Home Sweet Home

 

When garbage men are combing the dump, they are usually looking for junk someone has mistakenly thrown away; when police officers do the same, they are generally looking for junk someone threw away intentionally.

The latter was the image I saw last week, namely, police officers looking for a body -- the body of a newborn baby, no less. The mother had apparently killed her baby (and is under arrest as I write this), wrapped it in a garbage bag, then tossed it into the local dumpster. Even though this is not the first time it has happened, and I know it won't be the last, I was still horrified.

Then there was the recent news out of Vancouver. There's a new programme at a downtown hospital, whereby newborn babies can be delivered to the hospital (note the phrase "delivered to" and not "delivered at") by parents who can't care for them. I am trying to be as sensitive as possible on this topic, as I know there are a lot of extenuating circumstances.

At least the baby is presented alive in the above case, and has a fighting chance. Not much a day-old child can do when its first moments of life are also its last moments of life. With the Vancouver hospital option in mind, being placed in a loving, supportive home is the most likely outcome.

I really don't know which is worse: killing a baby right at birth or killing a baby months or even weeks before birth. I know we try not to use the word "killing," choosing rather to call it "abortion" or even "choice."

If you have read this column for any length, you would recognize that I am pro-living (my term). The conventional term is "pro-life," one that is often used in the abortion industry context, one that is the opposite viewpoint of someone who is pro-choice, or better stated, pro-death. As harsh as that sounds, that is the frequent result of the truly pro-choice decision.

Today's column, however, is a mere reminder that life must also be valued once birth has taken place. Every child has the right to be raised in a loving and nurturing home. If the mother, for any host of reasons, is unable to provide that, there are many, many families who can. The mother has not failed if she recognizes this possible shortcoming. I personally laud her for carrying the child full term.

Back to the hospital for a moment, please. My initial reaction was confusion. It struck me as similar to dropping one's laundry off, but without picking it up at the end of the day. My delayed reaction, however, was a little more positive, in that, at least the parent knows there is an option, and the newborn doesn't have to end up at the bottom of a dumpster.

Someone should get really creative with these two options, and even play a little with words. You see, what is wrong here is a word that has three syllables, starts with an "a" and ends with an "n." And what is right here has three syllables starts with an "a," and ends with an "n." The first, of course, is "abortion" and the second is "adoption."

I suggest some independent, non-government institution assume the role of connecting pregnant mothers with homes that are desperate for children. To be sure, some of them already exist, but they are being strangled (rather ironic choice of words) by bureaucratic red tape. These said institutions should have as much freedom as possible to bring mothers and families together – for the well-being of the child, the dreams of the eager parents, and even to fill the desperate economic void that millions of deaths has created.

You see, a happy home is where children belong, not a garbage dump.