Tired of This One
Please forgive my candor, but there is one argument for abortion I am a bit tired of hearing.
Last week, in between my speaking engagements in L.A. and Fort Wayne, Indiana (more on these soon), I was once again on the streets of Columbus. A new Created Equal recruit and I walked up to a man looking at our signs to ask his opinion of what he was seeing.
In the midst of our conversation, after agreeing to the humanity of the preborn, the man said, "But if they're going to be a burden on society . . ." and let his voice trail off. Though he didn't finish the sentence, the implication was clear: because some children may be born into difficult situations and become a "drain on society," it is better to kill them.
The elitism of this assertion is rather astonishing. I can understand the abortion advocate's position when he actually denies the humanity of the preborn. However, it is something else entirely to acknowledge evidence to the contrary yet still argue that these humans ought to be killed because they are a "burden."
What should we do with humans who drain our resources? (Side note: what child isn't a "drain" in some respects? Ask their parents. This is the nature of raising children. Yet no one argues that wanted children who take from their parents' resources ought to be killed.) Should we kill those who only take and cannot yet give a return on our investment? What about humans who are handicapped and may never reach the level of productivity others do?
The conclusions to which such a view lead are nothing less than terrifying---because man has been there before. And, what he did was despicable. Check out the chilling story here.
This view of basing man's value upon his function is safe for all who are currently viewed by those in power as productive. But, definitions of productivity change.
We were able to convey this to the man on the street, and he not only understood but eventually agreed with our position. But, the frequency with which I hear this argument is evidence of its prized position within the fabric of the abortion popular-level rhetoric---in spite of the blatant elitism and prejudice contained within.
Which side of the debate is fighting for human rights? Is it the one which wishes to allow "burdens" to be destroyed or who demands that all humans be treated with dignity and respect?
I, unfortunately, all too often hear pro-life people complain bitterly about the lower levels of society (WIC mothers, those on government aid) as equally a "drain on society". We pro-lifers can't have it both ways. There will always be those who are a "drain on society" and it seems to me we can't only support those who are in utero but complain about those who are not. I consider the current mindset to cut, cut, cut programs for the poor a pro-life issue.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the pro-life ethic must respect all humans and not look down upon any as mere "dregs of society" unworthy of life or aid.
ReplyDeleteI do see a difference, though, between the abortion debate and that surrounding the welfare system. Those seeking welfare reform which involves some cutbacks are not necessarily just wanting to cut away aid to the less fortunate (although some might). There is a deeper debate involved, which is: what is the best way to help these people in need? Some believe it is government handouts. Others believe this is short-sighted.
That debate will inform one's views of cutting back or adding to the programs---and the type of programs which are chosen.
Those in favor of abortion on demand, however, are actually advocating for a system which kills humans---not merely an alternative method of helping those humans.
Again, I totally agree that we must uphold the dignity of all humans. I do, however, see a difference in the debates.
What do you think?
Elizabeth, a friend of mine, just sent me this on Facebook. For some reason, blogger won't let her post a comment (I'll look into this). So, she asked me to post for her:
ReplyDeleteElizabeth:
I've tried to post this comment several times now, but blogger keeps erasing it.
As a now former WIC mom & medicaid recipient, this argument always frustrated me as well. Although I have heard people who may call themselves "pro-life" say negative things about those on government assistance, they usually do so apart from the abortion debate. However, pro-choice advocates use the idea that if a child is be born to a poor, uneducated mother, it might be better to abort -- as if a life of difficulty automatically is not worth living! As if I've done my daughter and myself some sort of disservice by deciding to give her life! And why? Because those born poor are more likely to stay poor, because those born to a parent without higher education are less likely to achieve academically than others, etc. How insulting that you now must have education and money to have a life worth living!
I have never heard a pro-choicer use the argument as the man in your story did (kill them because they use resources), but usually they paint it as the compassionate option. I am sick of them using my circumstance as a justification for abortion, because whether they realize it or not, they are insinuating that my daughter's life could have been ended and it would have been perfectly fine.