I heard two women arguing yesterday. One was pro-life and the other was pro-choice. I could see that the pro-life woman was truly distressed to learn her friend/acquaintance was pro-choice but the argument she gave disturbed me.
The conversation started out about pulling the plug on someone at the end of life. Soon, the sad case of “that Schiavo woman” was raised. The pro-lifer argued that if the law didn’t protect Terry Schiavo that one day it wouldn’t protect “useful people.”
Hmmm…
Within a minute the topic of abortion came up. Once again the pro-lifer argued that if we allow the killing of the unborn who’s to say that one day it won’t be legal to kill the born.
Now, I know these are arguments to be made to highlight the randomness of choosing birth as the line between where death and life can be decided by others. But we must also be careful not to argue against the starving of Terry Schiavo because someday someone actually useful might be killed. Or that if we allow the unborn to be killed then someday tragically the born will be next on the hit list.
One must be careful not to accept the premises of the other side in this debate. We should not argue that the death of someone “useful” is a greater horror than the bedridden. Every killing is tragic in that it takes someone’s life and puts the soul of the taker in jeopardy.
Euthanasia and abortion are evil, not just when they happen to useful people. The worst possible thing in the world happened in the Terry Schiavo case just as it happens every time a mother kills her unborn child. Life is not a slippery slope argument. Once it becomes one we’ve already lost.
October 19, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Hmmm. I cringed at the "useful" comment too as anyone should. A 5 year old isn't useful, unless demolition of random things is counted as useful. The value of a 5 year old isn't his or her usefulness, that value is innate as you pointed out.
But her logic is just as valid as your own and they don't contradict each other. Essentially, it's a logic of consistency. Anything of murdered prenatal babies can also be said about the person you're talking to. Any reason for killing him or her can also be similarly applied. Anyone who denies this is being inconsistent. Emotions are the only thing that allow us not to see this…but emotions can be desensitized through appropriate abstraction and indoctrination. That is the slippery slope. Look at Nazi Germany. First the mentally ill and severely disabled were targeted "to protected future generations", then the definition of mentally ill and disabled were expanded until they included Jews and non-Caucasians. Had the end result been presented to the average Germany at the beginning as the plan, the Nazis would have never gotten elected. But once elected, desensitizing the population didn't take too long due to the slippery slope. The problem was the faulty initial premise.
October 19, 2010 at 2:47 pm
I obviously didn't hear the conversation, however, if the absolute value of life was argued to be the same in utero and at (or after) birth, the argument was on…
just like this shirt (from ALL).
Gerry
October 19, 2010 at 3:35 pm
But the real argument about 'usefulness' was missed. Terry was useful. She taught us to love, not for what others can do for us, but for the opportunity to grow in service for the sake of love. I know people make the argument that we need to protect all people because the 'useful' ones will one day be in danger if we don't, but it is a lack of faith, and an inability to overcome self-interest if we think only people who can 'do' something for us are useful. "Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary." — Pope Benedict XVI
October 19, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Ranting Catholic Mom- I like your argument!
October 19, 2010 at 7:54 pm
Perhaps the prolifer was caught flatfooted by her friend's admission and arguments. I have a hard time arguing extemporaneously and have made more than a few gaffes I've later regretted.
October 19, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Like Subvet said, I can easily think of better arguments from the comfort of my armchair. When fae to face, surprised by a friend's stance, I would be doing good I think to be able to make he slippery slope argument. After all, the goal of such a conversation is more likely to be giving my friend something to think about, helping her to begin looking from a different perspective. It is highly unlikely one conversation will fully convert her to the pro-life view.
That said, I do find online conversations like this one helpful to me so that I am more likely to have better arguments at my fingertips when I do find myself in such situations. I think it is good to hash it out and to think of the best arguments we can. And then to remember that real life often catches us by surprise and that most of us are not very good at arguing on our feet. Who knows but that the Holy Spirit wasn't guiding that pro-life woman to the argument that was best for that pro-choice friend at that time. Maybe it was what she was ready to hear and will plant a seed that will begin a long process of changing her heart.
October 20, 2010 at 2:03 am
actually, what we should be arguing is that someone who is "bedridden" is just as useful as someone who is not bedridden.
i'm not going to lie. as a disabled person i sometimes get very frustrated with how prolifers can get it, and then so thoroughly not get it. Mr. Archbold, aren't you the same person who wrote the article demeaning the DOJ for daring to give blind people access to digital books using the ridiculous argument that standard print's also not accessible? and then the commbox was filled with things like "can't they just live with books on tape" etc? and "my brother reads Braille so isn't that great?"
i'm too tired to try and spell out how these two concepts are related. but so often prolifers say things like "just because they're not useful doesn't mean they're not valuable". ugh. how condescending. and so often, the reasons we're not able to be "useful" is because we're told, often by social conservatives, to settle for what we have, to accept an office on the first floor instead of renovating an entire building, to just be content with our 6,000 Braille books in the Library of Congress as millions go digital to the sighted public. and whether you want to recognize it or not, what that perpetuates is a hierarchy based on perceived utility in which certain people are valued above and beyond others.
so just remember, every time you're out there trying to convince a woman her child is worthwhile and deserves the right to life, there are thousands of disabled people out there trying to convince the rest of you that we're worthwhile and deserving of things like education, jobs, houses, and the technology to facilitate all of that.
lux_perpetua
[who uses a $1,000 piece of technology to access her $600 laptop]
October 20, 2010 at 4:13 am
We believe and the Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal. All men are endowed with sovereign personhood at conception by “Our Creator”. The state can only endow a person with citizenship at birth. The child conceived as a sovereign person constitutes our nation, as equally as other men already born. Morally and legally innocent the newly conceived and endowed person is the standard of Justice. As a person, the individual is in possession of his own body, one cell, because personhood takes no space. He does not belong to the mother’s body. Abortion to save the life of the mother intends to save the mother and baby. Abortion on demand intends to end the life in the womb.
There is no reply. We have murdered 157 million persons in the womb, because evil has overtaken our nation and we as a people have succumbed to evil, narcissism, pretending to be God, procreating life and destroying life. Who will protect us unless we protect each other? One cannot live without life.
Mary De Voe
October 20, 2010 at 6:29 am
How the heck is the flat-out fact that usefulness isn't required for value "condescending"? My little Kit isn't very useful– she's a drain on the system, even, if we're going all utilitarian– but she's the most valuable thing (no, there really isn't a better word for that) in my life, because she's a person, and I love her, and she's helpless. Elf fits two of the three, there.
Also, the post was not about the DOJ "giving" blind folks access, it was about them trying to stop use of technology that was at least equally accessible to the disabled, and that anyone who pays attention would realize could make it MORE accessible for those who can't use text books or e-readies both.
But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good rant, right?
October 20, 2010 at 7:34 pm
I too often think of things I could have said after having a spontaneous pro-life discussion. Over the years it has become better(not ever easy) and I agree that online conversations have been a great help. The woman deserves kudos for standing up for life. It is always, always distressing to find out that someone you like, are friends with or developing a friendship with, is pro-abortion.
October 21, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Foxfier:
Wow… here's hoping you don't speak to your valuable child with such
dripping disdain if and when she happens to disagree with you. Very
counter-productive, really.
The point of my post is that there is a difference between one's
usefulness because of one's stage in life and/or disability, one's
crosses so to speak, and the use-LESS-ness imposed on people because of
societal constraints and because of our unwillingness to recognize their
value and, subsequently, give them access to the things that we value as
well.
October 21, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Using the example of the DOJ suit, the kindle is not "as equally
accessible" to the disabled as standard print-if we look at potential.
That's laughable. Do you know how I made standard print accessible to me
in college? By scanning each individual page, thousands upon thousands
of pages into a scanner through OCR recognition software that costs
$1,000. Aside from the additional money, this added additional time to
every single assignment I needed to complete. Does this add or detract
from my usefulness? before scanners and software existed, blind people
made standard print accessible by paying readers [often out of their own
pocket] to read to them-again a process which caused more time and money
than the sighted needed to expend. Do you know what prevents the kindle
from making books "equally accessible' to the blind? A whole lot of
myopic thinking [demonstrated by your post above], a few lines of
computer code, and greedy publishers claiming copyright infringement.
The former is, in its nature, inherently inaccessible due to
technological limitations and the medium through which information was
conveyed. The second is unequal because people do not see the value in
making it equal and make ridiculous claims like "I think that the
federal government is adamantly opposed to the use of e-readers as an
alternative to textbooks for fear of loss of control."
Just like the ADA mandated that all newly constructed public buildings
must allow for those who use wheelchairs free access while recognizing
that existing buildings needed to be modified over time as additions
and/or repairs were made, we believe that any new technological product
which is not, inherently, inaccessible to the blind must also give us
equal access. Is this really such a hard thing to understand? Is it
really that difficult to see how this is an issue for the culture of
life and related to all of our concerns about "death panels" and such?
I challenge you to go through your day today and take note of all
technology you would be unable to use if blind, and to ask yourself how
this effects your usefulness. Ask yourself if the technology is
inherently inaccessible to the blind. Have you gone to an ATM? Made a
purchase where you had to enter your debit pin on a touch screen?
ordered a sandwich at wawa? Used an AMTRAK or airline ticket printing
kiosk? Used a new flat-screen washer, dryer, dishwasher, or oven? Do you
work at a company that uses a MFC copy/print/fax machine? How about your
cell phone? Would you be as useful at your job if the caller id, text
messaging features, and internet browsing capabilities were
inaccessible? Have you tried to make a comment on a NCR article only you
couldn't because the only way to prove you're not a robot is through
visual confirmation?
Lux_perpetua
October 21, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Using the example of the DOJ suit, the kindle is not "as equally
accessible" to the disabled as standard print-if we look at potential.
That's laughable. Do you know how I made standard print accessible to me
in college? By scanning each individual page, thousands upon thousands
of pages into a scanner through OCR recognition software that costs
$1,000. Aside from the additional money, this added additional time to
every single assignment I needed to complete. Does this add or detract
from my usefulness? before scanners and software existed, blind people
made standard print accessible by paying readers [often out of their own
pocket] to read to them-again a process which caused more time and money
than the sighted needed to expend. Do you know what prevents the kindle
from making books "equally accessible' to the blind? A whole lot of
myopic thinking [demonstrated by your post above], a few lines of
computer code, and greedy publishers claiming copyright infringement.
The former is, in its nature, inherently inaccessible due to
technological limitations and the medium through which information was
conveyed. The second is unequal because people do not see the value in
making it equal and make ridiculous claims like "I think that the
federal government is adamantly opposed to the use of e-readers as an
alternative to textbooks for fear of loss of control."
Just like the ADA mandated that all newly constructed public buildings
must allow for those who use wheelchairs free access while recognizing
that existing buildings needed to be modified over time as additions
and/or repairs were made, we believe that any new technological product
which is not, inherently, inaccessible to the blind must also give us
equal access. Is this really such a hard thing to understand? Is it
really that difficult to see how this is an issue for the culture of
life and related to all of our concerns about "death panels" and such?
;
October 21, 2010 at 1:30 pm
I challenge you to go through your day today and ;take note of all
technology you would be unable to use if blind, and to ask yourself how
this effects your usefulness. Ask yourself if the technology is
inherently inaccessible to the blind. Have you gone to an ATM? Made a
purchase where you had to enter your debit pin on a touch screen?
ordered a sandwich at wawa? Used an AMTRAK or airline ticket printing
kiosk? Used a new flat-screen washer, dryer, dishwasher, or oven? Do you
work at a company that uses a MFC copy/print/fax machine? How about your
cell phone? Would you be as useful at your job if the caller id, text
messaging features, and internet browsing capabilities were
inaccessible? Have you tried to make a comment on a NCR article only you
couldn't because the only way to prove you're not a robot is through
visual confirmation?
Lux_perpetua
October 21, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Lux_perpetua –
if you think that's dripping disdain, you a very sheltered. If you think the cheap attempt to use my daughter against me is effective, you need more practice. For starters, an accusation must be close to pride or fear to be effective.
The Kindle is equally or more accessible to the blind because it has text to speech. So your great long whine about what you had to go through to convert text books to a usable form supports what I said.
Book: silent block of ink and paper.
Kindle: block of plastic and metal that, sometimes, can read aloud for you.
Making book useful: hours of scanning with expensive technology.
Making Kindle useful: a few seconds with the menu, with the chance that Amazon will make it more blind-friendly in the future– or add text-to-speech to its PC ap.
Are you really pissed because the Kindle can be a relatively cheap and quick alternative to what you had to do? Heaven forbid it become the norm, all the texts might be available in a form that can be electronically read aloud!
Are you mad because a baby-step forward isn't perfect? Ah, far better to smother it now, then, lest it grow and improve. Heaven forbid that there be an option for others that, though it might help those who can't see, isn't as perfectly helpful as it could be.
You want to be a martyr in your own mind, cool. Stop dragging others into it. There's plenty of folks who really will think lowly of you because you're not strong and perfect.
There's no need to create conflict by claiming to be victimized by a less-than-perfect technology, and a society that still assumes most can see.