"Think of the children" (also "What about the children?") is a cliché that evolved into a rhetorical tactic. In the literal sense, it refers to children's rights (as in discussions of child labor). In debate, it is a plea for pity that is used as an appeal to emotion, and therefore may become a logical fallacy.
Art, Argument, and Advocacy (2002) argued that the appeal substitutes emotion for reason in debate. Ethicist Jack Marshall wrote in 2005 that the phrase's popularity stems from its capacity to stunt rationality, particularly discourse on morals. "Think of the children" has been invoked by censorship proponents to shield children from perceived danger. Community, Space and Online Censorship (2009) argued that classifying children in an infantile manner, as innocents in need of protection, is a form of obsession over the concept of purity. A 2011 article in the Journal for Cultural Research observed that the phrase grew out of a moral panic.
It was an exhortation in the 1964 Disney film Mary Poppins, when the character of Mrs. Banks pleaded with her departing nanny not to quit and to "think of the children!" The phrase was popularized as a satiric reference on the animated television program The Simpsons in 1996, when character Helen Lovejoy pleaded variations of "Will someone please think of the children?" multiple times during a contentious debate by citizens of the fictional town of Springfield.
In the 2012 Georgia State University Law Review, Charles J. Ten Brink called Lovejoy's use of "Think of the children" a successful parody. The appeal's subsequent use in society was often the subject of mockery. After its popularization on The Simpsons, an appeal to the welfare of children has been called "Lovejoy's Law", the "Lovejoy argument", the "Mrs. Lovejoy fallacy", the "Helen Lovejoy defence", "Helen Lovejoy syndrome", the "Lovejoy Trap", and "think-of-the-children-ism".
Child advocacy
"Think of the children" has been used in its literal sense to advocate for the rights of children. Early usage during the 20th century included writings in 1914 by the National Child Labor Committee criticizing child labor standards in the United States. U.S. President Bill Clinton used the phrase in a 1999 speech to the International Labour Organization, asking his audience to imagine a significant reduction in child labor: "Think of the children ... freed of the crushing burden of dangerous and demeaning work, given back those irreplaceable hours of childhood for learning and playing and living."
The phrase's literal use extends into the 21st century, with Sara Boyce of the Children's Law Centre in Northern Ireland drawing on it to advocate for the legal rights of the region's children. The 2008 book Child Labour in a Globalized World used the phrase to call attention to the role of debt bondage in child labor. Sara Dillon of Suffolk University Law School used the phrase "What about the children" in her 2009 book, International Children's Rights, to focus on child-labor program conditions. Benjamin Powell used the phrase differently in his book, Out of Poverty: Sweatshops in the Global Economy, writing that in the absence of child labor some youth faced starvation. In a 2010 book on human rights, Children's Rights and Human Development, child psychiatrist Bruce D. Perry used the phrase "think of the children" to urge clinicians to incorporate a process sensitive to developmental stages when counseling youth.
Debate tactic
Logical fallacy
In their 2002 book, Art, Argument, and Advocacy: Mastering Parliamentary Debate, John Meany and Kate Shuster called the use of the phrase "Think of the children" in debate a type of logical fallacy and an appeal to emotion. According to the authors, a debater may use the phrase to emotionally sway members of the audience and avoid logical discussion. They provide an example: "I know this national missile defense plan has its detractors, but won't someone please think of the children?" Their assessment was echoed by Margie Borschke in an article for the journal Media International Australia incorporating Culture and Policy, with Borschke calling its use a rhetorical tactic.