Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mrklixx
So would you blend them if they were anything short of perfect, say missing an arm or a leg? Or where exactly would you draw the line? And say baby #1 doesn't make the grade and ends up on the cutting room floor, and then something's not right with baby#2 as well, do you just keep going back to Dr. Roto until you get a "perfect" one?
And say Jr. comes out as Gatticaesque and shiny as possible, but then "breaks" later on. What then? Perhaps a bit of Drain-o in the formula or some rat poison crushed up in the PB&J?
|
I don't think she's talking about a child with Down's Syndrome, or one with physical disabilities. She's talking about a child who, through some fault of its genetics, is defective in ways that affect its ability to grow, think, ration, interact, communicate or function in any way that would add to the quality of life. The baby in this example is
missing vital parts of its brain, or did you miss that part?
This is a perfect example of a healthcare worker deeply moved by the plight of a child who will
never develop in any way beyond the most primal, basic unconscious ways... Breathing and blinking are not
thinking processes, they are instinctual, involuntary bodily functions that have nothing to do with whether or not the person doing the breathing and blinking is actually alive in any way that makes sense.
I think its pretty clear what my vote was, though I'm not sure I should have voted... I'm a pretty avowed childfree woman, and the odds of me winning the lottery are better than me getting pregnant, so I'll never be faced with this choice.