cw: infanticide, assisted suicide

“Unspeakable Conversations” by Harriet McBryde Johnson

Johnson begins her essay talking about Peter Singer, the man who wants her, and disabled people like her, to die instead of being born. She briefly mentions that she accepted a conference where he invited her to speak at and how she is often the token disability advocate. She then addresses that there are several questions that people tend to ask her, which follows into the expanded answer of said questions. Johnson names her disability as muscle-wasting disease and talks about the way that she looks and the questions she gets on the street, to how she first meets Peter Singer as a member of Not Dead Yet, a disability rights group actively fighting Singer’s ideas. Johnson attends his panel on infanticide and assisted suicide, refuting his points and finding him infuriating but loquacious. Their debate turns into letters, which eventually turns into an invitation to speak at Princeton. With hesitancy, Johnson accepts and sets the travel plans, which go awry when the airport breaks her wheelchair. With a fixed wheelchair and a short night of sleep, Johnson arrives at Princeton and begins her lecture to Singer’s students. After answering their questions, Singer asks for a walk where they discuss more of Johnson’s points of view. This leads to the evening faculty discussion where they discuss assisted suicide and Johnson does her best to offer commentary on philosophical ideas. Returned home, she has received a book from Singer and recounts the episode to friends and colleagues. While some are satisfied, others find fault that she would engage in civil conversation with him. She later questions her internal motives for conversing with him and the morality of his argument which concludes with her vision for the future.

Quotes:

“But that’s the way it always works, isn’t it? They’re always animals or vermin or chattel goods. Objects, not persons. He’s repackaging some old ideas. Making them acceptable” (24).

“But even if I’m a token, I won’t have to act like one… It’s an old trick, and I’ve laid myself wide open” (11).

“‘You kind of like the monster, don’t you?’…’Yeah, in a way. And he’s not exactly a monster” (24).

Analysis:

Right off the bat, Johnson leads in with some heavy hitting commentary on a very disturbing topic, one that is a high topic of debate today. I confess that I do have my own opinions on these arguments but they are still largely being shaped by alternative points of view. But to start, Johnson is arguing for her right to exist as a disabled person, more specifically, her right to exist at all or to be killed as a child. “‘You kind of like the monster, don’t you?’…’Yeah, in a way. And he’s not exactly a monster” (24). Breaking down the quotes from the text, it is clear that Johnson has come across what many people encounter during these divergent topics, a human. I do not mean that to be funny or clever, but specifically in the context of how her sister conflated Singer’s humanness to the Nazis. That is the issue in these debate spheres. It would be so much easier if the opposition was a monster, someone clearly (perhaps visibly) evil and deadly. But the reality is that so many of the people who propagate these downright deadly and repulsive ideals are the people you pass by on the street, your doctor, your cashier, your coworker. In any other situation, talking with them and engaging is fine, pleasant even, but then they drop the bomb that they believe every person with a severe mental disability should be killed out of mercy. So the answer is both yes and no. Singer is not a monster because he is capable of kind acts, thoughtful conversation and living in good relationship with others. But he is clearly a monster to all people with disabilities, or anyone involved in the eugenics act.

“But that’s the way it always works, isn’t it? They’re always animals or vermin or chattel goods. Objects, not persons. He’s repackaging some old ideas. Making them acceptable” (24). And his argument is one we know well: they (insert identity here) don’t have rational thought or are so dependent that they can’t find true joy in their life, are they even capable of making their own decisions? Or giving the whole power to a family member or a medical system who has no say in the individual’s life choices. It is even worse when you consider the pretty packaging that so many people offer the monstrous point of view. Using relatable, modern terms, catchy slogans and professional lingo, it all sounds very palatable. Of course parents would rather not go into medical debt for a child who is disabled, of course parents would like to raise a happy, healthy baby. And if you had the opportunity to genetically alter the baby so they would not be disabled? Why not? But the issue is that these eugenics principles are being packaged with new wrapping paper to suit their methods. No matter what, they want to take the rights away from people with disabilities, never giving them a chance to live and decide how to live their own lives. People with these polarizing arguments are quick to humanize themselves and dehumanize others.

“But even if I’m a token, I won’t have to act like one… It’s an old trick, and I’ve laid myself wide open” (11). And we all fall into a similar trap as Johnson did. If we don’t engage in discussion at all, how will our voices and views be heard? In matters such as this, it is vital that the life point of view be heard and seen, not brushed aside. However, in engaging at all, you are letting the opposition know that their argument has some sort of ground, ground enough that you think you have to refute it. So how do we combat this? I think the larger question is, how do we fix society so that these aren’t even debates anymore? There is a lot to be done to our medical and community support systems for even the current lives to be at peace, let alone any future lives brought into the world. So in the meantime, while it is difficult to give these ideas a platform, I think we have to debate. Because even if in a debate we change one person’s mind in a room of fifty, that person can go and change another person’s mind. It is a chain reaction of knowledge sharing and empathy, one that will take a while. But first, we have to actually see disability today, acknowledge the people who are living every day, full and complete lives, and do our best to offer support where we can.