FOr me, the issue lies not with what the decision is, but to whom the decision belongs. If at 4-1/2 months, Jake's parents were told that their child would be defective in some way and they decided that they absolutely could not go through with the pregnancy, that should be their choice and theirs alone.
Rambi, you seem to be clearly saying here that the one person who has absolutely no say in the matter ... is Jake.
When Jake was born at 4-1/2 months, he was "defective." He was blind. His parents could have changed their minds then, and decided they no longer wanted Jake. But at that point, Jake did have a say in the matter. Since Jake could not speak for himself, the state spoke for him. And the state said, if you harm this child in any way you will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
My question is, and has been from the start, what difference does it make that Jake happened to be born prematurely? Why did that capricious occurrence change Jake's status as a human being, with rights of his own, including the right to live? Why would Jake not have had the same rights while still in his mother's womb?
You can choose to attack me personally, as before, but it won't change the facts of this case. Or, you can restate that Jake is "irrelevant" and thus dismiss his life altogether. Or, you can tell me what your answer is to the questions I pose above.
Or, you can just forget the whole thing. BTW ... Jake is a very real person, three years old now, adorable, and dearly loved by his parents. That he is "defective" means nothing to them. Thank God.
JC |
