Re: `genetic engineering', not

Date: Wed Dec 26 2001 - 10:50:13 MST

In a message dated 25/12/01 02:51:34 GMT Standard Time, writes:

> >She an unwanted child that they just had to deal with or get adopted, or
> even chopped into easily usable parts and kept in the freezer until another
> 'Wanted' family member needed a spare part.
> > Amazing. I was really shocked, as the media must have been.
> I assume you meant to write exactly the opposite: She was *not* an unwanted
> child...

     Quite right, I somehow managed to lose the 'was not'. Too much Christmas
spirit is to blame for that Typo.

> In reality, and once this sort of thing becomes common(ish), I suppose
> there *will* be a few kids who get conceived and born for purely
> instrumental motives, and who have a terrible time as a result. After all,
> it happens a lot now.

       If you mean in the cases of disfunctional marriages and the miriad of
dumb or pychotic reasons that people have for wanting a child. I'd agree it
does happen a lot now and will unfortunately continue to happen.

 But the psychological impact of one child being the

> occasion of a brother or sister's extended life and health is *so*
> manifestly positive for all concerned that it makes me wonder what kind of
> bleak psychic universe these moaning media handwringers inhabit...
> Damien Broderick

       Ive long since stopped listening to the media for exactly that reason.
Id pay more for a paper that gave out good news. Obviously that demographic
count in the media industry and Doom and Gloom is a time tested seller.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:31 MDT