Baldimo wrote:
The purpose of the ultrasound machine is to look for any type of physical birth defects. An added bonus of the machine is to tell the sex of the children. It isn't the job of the person to tell the parents the sex of the children. It is a good thing to know but it isn't mandatory for the person to tell the parents.
So, if settling the curiosity of the baby's gender isn't the objective of an ultrasound, and given what you say later, regarding birth defects, abortion and...barbarism...what's the point of an ultrasound?
To prepare oneself for the birth of a deformed or handicapped baby?
I am an advocate of pre-first trimester abortions, because I, along with many others, fail to see the human in this:
...but that's my opinion, and you are entitled to yours.
Similarily, labelling abortion "barbaric" makes it seem like there are no conditions under which an abortion may be performed.
But I won't put words in your mouth--I'll let you speak to that.
Baldimo wrote:
Are they 100% accurate? No they are not, they can't even be 100% certain of the sex of your child. Why would you want to kill a child just because it might have a handicap? Isn't that the stuff of barbarism? Just because they might have an issue or 2 doesn't mean they don't deserve to live. Should I give up my child or even have it aborted because he is deaf? He can't hear and has a low level autism. Sure life isn't easy but he has been a blessing in our lives and has allowed us to learn a new language and meet some amazing people we wouldn't have if he weren't born.
I have made a conscious choice to date and engage myself with a healthy, attractive woman. I deliberately steered clear of making my lifelong committment to someone with birth defects, cancers, AIDS, or any other terminal illness or retardation.
...but that's just me. I guess I'm a dick for being so shallow and idealistic.
If I can figure out in the first trimester that my child will have an extremely low quality of life due to a grave birth defect, disease or other ailment (and lead my quality of life to plummet), then I think I would opt to terminate the pregnancy (at the consent of my wife, of course).
I am a teaher who frequently deals with autistic children, and I would be honored to have one of my own--I am speaking to the extreme instances where the child would be nothing more than fluid, bones and skin.
Baldimo wrote:I thought the left stood for compassion. Killing a handicapped child isn't compassion.
The right needs to hop off the soapbox when they talk down as moral superiors to the left. I have seen nothing compassionate about this new breed of conservatism, nor do I see any compassion in the bigotry constantly spewed toward those not of their ilk.
Call me crazy, but clinching your bible and praying for
this to live, just ain't compassion to me.
Pre-Schaivo, I have had a long standing agreement that
I do not want to live like she did...and I would even pay to have someone flood my lifeless body with the barbarism you speak of.
We are different.
You think life is good at any and all costs, and I take a more compassionate perspective on the quality of that life.