Everyday, Nora is getting more and more independent.
For the past two weeks, she has been all about doing things on her own. She tells me she needs privacy in the bathroom. She wants to brush her own teeth. And this just in — she wants to pick her own clothes. She wore these pajamas (two tops, two pairs of long pants and two pairs of shorts — all at once) for nearly two days before I put my foot down and said they were dirty; she had to change into something different to visit Dada at work…and no, she could not wear the slippers my mom sent (which are nearly glued onto her feet) out of the house.
It took a lot of cajoling, but she finally took the pajamas off, and picked out this:
Luckily, she’s cute in anything. And clever, too. When I tried to suggest that the tutu didn’t match her Patriot’s jersey, she got out the green and white stripe leggings and said, “Now they match, because this is green.” Needless to say, she won that argument.
Right now, I’m laughing and loving the outfits she puts together. She obviously has her own sense of style (and matching) and she is so pleased with it. “Do I look pretty?” She always asks us, “Do I look beautiful?” Or sometimes, she giggles and asks, “Do I look a little funny, mama?”
“You’re always pretty, Nora, no matter what you wear,” we say, but we also join in the giggles. She’s really wanted to choose her own clothes for the past four days or so, and I’ve just been going with the flow. She’s so proud of herself and enjoys the process, I can’t bring myself to say no. Plus, at least I know she’s warm when she’s wearing five shirts, two pairs of pants, and a skirt! Clearly, the girl likes layers. Anyway, there will be plenty of time to argue about style and appropriateness later, and by then I’ll probably be begging Nora to put leggings under skirts.
So, for now, we wear rain boots, pajamas, two swimming suits, sock mittens, and ladybug hats all at once.
Maybe it’s time to invest in one of those “I dressed myself!” buttons.
Donna
Nora’s so cute Amber!!! You’re a great Mom! Have a wonderful week!
Tiffany
Adorable!
Zoey's mom
Well don’t you have just the most darling little person ever? I for one have a darling non-person human and am so lucky that I do have the back up of 5 other pesons just in case maybe my non-person human is ever denied a transplant or something silly like that. Like a bone marrow transplant in case she relapses her leukemia. Now that you have so eloquently differentiated between persons and non -human persons, I am wondering whether I made the right choice to give her chemotherapy, or heart surgery, or life saving blood transfusions, or any of the other extreme medical interventions over the last 5 years, since after all, you know, she is just a non-person human.
Amber
Zoey’s momHi Zoey’s Mom,
Thank you for visiting my blog via my comments on the Huffington Post. I’m sorry if you misunderstood my reference to Mary Ann Warren’s definition of personhood. I’m quite sure that your daughter is indeed a person: a conscious, reasoning, and self-acting being. Warren’s definition of personhood doesn’t disqualify individuals with Down Syndrome or Leukemia from being persons. She says,
If we are going to afford rights to something/someone, then we must have a way of defining and identifying who/what that thing/entity is, which is key in bioethics issues such as these. If you disagree that rationality, consciousness, and self-motivated activity are criterion acceptable and necessary for identifying a person, I’d be interested in hearing what criterion you would use.
I’d also like to respectfully suggest that you follow the source link I provided and read Warren’s complete discussion before you dismiss her valid and logical argument. If you missed it, you can read her article here.
Another mom
AmberAmber,
You are very young and very naive. Please have some self-awareness and acknowledge that you are only 25 years old, have one young child, are only recently married (I assume), recently out of college and have a very small amount of career experience. While your youth certainly doesn’t preclude you from having a valuable opinion, I would suggest you do a better job of keeping your tone of intellectual reasoning in check and consider the situation that you have chosen to debate with more respect and maturity.
As you know, the article that you refer to was written in 1973 specifically as an argument in support of abortion (“On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion”). The article is very controversial, especially the 1982 postscript on Infanticide (in which she contends that infanticide is not murder, but is wrong or immoral, although not in all circumstances), which many critics maintain further weakens her original position. There are innumerous historical examples out there of other speeches, essays and scholarly articles, that are similarly controversial and that have many critics. Trying to introduce an academic philosophy publication to give legitimacy to your opinion, into a discussion on the Huffington Post blog is misguided and immature. I have advanced degrees from two top-notch universities (literature, women’s studies, and education, but I graduated many more years ago than you) and certainly enjoy invigorating ethical discussions, but using an academic article on abortion in the very real context of anguished parents fighting for their daughter’s life and individual rights, on a blog where there are many parents of special needs or medically fragile children, is just downright insensitive and ridiculous.
Although I disagree with Warren’s article as a whole and feel that several of her specific arguments are very flawed, it is nonetheless a complex position that warrents more in-depth discussion than HuffPost, Facebook, or your little personal blog can accommodate. So to introduce the concept of criteria that determines whether someone is “human” or a “person” in this context is nothing short of inflammatory. In “real-life” discussions and situations, saying that a human being is not a “person”, regardless of their physical or mental state (and keep in mind that at one time, race and gender may have factored in as well), is unconscionable.
And on a personal note, as a mother of a very loving, beautiful, and very valued special needs child, I hope that you are never fortunate enough to have or have the ability to impact a child, or another person for that matter, who does not meet your adopted criteria for personhood. Or at least hope you have developed a more nuanced, sensitive and mature perspective by then.
Amber
Another momDear Jerida,
I appreciate that you visited my blog and want to share your feelings with me. Obviously, you did not bother to look around and get to know me before commenting, but I can imagine that it is hard for you to separate your personal experience from the discussion at Huffington Post. I’m sure most of us would have a hard time doing so if we were in your shoes, so I can’t fault you for that.
I’d like to respectfully disagree that it is inappropriate to discuss situations like this in terms of philosophical arguments. It may be true that doing so is devoid of sentiment. However this is exactly the type of situation that requires little sentiment and objective discussion, debate, and judgement, which is why we have third-party panels of experts to decide if someone can be placed on a transplant list. I don’t think you would want to have to prove that you love your child more than someone else loves her child as a way of “winning” an organ for transplant, or that you would want your child’s fate be determined via a random lottery system rater than criteria such as whether or not your child was the one most in need and best suited for transplant. Until we have unlimited organs and unlimited resources, some people will receive organs and some will not. It is a very unfortunate fact, and one that will hopefully be remedied in the future; I’ve been an organ donor since I received a driver’s license at 16 since I feel strongly and compassionately about this situation. Until it is remedied the only fair, empathetic, and valid way to choose between one human and another is via objective critera which is best reached through discussion which should most certainly include academic research and writings and what many consider to be “cold” medical facts. Lisa wrote about Amelia’s situation to promote this sort of a discussion, not so we can say that the topic is too complex to address.
I’m sorry if you took my attempt to discuss this issue in a well-thought out and intelligent manner poorly. I wish you and your family the best, Amber