An Open Letter Concerning the Rights of Zombie Children

 

Here at the Zombie Emergency Relief Organization we pride ourselves on treating the orphaned zombie children in our care with the utmost respect, always remembering that though they may be infected with the zombie virus, they are still children. Perhaps they no longer have a loving family, either because they were killed in the zombie cleansing slaughter of 2010 or because the child, unable to resist the lure of their disease, killed them. If they do have a family, the family might have found the burdens of zombie child caregiving to be too great or they worried about the possibility of their uninfected children becoming victims of this dread disease. No matter what the situation, our mission is to provide a safe, loving haven where they can grow and develop within the bounds of their disease. Sort of like Paul Newman‘s Hole in the Wall Camp for children with cancer, without Paul Newman or cancer.

 

For the most part, we stay out of the political fray and leave it to our Washington lobbyists to make our wishes heard. Today, though, we have become aware of a most gruesome mutilation that some our advocating to use on zombies – full mouth tooth extraction.

 

US Navy 080807-N-5086M-010 Thien-Kim Le, a Uni...

US Navy 080807-N-5086M-010 Thien-Kim Le, a University of California at San Diego (UCSD) student representing the UCSD Pre-Dental Society, assists Capt. Alex Smith, a U.S. Army dentist from New York, during a tooth extraction (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The theory behind this disfiguring surgery is that without teeth, zombies can’t bite. Without the ability to break skin, the infectious saliva of the infected can’t transmit the disease. No teeth equals no more zombies.

 

But, at what cost?

 

If we consider zombies to be humans with rights, full mouth tooth removal might be considered in the same light as genital mutilation or circumcision: medical procedures that have no medical justification and only serve to fulfill religious or cultural traditions. If we consider zombies to be animals, full mouth tooth removal might be akin to cat or dog declawing: medical procedures that have no medical justification and only serve to make a cat or dog less likely to destroy furniture. In a post on The Ethical Veterinarian, he relates people’s misconceptions about declawing as: ” In terms of analogy, they thought declawing was to nail trims what waxing is to shaving. No, not quite…it’s more like cutting off your legs so you don’t have to worry about waxing or shaving. ”

 

When we know there are other effective, non maiming methods to keep zombies from biting people, do we need to use full mouth tooth removal?

 

Jason's original mask was molded from a Detroi...

Jason’s original mask was molded from a Detroit Red Wings goalie mask, and would become a staple for the character for the rest of the series. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) Hockey masks are inexpensive, come in a variety of sizes, and can be removed for comfort.

 

 

Clean Kiss

Clean Kiss (Photo credit: gimme a pabst) Physical barrier to prevent biting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are medical indications for full mouth dental extractions, extensive tooth decay and severe periodontal disease are two, but this proposal to remove all of the teeth from the mouths of zombie children is an invasive violation of their rights. If we allow this to happen, it puts us on a slippery slope to remove the teeth of biting dogs, seniors, and even toddlers. This should not be allowed to happen.

Tooth!

Tooth! (Photo credit: Jacob Johan)

The Zombie Emergency Relief Organization requests that those of you willing to take a stand for the children please like this post as well as our Facebook page and help us send a message to Washington that this should not be allowed to happen.

LIKE this post and our Facebook page if you agree full mouth tooth removal should NOT be used on zombie children. SHARE this post to spread the word.

Advertisements

Friday Book Review: Darpocalypse by Joseph Souza

Web

Darpocalypse, by Joseph Souza, is the second installment of The Living Dead Trilogy. The title character is Dar, a teenage girl who floundered in life before the zombie apocalypse and flourishes in the aftermath as a brutal warrior and merciless leader.  Under Dar’s reign, the remaining residents of Boston live and work in a fenced-in area of the city as the zombie hordes relentlessly roam and moan outside their gates. It is a recipe for disaster.

Souza’s first novel served as a cautionary tale against genetically modified food. His second focuses on the lengths people will go to attain and keep power.   While Dar battles to keep control of Boston,  the President of the United States remains in control of the Washington, D.C. settlement. That is until Mike Brabas, a convicted domestic terrorist, decides to take over both Washington and Boston. Add in a spy the President sends to Boston to steal their greatest asset, and the zombies recede into the background as humans once again prove they are a bigger danger than the zombies.

One of the things that made Souza’s first book unique was his interpretation of zombies as half-animal half-human hybrids that retained their animal qualities, such as flight. In this novel, they have transformed into normal, shuffling, slow-moving flesh eaters, which, in some ways, make them less terrifying than his original concept. The religious angle from the first installment continues with the phenomenon of the newly departed coming back and speaking of religious matters before transitioning into zombies. Unfortunately, these scenes were few and didn’t serve to raise the intrigue or tension of this story line. My suspicion is that the payoff will come in the planned third book, but may have been better served in bigger doses in book two.

Of the major story lines, the one that followed Dar was the most interesting. She is a strong character, governed by the whims of a teenager and the hormonal imbalances of a teenaged mom. The scenes where wrongdoers are called to judgement in the Pit caused conflicting emotions of hating Dar for her blood lust, while feeling empathy for this girl who finds herself responsible for the life of a community. This responsibility, while readily accepted, still seemed an overwhelming burden and one that absolved Dar of some of her worst offenses.

Though the action driven plot moved along at a good clip, the Washington, D.C. characters and scenes seemed more generic and predictable than expected. Perhaps someone who doesn’t read and watch as much apocalyptic and military conspiracy theory as this reader would not have the same opinion, but, for me, the Boston part of the story carried my interest and kept me reading. Overall I preferred the first book, but, as in most trilogies, the second and third books have a higher expectation to meet. For me, this did not meet that expectation.