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?
