Two points in response to the stunning quartet of letters (Sept. 19) criticizing George Will *68 for daring to take a swipe at abortion in his essay (Perspective, July 11) about his son Jon, who has Down syndrome.
First, pace critics Brian Zack ’72 and Joe Illick ’56, Will is perfectly right to refer to the unborn as “babies.” That’s the term countless pregnant women use (“How is my baby, doctor?”), as do those referring to miscarriages (“We lost the baby”). Indeed, it would be jarring and uncouth to say something like, “So how is your fetus doing?” or “I’m sorry you lost your product of conception.” The only reason to insist on dry, clinical terms like “fetus” is to distance ourselves emotionally from someone who is going to be hurt or killed, e.g., by aborting them.
Second, that special-needs children can require extra love and effort is not a reason to kill them, either before or after birth. Yes, even raising healthy children is demanding. But so is lifelong commitment to a spouse, caring for the poor, and teaching students. In these and other cases, we certainly can offer sympathy and support for the burdens people face in fulfilling their obligations. But surely we can do better than to dismember or poison (the main abortion techniques) a “special-needs” spouse, poor person, student, and, yes, child.