World Magazine (the one indispensable magazine I subscribe to) tells the story of five women and their babies, diagnosed with conditions "incompatible with life." Pressured to abort, these women chose to value their children's lives rather than treat them as disposable property. Some babies turned out to be misdiagnosed, some received aggressive treatment and live normal lives, other died shortly after birth. But each one was cherished, loved, valued, and respected for the life it already was.
A condition cannot be "incompatible with life" because the babies in utero are already alive. What they should say is that they baby isn't expected to live long after birth. This is a tragic euphemism for treating handicapped children as though they have no value and can be disposed of. It may be a way of trying to protect mother's from the pain of losing their children soon after birth, but it's tragically misdirected because it does so at the expense of the child.
Being human is not a "look-like" kind of thing. It's a "be-like" kind of thing. Size, location, potential, handicap make no difference in the value of the unborn or the born.
Even children whose lives may be sadly brief are precious. How we treat the weakest among us, those that may never have instrumental value, indicates the value we have for all live.
One of these mothers has a website to help other parents faced with serious prenatal diagnoses.
What’s even more alarming than the term “incompatible with life,” is that they often get it wrong.
Posted by: KWM | June 17, 2010 at 12:23 PM
>> Being human is not a "look-like" kind of thing. It's a "be-like" kind of thing.
Nah.
Being human is a "look-like" kind of thing.
Ovum's don't look like a construct that you have decided is the starting line of life (zygotes) and so you don't consider it a human person.
Posted by: ToNy | June 17, 2010 at 02:41 PM
I think that it may be a little unfair to assume that the women who choose abortion after receiving certain diagnoses are choosing abortion because they consider their potential offspring to be "disposable property" or because the they think the newborn will be of "no value and can be disposed of". I suspect that they are more likely motivated by a desire to prevent pointless suffering or because they consider the situation hopeless or because of any number of other reasons besides “disposability”. Now, you may disagree with these other motivations, including the desire to preventing suffering, and that’s fine. Point is, let’s not assume that the abortions are performed because women think of their babies as disposable trash.
Posted by: Phil | June 17, 2010 at 03:03 PM
Tony,
Should we use your definition of human or mine? : )
Posted by: KWM | June 17, 2010 at 04:16 PM
Phil,
Understood. Unfortunately, the result is the same - a dead human being. Dead human beings have been the product of "good intentions" before. Nothing new.
Posted by: KWM | June 17, 2010 at 04:22 PM
"Hey, let's kill it so it doesn't suffer later!" Makes no sense.
Posted by: Steve | June 18, 2010 at 10:42 AM
"Hey, let's kill it so it doesn't suffer later!" Makes no sense.
I believe that if you found yourself in certain situations, then it might make sense after all.
Posted by: Phil | June 18, 2010 at 12:29 PM