Dec 11 2012
I read an interesting article the other day that started me thinking (always a dangerous thing). In any case, this was the lead paragraph in the article:
A Canadian MP is pushing parliament to denounce sex-selection abortions at a time when studies show women are using ultrasounds to determine the sex of unborn children for the purposes of sex-selection abortions.
So it appears that some pregnant Canadian women are getting ultrasounds to determine the sex of their unborn child, and then getting abortions if the child is not the flavor they want. I’m sure this is particularly appalling to the thousands of couples who are trying to have children and cannot have them. Terminating a potential life over something so trivial seems absolutely barbaric and evil to me.
The article went on to say that the man who introduced the legislation did so because this practice “discriminated against women.” The statistics showed that these kinds of abortions were occurring most often when the fetus was female. So this man was incensed that the practice was not politically correct, rather than because it was taking innocent lives. I guess he would have no objection if it was being done equally against both sexes.
My reason for bringing this up has nothing to do with the whole abortion question, although I have obvious strong feelings about that. But the article got me to thinking about what the developers of some of these technologies would think about how they are being used today.
I have had many ultrasounds when visiting the doctor and it is a marvelous technology. It allows the doctor to peer inside you without using surgery and other invasive methods. It becomes a routine diagnostic procedure that can be done during a lunch break, yet it opens up the human body in ways that doctors 50 years ago could never imagine.
I’m sure the scientists and doctors who developed these ultrasound devices could see the potential for how they could enhance life and save lives. But did they also foresee that their invention would be used as the basis for a decision to end life? Would they have been so enthusiastic in their development of these miracle devices knowing they would also be used for the exact opposite purpose?
Abortion is not the only example of using medicine for purposes that are contrary to life. Think of the countries that allow physician-assisted suicide, or governments that have forced sterilization upon some of their citizens.
Consider these marvelous times that we live in, and how the blessings of our life can also become curses. Television can lift, inspire and educate, but usually (in my experience) it can just feed us mindless entertainment or bombard us with negative messages. The same can be said for computers, movie theaters, and books and magazines.
Think how the airplane has changed the world. On occasion we fly across the country, and I always wonder what our ancestors would say if they could be sitting there beside me. I think of those Mormon pioneers who suffered greatly and sacrificed much to travel to the hash environment of Utah. What would they think of the idea of making the same trip in a few hours while watching TV and eating peanuts?
Yet the atomic age, several wars and September 11, 2001 taught us that these fantastic flying machines can also be the messengers of much death, destruction, and misery.
I suppose that technology is not in itself either good or evil, but that it can be used for either purpose based upon the motives of its owner. The epic battle between good and evil has been ongoing since Adam and Eve, and probably longer than that. Both sides will use all weapons at their disposal in this eternal fight. Whether they are throwing rocks or hand grenades probably doesn’t make much difference.
What we can do is examine the use of technology in our own lives. We may not be able to change the world, but we can change one family at a time. I applaud those people who have the courage to set limits on technology when they discover it is being abused.