March 16, 2012
March 15, 2012
It is not often that I come across articles that make me mad. This one was a whopper!! This post is what I feel. This is my interpretation, my opinion of the article and I am approaching this from the view point of a Christian, a believer, an aunt, a special educator / speech pathologist and most importantly a human being. I am not going to quote studies or bible verses in support. This is what I want to say and I am just going to say it.
Before you read my post, please go and read the article here slowly and very carefully and if what is written there strikes a chord somewhere, come back here. Let me know what you think.
I am lost for words. How can anyone disregard life like this? And with what authority can one sit and say “infanticide should be allowable up to the point that the child develops some ability to communicate and to anticipate the future” So what do they define ‘ability of communication’ as ? Merriam-Webster defines ‘communication ‘as ‘a process by which information is exchanged between individuals through a common system of symbols, signs, or behavior’ As a SLP I strongly believe that even the ‘cry’ of a new born is a communication. The baby is communicating that she is hungry or that she is in pain. My own niece had her own signs for ‘hunger’ and ‘more’ and even when she was an infant her mom could listen to her cry and figure out if she was hungry, needed a nappy change or was tired/sleepy. Isn’t that communication? Didn’t my niece just relay/exchange information to her mother?
Their articles also talks about how “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack the properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.” From the moment the baby is conceived and the fertilization occurs, the fetus starts to grow! It develops a heart that starts beating, a brain that starts growing and organs that start developing. And this growth continues even after they are born. And the best part of this is each fetus is unique, the character and traits the DNA are all unique to that fetus. And isn’t that what creates an individual!!
They also say “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.” Are you kidding me? What is’ morally relevant sense’? I have tried to figure this phrase out and I don’t get it … maybe I am just dumb… Maybe I am reading this all wrong…. A new born is not a person? Is there a criterion that makes someone a ‘person’? Special abilities? The way I look at it and believe is that anyone who is a human being is a person!! As simple as that!! So to disregard an infant and not consider them as a person is downright wrong! What a child is at 6 months is NOT what a child is at 8 months or at 1 yr or 4 years. The child at 6 months is what a child is at 6 months. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out!! That does not make the child at 6 month any less a person than a child at 4 years or a person at 62! And it definitely doesn’t make a new born or an infant any less of a person than an adult.
The icing on the cake (as if it was already not a mouthful) “refusing even to set an upper limit on the permissible age of a child to be killed by “after-birth abortion.” So that would mean killing the baby/infant anytime from conception to ………
Dear 'Professors'…. Whether you call it ‘infanticide’ or you sugar coat it and refer to it as ‘after birth abortions’ it sounds an awful lot like Murder to me!!!