From: ABlainey@aol.com
Date: Wed Dec 26 2001 - 10:50:13 MST
In a message dated 25/12/01 02:51:34 GMT Standard Time,
d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au 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
doesn't
count in the media industry and Doom and Gloom is a time tested seller.
Alex
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:50 MST