In a great, short article entitled
"Why aren't we calling it the 'royal fetus'?", Denny Burke discusses Kate Middleton's royal baby. He notes that no one is referring the her child as a fetus. He goes on to show how our language in regards to a "wanted" pregnancy verses an "unwanted" one reveals the tragic logic of abortion rights. Below is an excerpt
Most people have not pondered the fact that their language about the
unborn is shaped less by the personhood of the unborn than by whether or
not the baby is wanted. Is there any other class of people whose
personhood depends solely on whether or not they are wanted?
Our language often reveals fundamental truths about the way we view
the world. In this case, the way we speak of the unborn reveals whether
or not we view them as a part of the human community with an unalienable
right to life. Obviously, the world has agreed to call Kate Middleton’s
unborn child a “baby.” Why wouldn’t we do the same for every other
unborn child? Could it be that such terminology would imply a moral
monstrosity that we are unwilling to face?
No comments:
Post a Comment