I thought of something related to what I had written in the previous post.
In yesterday's the Star newspaper, one of the articles mentioned a sighted woman who married a blind man. She read a magazine ad which said ‘blind man looking for love or companionship’.
Angela was looking for a platonic relationship, rather than a romantic one.
However, after speaking to him every day for the next few months, she realised her feelings went much deeper.
“We made plans to get married then, despite fierce opposition from all sides — family, my friends, even his family. Everyone was scared and worried sick about how we would turn out,” Angela reminisces.
But she went ahead anyway, just to prove them wrong: “After a while, my mum saw that my husband is a dignified man who manages himself and his home well. He can do so much compared to many other normal-sighted men.”
Sagayanathan, who works as a telephone operator, also happens to be the sole breadwinner of the house since Angela left her job. The lovestruck couple plan to have children as soon as they get their finances in order.
Tears well up in Angela’s eyes as she says, “Who says that I’m my husband’s caretaker? It’s the other way around. He is the love of my life. Without him, I cannot live.”
So you see, being disabled in whatever way is not a the end of the world or means a life of hardship. The disabled themselves don't view life that way. It is only us, the "normal" people who think like that.
This relates to a question which a colleague was asked: If you knew that your child will be handicapped, would you still bring it into the world?
I don't see why not. In not having the child, are we actually doing a favour to the child or ourselves? Are we making life easier for the child by ending it before it starts? Or are we making our lives easier?
Who are we decide for the child that a life of darkness or without limbs or with the HIV virus is actually a terrible thing and that they would never savour happiness?
Even if the child were to die at a young age from the disease or disability, I think it is better that he has been loved and known what is love in this world.
To know what it means to have parents who love them (assuming they are nice parents of course and not treat/abuse him badly!), to experience the sensation of the warm sunlight or cooling breeze, to play with other kids, to experience joy and sadness, elation and pain and basically live as normal a life as can be.
There will definitely be some bumps in the road for the kid, but whose life doesn't?
And that concludes my thought for the day.
4 comments:
You are normal? Hmmm ...
Maybe no one's normal.
And neither anyone's abnormal.
For we are all unique: no two individual - even twins - are exactly the same.
And so neither are we to nor can we tell anyone this or that, right or wrong, good or bad. For each has to walk his own path - a path no one else can walk.
Others are relevant only insofar we share one or more segments of this path, now and then, at some point in time, now or in the future.
As to the unborn child: he cannot choose for himself, nor can he decide for himself; he is completely at the mercy, or otherwise, of Others.
But then even for adults, not everything is of our choosing. We can choose what we choose, and accept, or not, what is imposed on us - like the rain and sun.
And even for that we apparently choose, something we do sometimes irrationally and almost always with incomplete or even wrong knowledge, its outcome may be entirely not what we thought or wanted it to be.
Our choosing may be entirely irrelevant.
What will be will be.
wah both this and the last posting so loaded one.
to me happiness is a state of mind which i'd like to think EVERYONE is naturally predisposed to.
whether we get in touch with that natural state or not is life's challenge.
Derek - Good article. Astro just showed the re-run of Helen Keller's life story. Her teacher corrected Helen's parents, precisely like your good opinion.
One word to express it: LOVE CONQUERS ALL, no matter what happens.
Post a Comment