risk to the health of an infant, and whether that is simply due to incompetence or is innate in the tool is what I’m curious about.
So, are infants still delivered with forceps? Is that a standard, acceptable obstetric practice?
Golly.
I realize this sort of thing touches a nerve in many folks for many very good reasons, but methinks we sometimes confuse offense intended by an offender with offense inferred by the offendee.
(1st aside: regarding equating “black” with “the ‘N’ word,” black people do that amongst themselves all the time. But there is a difference between using a word or term (that happens to have gone out of favor) with no perjorative intent and using a word or term that was invented to be perjorative.)
(2nd aside: why does “African American” refer to a black person of African heritage, but not a person with, say, Egyptian or Moroccan or South-African heritage? Just wonderin’.)
I also think that we often become offended for others way too much. Let them speak for themselves, and then honor their requests if reasonable. Then, when one does speak for himself, do not assume that he also speaks for all others with whom we associate him.
In short, why don’t we just communicate, and quit worrying about getting our widdle feewings hurt?
(Ducks behind the sofa…)
But it’s NOT synonymous…Me thinks some people need to read more before posting here…
Although your def. of Dev. Disabled is whacked (mentally retardation is just one aspect of the term developmentally disabled, not vice-versa), your reasoning on the OP is dead on. Put away the asbestos suit.