Holier than Thou

There have been times when I enjoyed reading or hearing George Will.  A column about his older son, who has Down's Syndrome, reaching 40, should be one of his more enjoyable columns.  Like his love for baseball, his love for his son is a feel good kind of area.  But instead, Will uses it as a cudgel in the two pronged war of right to life and Baby Boomer (and all their descendants) decadence.  See for yourself.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jon-will-40-years-and-going-with-down-syndrome/2012/05/02/gIQAdGiNxT_story.html?hpid=z3

He starts setting my teeth on edge when he calls fetuses pre-born babies.  There's no such thing.  As a purveyor of English language in its most coherent and artistic forms, Will knows better, too.  There are sperm.  There are eggs.  There are spermatazoa.  There are fetuses in various stages of development.  After birth, there are babies.  There are no babies prior to birth.  Born is an essential element of the meaning of the word baby.  Sadly, the right to life movement has so corrupted the language that baby is sometimes defined as synonymous with fetus. 

ba·by

   /ˈbeɪbi/  [bey-bee]  noun, plural ba·bies, adjective, verb, ba·bied, ba·by·ing.

noun

1. an infant or very young child.

2. a newborn or very young animal.

3. the youngest member of a family, group, etc.

4. an immature or childish person.

5. a human fetus.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/baby?s=t

 

Of course, you'll notice that fetus is the last listed because of its recent use, but until the last couple decades this meaning didn't exist.  Nor should it.  If a baby and the fetus were the same, Will wouldn't have to resort to the verbal shenanigans of calling them pre-born babies. 

 

It's that kind of thing that really irks me about the pro-life movement.  There's entirely too much reliance on PR, portraying collections of cells as though they were the same as a born human.  They're certainly not the same at conception.  They certainly do develop toward that over time.  Have an honest discussion about that and whether or where abortion should be permitted, keeping in mind that there's always a fully born human who has to risk life and health to carry that fetus and who may not feel that sacrificing her life is a fair trade, whether literally a sacrifice or figuratively.

 

Back to Will.  He moves from there to condemning anyone born from 1946-1960 as being shallow and vain.  He laments that pre-natal screening is used to abort 90% of fetuses determined to have Down's Syndrome.

 

Well, first off, almost all of those making that choice wouldn't be Baby Boomers, who are largely beyond child bearing years now.  Of course, it's still their fault because they engender the culture that allows that.

 

Which is a odd thing to me, too.  Will is a big proponent of the free market system and individual choice, yet wants to keep women, or couples for that matter, from making a choice about whether to move a collection of cells from that stage to birth as a human, knowing the cells have Down's Syndrome.  As he says, Down's is in every cell.  It's not like it's hard to detect early now.

 

Granted, people with Down's Syndrome are usually very functional in society.  They require assistance but are not bedridden or immobilized and in need of 24 hour care.  Many can work and live on their own.  But where does it stop in telling people they have to birth fetuses that are not entirely healthy?  Say a fetus is tested and determined to have a genetic malfunction that deprives it of developing a brain.  Such a thing does exist.   Do we force the parents to carry that fetus to term?  Do we force them to pay for its care until it dies?  Do we force the rest of society to pay for its care until it dies?

 

It's very much a high and holy perch from which Will is condescending, and he's surrounded by a moat of hypocrisy.  He's very well off and has been for most if not all of his son's life.  It's no problem for him to spend whatever extra funds are needed to care for his son.  Furthermore, he works a job as a purveyor of opinion.  It's not like he's locked into a work day the way most of us are.  He can take the time to raise his son or spend time with his son or whatever else he needs to do to help his son that is a luxury to the rest of us.  It's hard enough for me and my wife to care for our 13 and 10 year old children who are quite intelligent and independent.  They still need oversight and rearing that consumes a lot of time.  And we both work in jobs that have some flexibility.

 

To my mind George Will took the occasion of his son reaching 40 years not to celebrate his son's life but to condemn others and their choices.  That's the antithesis of how he describes his son who, like many with Down's, is kind and non-judgmental.  Maybe Will should spend more time with his son to learn some of the human kindness he so celebrates as defining characteristics of his son.