Aug 022007

There is an interesting post about abortion and eugenics over at Postmodern Conservative . Here is some of it:

Similarly, all the arguments about the sanctity of human life can remain accurate while still the fact remains that some genetic diseases are so awful that families ought to be able to prevent stricken children from coming into the world. Clearly the issue here is ‘the line’ to be drawn, the ‘gray area’ we blunder into. But we are already in that area. There is no way out of that area. The sanctity-of-life argument is tremendously powerful, but it is finally a moral position, and as such cannot be proven, and has to ‘win’, if it can, on other grounds, grounds outside of proof. I do not see how that can be accomplished at the national level today.

It reminds me of a discussion about abortion on a mailing list several years ago. In answer to a pointed question:

I said: “No, I don’t think abortion is the same as murder.”

She said: “I’m glad you’re finally beginning to see the difference.”

I said: “Similarly, I wish you would begin to see the similarities.”

That’s the way I like to remember it, anyway. I didn’t look through the archives to make sure I got it exactly right, word for word.

Over at Postmodern Conservative, I commented about a comparison with the Amish people. (BTW, a lot of my understanding about the Amish view of technology is what I’ve learned at the Menno-Hof museum in Shippshewana, Indiana.)

I like to ride my bike in Amish country, and when I tell people about such things as encountering a horse-drawn Amish buggy towing a fishing boat that has a small outboard motor, they sometimes act surprised, as though I caught them in some sort of hypocrisy. No, I explain, they aren’t anti-technology per se. They are against things that will break up the family. They don’t drive cars, because once you have cars, you have family members going off in all directions and not spending time with each other. If they adopt too much mechanization of agriculture, then people don’t need to work together in the fields, and they become isolated from each other. And to have control of such a powerful thing as a car will instill a sense of pride in the psyche, which will be harmful to the sense of humility that they value. (They seem to understand the advertising of cars very well.)

It’s not so much a matter of technology = bad, but of what technology will do to them as a community and as individuals. They are very selective in what they adopt. And not all communities make the same decisions about what is permissible and what is not.

Similarly, I think we need to view the abortion issue in the same way. It is not so much a matter of whether or not it falls into the categories known as murder or eugenics, but of whether it is something that could eventually make us into the kind of people who could be capable of murder or Hitler-style eugenics.

But maybe I’m putting too fine a point on it. I have the impression that some Amish people do just take the position of Technology = Bad, Luxury = Bad, without going into any deep agonizing over it. If I were to look for such Amish people, I would begin by making inquires in the community my wife and I encountered here, near Geneva, Indiana.

Aug 012007

This SCHIP thing has the leftwing chorus singing in harmony, on cue. Here’s an example from a mailing list I’m on:

Leftwing choir member: “I think everyone should have access to health care, but our top priority should be children’s health care.”

My response: “For the same reason that predators pick on the young and infirm of their prey species?”

Maybe the following example can help us think about it. It’s a made-up example, but it’s based on something I heard from a caller on Dr. Laura’s show many years ago.

Suppose you have a family of two boys and three girls, and that you parents are having a tough time of it, financially. Your kids have to do without a lot of the things their peers have, not that it’s keeping you from having a family life together. But you wonder how they’re possibly going to be able to go to college, given that they don’t seem to be doing anything special that would attract scholarships.

Let’s also suppose that the middle daughter is an especially vivacious, pretty one. And the well-to-do neighbor down the street has noticed it, too. He says hello to the family whenever there is an opportunity, and always pays special attention to the middle daughter.

One day he tells you he’d like to make a gift to your middle daughter. He’d like to give her an allowance of $100/week for spending money, set up a fund for her college education, and provide her with a medical insurance policy. He’s not asking for anything in return. It’s a gift just for her, because he’d hate to see her have to do without those things.

You can imagine what Dr. Laura advised the caller to do in a similar situation, and you can imagine why the parent thought it necessary to call Dr. Laura about it in the first place.

But if you’re having trouble thinking about this, and how it relates to SCHIP, here are some questions to get the wheels turning:

1. What would this do to the relationship between parents and middle daughter?

2. What could Mr. Neighbor’s agenda possibly be?

3. Suppose the offer was made for ALL the children, not just the pretty middle one. What difference would it make, if any?