Don't you think it's funny...?

That people use "it" to refer to babies but not to any other human. We don't call seniors or disabled people or teens or pregnant women, "it," and yet you hear parents refer to their own babies as "it." Overheard at the bus stop this morning, a guy was talking about how his daughter was reacting to the new baby. "She was really excited at first about having a little sister, and then she started kicking it." I thought it quite interesting in light of the abortion debate. We basically refer to humans all through pregnancy and up until (when?) about a year old as a THING. The fetus, the infant, the baby, "it."

I think it's because without the mother, this thing can't possibly live so in essence it isn't it's own creature yet. It is attached to and depends on the mother until the age when it starts walking, talking and eating solid food. At which point we refer to IT as daughter, son, niece, nephew, child, kid, him, her, she, he or their name but never it. It reminds me of my women's studies days in college where we spoke of lexicon a lot and how it's shaped by cultural attitudes and yet can also actually shape our views. This is the argument behind why waitress became waitperson, stewardess became flight attendant and mailman became mail carrier. While when those names were invented it may have been appropriate because those were gender specific job, they no longer reflected our culture and needed to be changed so as to avoid reinforcing outdated ideas.

So is it that we used to think of babies as objects, not people, and we are perpetuating an outmoded societal view in our language? Or is that that we still view babies as objects which is why the majority of Americans, while not in FAVOR of abortion, support a woman's right to choose? Because this thing doesn't have it's own life until it's no longer a baby and it's right to life doesn't start at conception?