EnglishInvader wrote:
If you want your child to be either Autistic or NT, you're putting a social valuation on him/her from the outset.
Incorrect!
By wanting my child to be similar to myself, I am just wanting to easily relate to my child.
That does not put a higher or a lower "value" upon that child.
Same thing as an Apple is not neccesarily more or less valuable than an Orange.
"I want my fruit to be an apple!"
"I want my fuit to be an orange!"
"Food love should be unconditional and if you can't enjoy a fruit for what it is, rather than what you want it to be, you shouldn't be eating. If you want your fruit to be either an Apple or an Orange, you're putting a culinary valuation on it from the outset. A fruit is not a label. "
See how silly that sounds?
It does not mean I will love it more or less, depending on how it comes out.
Quote:
A child is not a label.
Correct! A child is a child. Labels may be put on a child, however. For example, "cute" is a label that is put on many children. But a child is not a "cute."
But you still did not answer my original question. In fact, you seemed to avoid it. I will post it again for you, with clarification that this is not a rhetorical question.
Cleverkitten wrote:
Who here is saying that parental love should be conditional? Who here is saying that they won't love their child for who s/he is?