Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Sue Bradford: unborn babies are fully realised humans

from the New Zealand Herald, 14 April 2005

Sue Bradford: "Babies and children are actually fully realised humans and should be treated as such from the time they're born. This is the first thing I learned, obviously having started from the same place we all do. But many of us forget this and treat our babies and children as if they deserve less respect than adults. Smacking kids is a good example of this: we can legally hit children, but not adults. The results are physical damage, but more so the psychological damage."

Bradford is saying: babies should be treated as fully realised humans from the moment that they are born.  That means, that before birth, babies are still babies according to Sue, not fetuses or tissue.

She's busy fighting for the rights of children to be allowed to grow up without smacking, thereby forgoing the right of the parent to discipline their own child how they see fit.  And on the other hand, she's busy fighting for the rights of women (mothers) to be allowed to kill their unborn child (read the quote above again - she lets slip that unborn babies are just that, babies!).

7 comments:

Hamish said...

Hmmm, I'm a little confused.
How does unborn mean the same thing as "from the moment they are born"?

Andy Moore said...

Fair enough mate, it is pretty complicated. It's quite probable that Sue didn't actually mean this, - I'll try to re-word it to make it more comprehensive.

She refers to the subject, babies and children, (which we know are living): "from the time they're born".

Which means that by definition, they had to therefore exist - before they were born.

Is that a bit easier to understand?
Good on ya mate.

Hamish said...

She didn't imply anything about them before they were born. She only mentioned their worth from when they are born. So for all we know, she could think that before they are born they are worthless slime with absolutely no rights at all.
You are trying to argue that she has contradicted herself, when she hasn't.

Andy Moore said...

Hamish, as I said, what I'm saying is both confusing and complicated.

By refering to the subject, - the baby, as a baby, before she refers to the fact that they are born, it is implied that they were babies before birth as well.

But I see what you're saying as well.

Bradford, in her infinite wisdom presumes to think that she, or any other person has the right to declare exactly when a "fetus becomes human".

Ultimately, she is contradicting herself, as you'll see in the last paragraph of my post, because she's pro mother's rights to get abortions, but anti mother's rights with regard to how the decide to parent (ie. will I smack my child at all? Or use alternative punishments?)

Where do you stand on both issues mate?

Andy Moore said...

...No Hamish, Bradford's views on children's rights and women's rights are contradictory and nonsensical.

Anonymous said...

Being patronising doesn't make your logic any better Andy.
A foetus is not a baby. It is a foetus. When it is born it is a baby. A baby is a FULLY realised human being.

Andy Moore said...

Anon, thanks for your comment. Just one question though. What is the baby say, 1 hour before it is born? Is it still a bit of tissue?

A day before it's born?
A week?
A month?