You say "to-may-to", I say "full-term fetus"
In one case
, a child is found, bagged, left dead at a construction site.
, a woman and her child are both murdered.
In the second case, the woman's child was even addressed by sex; her mother speaks of pain for not knowing her own grandson. And, oddly enough (in our crazy mixed-up society where a child only earns that title by being born), very rarely do people even mention her length of gestation. It's simply assumed that since she was pregnant, the person who murdered her also murdered her unborn child.
The first case, however, is much more cruel. Only four sentences at the end of a 15-minute news segment is allowed, given more for the police to inquire if the mother is responsible or also injured or killed. And whereas, in the second case, the murdered infant is addressed as such, the motherless infant found in a garbage bag cannot even be called what he or she was, cannot even have a little dignity in death, but rather, is simply called a "full-term fetus."
Now, perhaps this is merely a semantic argument. Maybe I just don't understand the differences that being wanted can make in the definition of a human being. But if a "fetus" is "full-term", wouldn't that mean it had been 9 months gestated and therefore an infant? The medical definition for the word abortion supporters so adore, "fetus", is "an unborn child; a child in utero
". Was the first child found still enclose by his mother's uterus? Did his umbilical cord still provide him nutrition from his mother?
What bothers, and even frightens me, about our off-the-cuff use of such words to describe what we know is a human being, is that it's proving exactly right those who opposed abortion, specifically because they knew it would lead to dehumanization of the life of unborn children, which opens doors to such horrible terrors as infanticide, the selling of "fetal" baby parts, and genetic manipulation. We have taken the power of life and death into our own hands and so warped and manipulated it to our own means that we don't even know what it is to be alive anymore, to be recognized as human beings.
So-called "bio-ethicist" Peter Singer (who, with support from Barbara Boxer, has said, "Very often it's not wrong to kill a child once it's left the womb. Simply killing a child is never equivalent to killing a person.") truly said it better than a pro-lifer ever could: "I can find no reasonable difference between a killing a baby by abortion and killing a baby already born."
As for the first baby? His mother still hasn't been found, and not another word of him has crept into the news since. And the Laci Peterson trial rolls on. The "Unborn Victims of Crime" Act is still being opposed by those who are scared it will "add fuel to anti-abortionists", as they try to prove that it's harmful for women to acknowledge that the life inside them is a separate child. But maybe, just maybe, if we can prove that wanted babies are people, we can prove that even the unwanted are people, too.