2108 Observation at an art show

Last night I noticed a couple at an art opening. She was of an age and disability that she was probably a thalidomide baby, and he had some severe birth defects that were probably genetic requiring alterations in his clothing and life style, but they weren't interfering with his life. They had managed the trip down town at night in the rain, just like the rest of us, manuevering with a special van and wheelchair access. After all, who is more handicapped, those who never notice or enjoy art, or those who have to struggle a bit for access to it?

Some people, liberal thinkers in other areas such as the death penalty for serial murderers or the protection of the habitat of an endangered wild animal or insect, believe that if a child's life potential is limited or his parents are dull, poor or dark skinned then that child's life can be taken from him. For the good of all, of course, but especially for his own good. "Liberals love fetuses to death" could be their bumper sticker.

Others in that liberal group, believe the reason for taking the child's life matters not at all. It's absolutely none of our business. We may have even been rubbing shoulders at the art show. It's not even up for discussion. Only the wishes of the woman (some call her "mother") providing his natural habitat, you might say, are valued. Better the little one should be a bird, rat or worm.

"In every child who is born conceived under no matter what circumstances and of no matter what parents, the potentiality of the human race is born again, and in him, too, once more, and each of us, our terrific responsibility toward human life: toward the utmost idea of goodness, of the horror of terrorism, and of God." James Agee, Let Us Now Praise Famous Men