One of the big stories today in Australia is of a Melbourne woman who has announced that she is traveling to Thailand to have sex selection IVF because it is against the law here. She just has to have a girl, don’t you know! From the story:
A MELBOURNE mum is so desperate to have a daughter she is travelling to Thailand so she can choose the sex of her next baby, frustrated at Australian medical authorities as they drag their feet over the issue. Already blessed with three boys – aged 5, 4 and 1 – the 36-year-old and her husband say they have been forced to sidestep Australian laws because they cannot wait for federal medical authorities to decide if they will overturn their ban on the practice. While she says her boys mean the world to her, the mother – who does not want to be identified for fear of reprisals against her family – will spend more than $15,000 to ensure she conceives a girl in a Bangkok clinic in the coming months.
Of course, this means the male embryonic brothers of those treasured boys will be tossed out with the other medical waste. So, in this case, a Y chromosome is a deadly defect. But after all, it is all about entlitlement:
“We have all this technology available now and we don’t need to use it open-slather, but I think we do need to use it with parameters, with doctors involved, to enhance our lives.”
Proper parameters? She’s circumventing legal parameters by leaving Australia for Thailand because she wants what she wants.
Increasingly, IVF is not about treating infertility, but about reducing reproduction to a crass consumer activity akin to choosing a breed of dog or model of flat screen television. This is objectification pure and simple. When we believe we are entitled not just to a child but to the kind of child we want, it strikes a body blow against unconditional love–becuase by definition, it isn’t. Of course, the point of telling the media about the “mum’s” plans was to promote that very outcome.
July 9th, 2010 | 2:15 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys. Vince Humphreys said: SHS: I Have a Right to a Baby Girl! Using IVF for Sex Selection http://bit.ly/bzMYtD #tcot [...]
July 9th, 2010 | 5:02 am
“Proper parameters? She’s circumventing legal parameters by leaving Australia for Thailand because she wants what she wants”
1. I have wanted nothing more than to have a child since I was 20 years old, working since 16 years old, throughout University (three degrees) and more than two jobs since. This was to prepare for my dream of a simple happy life
2. I lost my father at the age of 11, a good man. I had the best mother in the world.
3. I put a deposit on a house when I was in my 20′s and worked hard to pay a lot of it off.
4. At 32 years of age, I met my husband, and despite all of my tests for fertility being positive, I wasn’t conceiving. I went to gynaecologists who told me I was “infertile” or “too old” or “they didn’t know what was wrong”.
5. I told said gynaecologists I knew I was fertile, and asked for further investigation.
6. Gynaecolgists responded to the effect that my husband’s sperm test was “marginal”, therefore “it must be you”. No solution or further investigation was offered
7. At the time there was ‘clumping’ in my husband’s test which is an indication of the presence of antibodies, the level of which impacts on fertility. Anything over 30% antibodies indicates incompatibility with fertility. It isn’t known exactly what causes antibodies in male sperm, but there are approximately 6 suspected causes and no cures. The recommended treatment is ICSI-IVF where the sperm is injected directly into the egg, as it is impossible for the sperm to penetrate the egg naturally.
8. After going to many gynaecologists, a very old Czechoslovakian specialist suspected that anti-sperm antibodies were suspicious. There are specialist tests widely available to investigate the integrity of sperm (eg IBT etc). However, no previous gynaecologist had recommended same. I had never heard of sperm antibodies before. The gynaecologist referred us to the local medical hospital attached to the local IVF clinic in our State to investigate further.
9. A battery of tests was conducted on both of us. I underwent operations to have my anatomy inspected (laparoscopy), blood tests, etc. No abnormalities were detected. My FSH was very low which is a positive sign of fertility. Every test was compatible with fertility. The IVF team informed us that my husband had 100% antibodies, something they said was totally incompatible with infertility. The IVF team told us it was “impossible” to conceive naturally without ICSI IVF.
10. I was now 38 years old, and started on one round of IVF after another, back to back, realising I had lost many years of fertility through misdiagnosis. It was costly but a race against time. I became severely depressed.
11. My husband and I questioned the IVF team very closely about the very high (very rare) level of antibodies in my husband, which had initially caused them to ask him whether he was dying of autoimmune disease or had had chemotherapy. Apparently only a tiny fraction of men, less than 1% of men, have 100% IgG and IgA antibodies.
12 We were concerned that with such as high level of antibodies, based on the literature I read obsessively, that this could indicate or give rise to an abnormality in the underlying integrity of the DNA of the sperm. After all, the integrity of the DNA of the egg and sperm, if impaired affect fertility.
13 All IVF professors, Doctors, staff and embryologists insisted time and again, after each failure of IVF, 10 in total, that ICSI IVF was a “complete cure” for sperm antibodies. The fertility rate was very low (sometimes one egg out of 8 per operation), however the Doctor was unable to explain why this was the case. It was simply suggested that another expensive round of IVF, with hormones etc be undertaken without a second thought. I asked for the average figures for the fertility rates for couples in this age group. The clinic claim to have these figures available in their literature, however after pointing out that it wasn’t in their literature, the Doctor disappeared for 15 minutes and came back with a blank sheet of paper with 70% typed on a piece of paper, which wasn’t sourced to any database, literature or anything else authoritative or linked to the clinic.
14. The fertilisation rate was far lower than even this dubious figure.
15. I sold my house which was everything I had worked for all my life to continue to fund more IVF. At 39-40 years old, female fertility continues to drop off very quickly at an increasing rate. I had known that it begins to drop after 35 when the problem was first diagnosed when I was 38. I knew time was running out. However my FSH was very low, and all other indicators were that I was fertile.
16. Because of all of the literature indicating that sperm integrity is likely to be impaired if there is a problem (let alone of the severe magnitude my husband had), we asked for sperm donors. We went to an information (propaganda seminar). We heard stories about a lady who had donor sperm and lovely children after her husband had cancer, when there were sperm reserves available many years ago. We asked the ‘promoter/psychologist of the IVF clinic’ whether there was a problem with sperm reserves. She said “no” although there were problems with the availability of “donor eggs”
17. After waiting months for an appointment for the donor program (time ticking away) we went back to the IVF professor who had administered 10 IVF cycles to us. We told him we went to the donor information seminar and asked about donor sperm. He looked at us and said “why would you need donor sperm?” My husband said to him “remember you said two years ago that the chances of us getting pregnant with my sperm were the same as getting hit by a meteorite?”. The Doctor lazily looked down at his file and said “oh yes, that’s right, you have 100% sperm antibodies”. The Doctor sent us to the Psychologist/INformation Provider and approved the use of donor sperm. He told me that my FSH level was that of a 20-30 year old and that this was very promising for my fertility for a 39-40 year old.
18. Nonetheless of course I was very concerned, as time continued to tick away. It had been 20 years since I had wanted a child. Every second seemed like an eternity. When we sat down with the IVF Psychologist, the same person who saw us at the donor information session she told us that the Doctor must have made a mistake, and probably didn’t know the “policy” – sperm donation for women over 40 was limited. We said the Doctor would probably know we presumed. Her response “no he is wrong, I’ll talk to him. We will sort it out”.
19. Weeks passed. I contacted the clinic, and asked for clarification. The Psychologist, IVF nurse and Doctor had different and irreconcilable understandings of “the policy”, however in the meantime we were told there was a shortage of sperm. (not enough to go around). The clinic told us that they were going to have another information night and invited us to come along to hear the policy, admitting they had made a mistake. They said it should be based on the individual female’s fertility, however they would not change their decision.
20. We asked the IVF nurse to arrange the donor sperm (only two rounds) asap as time was running out. The Psychologist, to satisfy red tape, said we had to go through “counselling” in another two months. (next appointment). In the meantime the IVF nurse suggested “advertising for a female egg donor” and “putting the word out at parties” we were looking for one. Meanwhile the IVF nurse said she would need to check my husband’s sperm???????????? I asked her what she meant. She said that she needed to because “before asking any female donor to be a donor the clinic had to check whether the male’s sperm was compatible with fertility”. My response was that the IVF clinic (all staff) had insisted it was for two years under rigorous questioning. I asked why, at this point in time, would that have changed? Why only now would the clinic be concerned when it was known that antibodies don’t go away and there would be no change in my husband’s sperm. I began to wonder whether the clinic had ever really cared about this or listened, perhaps suspecting that there was a problem with the DNA integrity of my husband’s sperm but not caring. The clinic was like a factory, and on one occasion when I attended for a routine blood test, I was taken down to the operating theatre to have eggs taken out (“a case of mistaken identity”).
20. The nurse became very nervous and was unable to provide any explanation for the need to check my husband’s DNA. I said “if it was okay for all of the 10 cycles we had with ICSI IVF why would it not be for another woman, all other things being equal?” No response was forthcoming.
21. I told the Psychologist and the Nurse that we needed to know where we stood, as precious time was running out. We didn’t want a designer baby. We wanted to love a child, even if not genetically ours. We had never been counselled about the cost of adoption, egg or sperm donation but we actively sought out this information from the clinic who were unable to provide it.
22. The IVF psychologist gave me some forms to advertise for an egg donor to send into the Department of Human Services for approval. You get a number which the Department takes three months to approve, so you are allowed to advertise for a sperm donor. You can go to jail if you offer anything other than reasonable medical expenses. There are many many ads in these papers, $200 per ad average. One Doctor who was silenced stated that of the number of women who didn’t have a friend or younger sister to act as an egg donor, only one or two women over six years had ever been able to find a donor through advertising. I wanted to see the statistics, so that we could make an informed decision as there was still just enough money for a trip overseas to a low cost fertility clinic for “donor IVF”.
23. The IVF Nurse started rudely questioning why we would want to go overseas as I could have IVF until I was 46 in Australia and there were “so many options”. The fact is that statistically IVF in women over 42 years of age is less than 2% successful.
24. I asked the Psychologist and Nurse to please provide the “options” for our consideration, based on our desparation to have accurate information to make an informed decision.
The following were put forward as viable options:
1. donor embryos – chance of success 10% (waiting period 1.5 years)
2. donor eggs – advertise in the paper, when I asked for the statistics as to how many women had found donors the clinic refused to provide even de-anonymised information.
3. adoption – Australia doesn’t permit adoption.
25. I asked again why the information in 2. couldn’t be released as it was critical to any decision and I was desparate to make a decision whether to spend all my money and go overseas for a chance with donor eggs (rising to 50%) – cost roughly equivalent to IVF in Australia in one country at the time. The clinic would not release the information.
26. I put an ad in the paper and elsewhere. Women rang and abused me for being anti-god. I had to disclose my details, and phone number and endure these phone calls from women who had no idea of the pain I had endured. I had been a victim of crime and regarded myself as fortunate and resilient but the inability to have a child was crippling psychologically.
27. No women came forward.
28. I went into a deep depression for two years.
29. I went overseas for donor egg IVF. The clinic overseas said that there was a very good chance that the DNA in the sperm was damaged particularly given it was so severely affected by antibodies. The treatment was unsuccessful. I saved up for another treatment. No house. No money. Everything was devoted to having a child, “selfish” according to the IVF nurse, as in the United States (a place where we couldn’t afford to go not being wealthy politicians) women can have twins which means that the population is put under pressure. This moral outrage made me more depressed as I was forced in earlier IVF treatments by Victorian law to watch a third embryo flushed down the toilet to comply with the law (no more than two embryos implanted, even for women of mature age). This was a potential life which was being murdered. It was soul destroying.
30. It is very clear now that the IVF clinic had available to them, or should have known, that my husband’s sperm was so severely damaged, that a further test was warranted which would have enabled us to avoid 10 unnecessary cycles, and if we used either my eggs or donor eggs, to have a chance to have a child overseas. The IVF clinic stated that this was not the case, although these tests were at the time standard. They demonstrate underlying sperm damage and indicate whether donor sperm should be used. In my husband’s case there could have been no clearer case for using it. 100% antibodies. Despite our continual protestations over years, the IVF clinic experts indicated we were “wrong” and still were.
31. The IVF clinic said that there was fertilisation which means that a pregnancy was possible however all of the literature suggested that with DNA sperm damage, the problem manifested during the fourth cell division which wasn’t evident until the fourth or fifth day after initial fertilisation.
32. The IVF clinic still adhere to their view.
33. We later found out from a 60 minutes program that and later from the internet that women were importing sperm (age range up to 43 years) and were also receiving treatment from some clinics in Australia. They were “in the know”. The state in which we reside has the most conservative laws in Australia.
34. The other State’s IVF clinic, when told of what had happened, was distressed that this state’s clinic had AT NO TIME INFORMED ME OF THE POSSIBILITY OF ACCESSING SPERM AT AN INTERSTATE CLINIC,AS THEY WOULD HAVE KNOWN OF IT’S AVAILABILITY.
35. I asked the IVF clinic here and they stated that “it wasn’t their obligation, duty or responsibility”.
36. The IVF clinic here knew that women had been able to import sperm from overseas and of my desparation to have a child, through any means possible, adoption etc etc. They still didn’t see any obligation to inform us of this availability interstate.
37 The IVF clinic interstate now said that at 44 years of age, it didn’t matter how low my FSH was, my chances of conceiving were very low, although not up until 43. He conceded the only chances were going overseas for donor egg treatment (lowest price $10,000) which we didn’t have.
38. Overseas European countries often fund the full cost for medical problems arising from IVF. They regard the right to have a child (I don’t regard a child as a right) as important to happiness. Although I don’t regard a child as a right I do know that not being able to conceive for a medical reason is depressing to the point of being suicidal. I have never felt like this irrespective of anything that has happened in my life. I see children everywhere. I am asked all the time why I “didn’t want children”. I am always judged, presumptuously by other women as the ‘type of woman’ who would prefer to work than have a child.
39. The reality is however that I was working so hard to afford what was always useless and thoughtless IVF treatment. This clinic is now listed on the stock market and it is clear where their interests lie.
40. After all of this I was recently asked in a routine manner by the IVF nurse, “do you want to make another appointment, you have until you are 46?”. I asked her what my chances of conceiving were, as I was living off a credit card. As an afterthought, she checked her statistics and said “less than 1 percent but it can happen”.
I just thought that I might give you some perspective of “crass commercial (consumer) activity”. I don’t believe in blue eyed blond haired designer babies off supermarket shelves, but as my mother is dying from alzheimers, I think of the greatest achievement she has achieved. However even she doesn’t really understand the pain.
The fact is if we choose to smoke, become obese, and live irresponsibly, the Government will treat this as a “medical problem”. I don’t believe infertility is a “religious infliction” as I have heard politicians openly pronounce. It is a medical problem. In fact the rate of male infertility has increased by 30% over the last 30 years and many many women are in IVF treatment (now over 50% due to male infertility).
A doctor who could address some of this male infertility due to free radicals (low sperm count etc) developed a “vitamin pill” – Menavit which was hugely successful in men with sperm problems whose partners all got pregnant in a trial. What did this tablet consist of? Lycopene, selenium, Vitamin A and E.
What did the IVF doctors say?
Menavit is useless! I guess they would rather pump women with numerous hormone treatments which actually end up reducing their fertility. That is a woman’s choice, but it should be an informed one.
If my husband and I were successful in having a child through IVF we would be able to donate our excess embryos to another couple. We have paid for the service to the IVF clinic. Do you realise that the IVF clinic then charge the couple MORE for the donated embryos we have already paid for (in terms of the service, thousands of dollars). I asked the IVF clinic why this was. Their response was that there is a “service fee” to cover “administration, paperwork” and “psychological counselling”.
July 9th, 2010 | 6:13 am
In WesleyWorld, you see, such concepts as an individual’s freedom to choose what to do with his own life and body are not unconditional. Only “love” is unconditional — that is to say, as long as it’s not the love of freedom and individuality. The Great Wesley will tell us what we can and can’t love.
For all this prattling about how human exceptionalism is our bulwark against tyranny, the underlying philosophy of WesleyWorld seems awfully close to fascism.
July 9th, 2010 | 7:14 am
In humans, XX is female, XY is male. In your analysis wouldn’t XY be the “deadly defect”?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 8:30 am
Jeffrey: I knew that. Thanks.
July 9th, 2010 | 8:48 am
[...] Read more here: I Have a Right to a Baby Girl! Using IVF for Sex Selection … [...]
July 9th, 2010 | 9:00 am
Criminy, if they want a girl that badly, why don’t they adopt one? The story doesn’t use the word “adopt” once. It’s kind of creepy.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
SparkVark: Because that wouldn’t fully satisfy the consumerist itch.
July 9th, 2010 | 10:42 am
Heh.
Technicalities and moral choices aside, I wish her luck…in the sense of “be careful what you wish for – you might get it”.
I have 4 boys and 1 girl. I’d rather have 4 more boys than one more girl. I have nothing but great admiration for mothers who have multiple girls – maybe it’s just what you get used to – but anyone who tells you that the difference between girls and boys is “just” due to cultural environment clearly hasn’t raised both. And maybe neither.
July 9th, 2010 | 12:16 pm
So, this is a fear I have: abortion becomes okay, then accepted, then typical, then, under certain circumstances, mandatory.
I know that’s a far cry from where we are, and maybe not even a possibility, but when I read about sex selection I had the same chilling thought.
July 9th, 2010 | 1:52 pm
HW:
So often, your comments appear as a mirror image of wisdom and common sense because your premises are exactly the opposite of those that promote human freedom. So, I’ll use the phrases you conveniently provide to say:
For all your prattling about how an individual’s freedom to choose is our bulwark against tyranny, the underlying philosophy of HistoryWriterWorld seems awfully close to fascism.
How is it that you don’t see an individual’s right to be as a necessary prerequisite to any individual’s right to choose?
July 9th, 2010 | 3:17 pm
“In WesleyWorld, you see, such concepts as an individual’s freedom to choose what to do with his own life and body are not unconditional. Only “love” is unconditional — that is to say, as long as it’s not the love of freedom and individuality. The Great Wesley will tell us what we can and can’t love.”
What about baby boy’s freedom to choose what to do with their bodies and how to live their lives Historywriter? Why do their rights not matter?
Ironically it is people like you who love conditionally and not people like Mr. Smith. This woman has chosen to love only a girl baby.
Everyone has freedom to choose many things in life but often only to a certain extent.
I can choose to get stinking drunk but I cannot choose to get stinking drunk, get into my car and drive.
I can choose to skip my mortgage payments but I won’t be able to live for long in my home.
Somehow we think that in the area of sexual ethics only OUR right to choose matters and that somehow those choices should have no consequences.
July 9th, 2010 | 5:25 pm
Escaping to Bankok for sex selection has probably been going on for a while. Afterall, she even talks about how supportive her GP has been in getting the eggs to Bangkok. The only reason this story was published is because it’s one of the rare cases when somebody wants a girl instead of a boy. Taken at a glance, it helps create a false impression that sex selection is often equal rather than the total lopsided death sentence it often is.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
molloaggie: That’s a very perceptive point. And that pushes toward that entitlement in a way that would be disdained if it were a “sexist” decision to destroy all female embryos. We push wrong behavior often by doing it in the most politically correct manner to keep those who might otherwise object saying, “Oh, well that’s okay, then.” I also note the story didn’t say whether the woman is infertile. I doubt it.
July 9th, 2010 | 9:40 pm
Like the young, fertile woman who underwent IVF just so she could have her embryos implanted latter in life when it was more “convenient,” this is additional evidence that IVF has gone from “infertility treatment” to “human manufacturing”.
July 10th, 2010 | 7:25 am
Kathleen Lundquist asks: “How is it that you don’t see an individual’s right to BE as a necessary prerequisite to any individual’s right to choose?”
Because the individual “right to be” (right to life?) doesn’t exist until after a person is born. That’s always been the understanding here in the US. Not even the Founders recognized such a thing as “fetal rights.”
July 10th, 2010 | 7:50 am
Patricia: I will repeat what I told Kathleen Lundquist: the individual “right to be” (right to life?) doesn’t exist until after a person is born. That’s always been the understanding here in the US. Not even the Founders recognized such a thing as ‘fetal rights.’
You write: “I can choose to get stinking drunk but I cannot choose to get stinking drunk, get into my car and drive.” WRONG. You CAN do both. You DO have freedom to do the latter, although it is considered bad conduct because it would endanger the safety of others. There is no similar case to be made for reproductive choice.
You also say: “Somehow we think that in the area of sexual ethics only OUR right to choose matters and that somehow those choices should have no consequences.”
Somehow? Do you seriously believe that’s a wrong belief. Do you believe my ethical choices are anyone’s business absent any harm to others? Are they your business, or that of the government? Are your choices any of of mine? What next? Will some government committee decide what married couples can do in their bedrooms? (Don’t laugh; it’s been tried. See Griswold v. Connecticut).
Various busybodies, religious fanatics and members of the American Taliban may differ with that point of view, but then they have their opinions and I have mine. That’s the way it is in a free country like America.
Would you feel more comfortable living in a theocracy?
July 11th, 2010 | 12:29 am
“……Because the individual “right to be” (right to life?) doesn’t exist until after a person is born. That’s always been the understanding here in the US. Not even the Founders recognized such a thing as “fetal rights.”……..”
Quite right. But that’s not the important issue. What we decide to do with conception determines love, life and humanity. We can be humans or less than human. The choice is ours. It’s us…..
July 11th, 2010 | 6:45 am
lzzrdgrrl wrote: “What we decide to do with conception determines love, life and humanity. We can be humans or less than human.”
I think most human exceptionalists would disagree with you. In their view it’s impossible for humans to be “less than human.” They believe the distinguishing characteristic of human beings is our ability to formulate moral issues and make decisions between them. Whether the “right” decisions or the “wrong” decisions is irrelevant to our intrinsic humanity.
Unfortunately that point of view taken to its logical conclusion implies that Hitler was no more deserving of assassination that Ghandi, Martin Luther King or Jesus Christ, even if assassinating the Fuhrer in 1935 would have spared the 40 million or so lives that were lost as a result of World War II. Well, at least they’re consistent, even if that 40,000,000:1 ratio makes it difficult to take them seriously.
Sorry, but in WesleyWorld humanity has absolutely nothing at all to do with how we handle conception. Nor has it anything to do with love. Flower children of the 1960s and fans of John Lennon may feel differently, but …..
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 11th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
History Writer: As usual your logic is surreal. Assassination is not the issue and is irrelevant in a post about IVF. Besides, HE does not prevent people from being held accountable for what their actions. People are not less human, but the can certainly act less than human.
July 11th, 2010 | 5:24 pm
Wesley: Dirstortion as usual? You must be over your jet lag.
It’s quite obvious that assassination is not the issue. The issue is the logical conclusion to which your theory of human exceptionalism can be taken.
Deny, if you can, the truth of my allegation that from an HE point of view Adolf Hitler and Ghandi were equally valuable for their humanness. Don’t obfuscate the point that’s being made. I’m simply quoting stuff you’ve said yourself.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 12th, 2010 at 1:51 am
Stop telling me not to obfuscate. I don’t. Do it again, and I won’t reply.
Yes, Hitler and Ghandi had the same intrinsic moral worth as human beings. Hitler could, of course, have been punished for his acts. The great Ghandi extolled for his. But Hitler’s intrinsic dignity as a human being means Hitler, had he been caught, could not have been used in experimentation or locked in a room for two weeks and dehydrated to death.
July 11th, 2010 | 6:34 pm
“When we believe we are entitled not just to a child but to the kind of child we want, it strikes a body blow against unconditional love–because by definition, it isn’t.”
People naturally desire certain traits in children. They always have. Presented with the opportunity to ensure the presence of these traits, they will grasp it – if the cost (financial, social, psychological) is one they are willing to bear.
I understand how one may have problems with specific procedures for ensuring desired reproductive outcomes but I fail to see why anyone should get exercised over the very ancient idea of parents attempting to predetermine the gender of their offspring.
For people at the IVF clinics it might well be about providing a range of services for consumers – but for the parents involved innovations of this sort can never reduce reproduction to “a crass consumer activity”. It will always be a process fraught with emotional significance and lifelong consequence and being able to predetermine a few genetic traits won’t change that.
Expressing a preference for a certain kind of child doesn’t mean that parental love becomes dependent on the child eventually being what his or her parents desired.
Would you argue that parents who spend a great deal of time and money trying to ensure their child is born free of congenital defects feel “entitled to a healthy child” and that their love for their offspring was somehow conditional on their being healthy? Or that parents who deploy their resources to guarantee their children placement in select schools are reducing education to “a crass consumer activity” and striking a body blow at unconditional love because they’ve expressed this preference for well-educated children?
[btw, are all consumer activities "crass"? How, for instance, does that adjective do justice to "choosing a breed of dog" - which would be, as the Dogs Trust reminds us, "for life and not just for Christmas."]
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 12th, 2010 at 1:47 am
Choosing a breed of dog is not crass. Choosing a baby in the same way, is.
July 11th, 2010 | 8:09 pm
I’m chuckling over Suek’s comment: Suek, it really is just what you’re used to. I’m the mother of multiple girls (three), and while they cause me plenty of hair-tearing moments (and they’re not even grown up yet), I would be nervous about having a boy. I don’t think I’d have the energy. But of course if I became pregnant with one, I’d accept him with love and pray for strength. :-)
July 11th, 2010 | 11:12 pm
Humanity is at risk and so is the value of human life. That’s why choices matter. If what we do doesn’t impact on our humanity however we assess that, then what does it matter what we do?…….
July 12th, 2010 | 2:08 am
So I have to conclude, Wesley, that you would also describe any adoptive process in which parents have criteria for selecting the “right” child (and money changes hands) as representing “crass consumer activity”.
July 12th, 2010 | 10:00 am
HW: I am sure you realize that the Founders of this country also did not recognize the rights of slaves, either.
July 12th, 2010 | 10:03 am
Wesley: what is the first comment, above? It seems as if it appeared after others were posted. Is this commen suppsedly from the woman in the article?
July 12th, 2010 | 7:40 pm
I understand where you’re coming from, Wesley, because, i too, believe in the intrinsic worth of all human beings.
But frankly, if the choice is between Hitler, and say, a gentle gorilla, that has harmed no one, for experimentation, then I must choose Hitler for experimentation. Some may find this shocking.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 13th, 2010 at 12:45 am
Bret: Which kind of illustrates why animal rights are a threat to human rights.
July 12th, 2010 | 9:14 pm
“Yes, Hitler and Ghandi (sic) had the same intrinsic moral worth as human beings.”
Thank you Wesley. I’ll be sure to quote you.
HW
July 13th, 2010 | 11:20 am
HW — You will probably misquote Wesley because you want to make him mean something other than what he means.
Hitler and Ghandi were the same at conception, in terms of “worth”, were they not? In time, before any of their own free choices were made?
You haven’t ever been able to articulate a clear justification for the free will that you steadfastly argue for, but you certainly believe in it.
And you seem to assert time and again that there is alist of reasons that a person can lose their “worth”, or to be seen as equally human. You say that Hitler is NOT the same as Ghandi, and I must assume that is because of their choices to destroy rather than give life to humanity.
Fine.
Just want to point out
(1) that your criteria is based on actions of adult, knowing persons (NOT, say, of pre-born children who ostensibly haven’t yet committed atrocities of mass murder, human imprisonment and non-consensual experimentation), that
(2)your characterization of the criteria is deliberately scaled to eschew the complex questions of personhood and just relies on cheap appeals to emotionalism, and that
(3)you frequently treat with condescension any hint of a value system that makes moral judgements on personal behavior–EVEN WHEN it directly impacts the life and well-being of other people and also the attitudes of society toward its members. AND YET you, on a regular basis, assign your own personal criteria for moral behavior, and indeed define on your own terms what makes a person “valuable” or “human”.
That last one is why I have no respct for your arguments, whereas I know a few people who believe similar things as you do about choice, the mind, and suicide, for example, but who recognize where their opinions end and other’s begin. People with any intellectual integrity at all understand that in a free and open society we have to constantly wrangle with the public/private lines and that other people are to be met with respect, not bloviating aggression.
Unless you are completely dense, you and I both know that Wesley has never said that Hitler was a ‘better person’ than Ghandi, or even that he would want to save Hitler if he was drowning. All along Wesley’s argument has been that we cannot assign hierarchical values to human Being. That there is no acceptable order to place them in *philosophically*, and even when a person chooses to throw away the best of their humanity and express the worst, we cannot justify treating them as if they are now and forever cast out of the human race.
And in the spirit of antagonism tha you love so well, I challenge you yet again to repond with thoughtfulness to what I have to say. Past history here indicates that you will not, but hey, I am an optimist!
July 13th, 2010 | 6:13 pm
I did not say that I would want a policy, where humans are experimented on. I said that, if given the choice, I think that a mass murderer, should be experimented on, rather than an innocent, highly intelligent primate.
But of course, the advocates of HE are also caught in moral paradox: You, Wesley, are willing to give more moral standing to a Ted Bundy, Adolf Hitler, than to a gorilla, or other intelligent creature. Does this NOT trouble you, to some extent?
July 13th, 2010 | 6:42 pm
If I could, I would like to clarify my view on experimentation. I do NOT believe in experimenting on humans, unless they explicitly consent to it. I don NOT believe in experimenting on other animals, unless, we find some sustitute for consent. That is, obviously, animals cannot give/withold consent. But they can give an indication, as to what they like/dislike. Another approach, is to only experiment on animals, in ways that we experiment on humans, who have given consent. In this way, we can reasonably believe that, if they,(the animals) could give consent, they would, if it mirrors humans who have given consent.
But let’s remember, that morality is a synthesis of reason and emotion. Although I admire your consistency, Wesley, in your willingness to experiment on an animal rather than Hitler, I find it, frankly, chilling.
July 13th, 2010 | 6:57 pm
HW: I think you’re being unfair to Wesley. His argument is, that, Ghandi, and Hitler, by vitue of being human, have the same moral worth. Wesley does not believe, of course, that they both lived equally morally productive lives. Certainly, Wesley believes that Hitler was a terrible person, who did absolutely horrible things, and should be punished, if caught.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact