The right to life
"1 No-one has the right to a child. To claim the right to a child is to treat that child, another human being, as an end to satisfying one's own desires, as an object and not as a person. To claim the right to a child is to claim jurisdiction over another human being's life when they have no say in the matter, when they have not given their consent, informed or otherwise. The fact that DC children cannot give consent because they are not yet alive is not an argument for putting their interests to one side; rather it is a powerful argument for ceasing the practice of DC altogether, or at the very least for being extremely careful about and limited in the ways we practice it."
http://www.tangledwebs.org.au/
No child whether born through DC or more natural means have a say in the matter, now that is factual. Having a child is not a right to me because to bring the notion of "right or wrong" you have to have been influenced by your environment, it is based on a set of values that we learned as children in the first place and which become an issue seen and debated mostly by adults.
However If I was to follow this statement should we also stop all conceptions which may not be in the best interest of the child. This then becomes rather frightening when you think of all the children in this world that have potentially problematic childhood in front of them such as handicapped, poor or generally unhealthy kids. Then you have to look at the parents as well, should we allow parents to have kids just because they can ?
What about if you learned that someone in your family died of Cancer per say, there would obviously be a chance that you would pass on that gene to any future new born, so does that mean that you should not have children ?
Let's look at myself here for a minute. I've got a genetic disorder which stops me from creating life, who should I blame ? I mean, I never asked to be born with an anomality but I am happy to have been created, even though the fact that I cannot conceive causes me much grief at times, yet if we were to follow up that first statement it would mean that someone else could make that decision on my behalf before I was actually conceived....and what makes them think that they would have the right to take such a decision ?!
"The claim that to give the embryo the status of a human life means that we have to give the separate ovum and sperm also the status of human life is scientifically untrue and philosophically dishonest.
Conception is the first moment in the life of a human being when it can be said both scientifically and philosophically that there is now a distinct entity with all the necessary genetic attributes for being able to learn to read and write among any other endowments humans may have. The fact that a newborn baby only has the potential for such gifts in no way diminishes that child's humanity: the same thing applies to the human in the womb. Equally the fact that handicap may frustrate the development of such gifts makes a human child no less human any more than an ordinary person who through injury or sickness is deprived of speech or loses his/her memory becomes a non-person.
A distinct individual of this sort commences when a single cell of human origin and with a human genotype gains the power to organize its own growth, multiplication and differentiation in a way which ordinarily leads to a human adult requiring nothing other than nutrition and a favourable environment.."
http://www.spuc.org.uk/ethics/art/intrusion-on-nature
posted by MAX at 8:12 PM
4 Comments:
I have been asked to post this message on your blog by Jo Rose a donor conceived adult and member of TangledWebs
Dear Sir
I can't respond to all the postings that you have on your blog as it would take too much from both of our time. But as a donor offspring I would like to respond to this section; "to bring the notion of "right or wrong" you have to have been influenced by your environment, it is based on a set of values that we learned as children in the first place and which become an issue seen and debated mostly by adults.
However if I was to follow this statement "should we also stop all conceptions which may not be in the best interest of the child. This then becomes rather frightening when you think of all the children in this world that have potentially problematic childhood in front of them such as handicapped, poor or generally unhealthy kids".
While I empathize with your situation and appreciate the heartfelt compassion your misfortune has drawn from you towards your wife... I feel there is more that needs to be addressed in the ethics and dynamics of donor conception than you appear to have considered. I am worried that your empathy and difficulty is clouding your judgement. You describe yourself as open to such thoughts as this, if explained with respect, so I will try my best.
Firstly while right and wrong may be culturally influenced we use right and wrong all the time in our lives and interactions. It provides order in laws, responsibilities and appropriate behaviour etc. We appeal to the notion of right and wrong if we feel we have been treated in a way that is criminal or immoral and feel proud of those who have excelled in fulfilling what is recognised and right and good i.e. Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King etc. So to reduce it to cultural irrelevance in relation to intentional relational loss of a genetic parent seems to me as inappropriate and random as if used in an effort to justify stealing.
Intentionality in terms of right and wrong also matters in how we attribute justice in our society, e.g. the difference between manslaughter and murder. So to intentionally create a child with a disability, by for example tampering with its DNA, is different to a child being born with a disability otherwise. And intentionally making a child in an adverse social situation is different to them being born into it without parental, state and medical intentionality and complicity.
To experience infertility is to lose the capacity to have genetic and social continuity, and to share it with ones mate. This is a serious loss and one that should be responded to with love and compassion. Consequentially infertility should not be dismissed or intentionally or recklessly inflicted on people.
The problem I am trying to show you is that donor conception does intentionally and recklessly create a mirror image of loss of infertility for the resultant child. The donor offspring cannot be conceived through sexually committed and loving genetic parents. It is a clinical act between strangers, with contracts necessitating that the offspring are not cared for by donor parent and associated kin, siblings, grandparents etc. they are intentionally separated from them.
I would not advocate for the creation of infertility despite not having directly experienced the pain it creates for the couple affected. I see this as a moral issue. I would also not advocate donor conception due to my knowledge of the pain it creates for the offspring. I would also consider this to be a moral issue rather than a contestable subjective one.
In the same way that there are donor offspring that can be showcased as undisturbed by the kinship and identity consequences of their conception so too could one showcase infertile people who have not resorted to donor conception who also describe themselves as equally 'happy'. Indeed people who choose to make themselves infertile through vasectomies, and remain childless, could be pitted against those who argue the necessity of such radical intervention in infertility.
I wonder and hope that my point will touch home to you?
Best wishes and intentions from Jo Rose
In your last paragraph you compare undisturbed donor offspring with happy childless couples....that's my point, how can life be denied to people who might actually be happy.
How can anyone make a general decision based on the testimony of a few ?
Michael,
I know I am not responding to you directly, but as someone who is about to go through the process of DI myself I would like to comment on some points in the letter you posted.
Firstly I entirely disagree with the statement that having a child by DC is the same thing as intentionally inflicting infertility on someone. The argument of
"The donor offspring cannot be conceived through sexually committed and loving genetic parents"
is, quite frankly, insulting and absurd and perhaps implies that anyone who has trouble conceiving and has to resort to medical assistance is somehow an inadequate parent because their children were not conceived in a sexual act.
While the physical conception may be an act between strangers, the choice to undergo the treatment in the first place is not. It is a hard and fully thought through process by people who have a huge amount of love and commitment to each other and who feel that that love is something they wish to share with a child.
If you remove the word 'genetic' from the sentence then you have a sentence that describes me and my wife and a great deal of other people.
If intentionally separating a child from their genetic parent, and his/her kin, is to be considered such a 'crime' then perhaps we should reconsider laws on adoption, divorce, people who have moved away from their extended family or who have no contact with their own parents, and people who have a child by accident and choose to raise the child on their own.
If such tight control is necessary to prevent unnecessary emotional harm then perhaps natural conception should be outlawed and only people who have passed an extensive screening process should be allowed to conceive at all.
Please don't get me wrong. In the same way that you cannot empathise with my infertility, I cannot empathise with your situation. What I do know is despite my parent's best efforts I went through a great deal of pain as a child, as every child does. When my children are finally born I will be open and honest with them about the manner of their conception and do everything that I can to ease the pain that this knowledge may or may not cause them. As a parent and what I would consider the 'real father' of my children that is my responsibility.
Finally, the comparison that is made in the last paragraph I feel actually argues my side of the fence. Ultimately and no matter how a child is conceived no-one can know how their life or the life of their children will turn out. Some DC persons have had happy and fulfilled lives and some have not. Some childless couples have had the same experience. Indeed everyone may or may not be happy in their lives. If we start saying that we should not have children to protect them from harm then, followed to its natural conlcusion, no-one should give birth.
In most cases a child will outlive his/her parents and their passing will casue a great deal of pain. All parents know this fact at the time when they conceive their children and yet they continue to do so. By your definition, surely all conceptions must therefore be considered a reckless intentional infliction of pain?
Richard
Richard,
Because discrimination happens is it therefore acceptable for me or you to discriminate?
Because crime happens, is it therefore acceptable for me or you to commit a crime?
Because some men and women abandon their biological children, is it therefore acceptable for me or you use the 'seed', of one of these people, to INTENTIONALLY create this situation for a child? And in doing, creating a no strings attached adoption?
Because life happens...just be grateful?
As a donor conceived person, I can honestly say that my life has been and still is happy and fulfilled. I respect, love and admire my parents. Although, I would not have made the same choices as them for many reasons...most importantly, because biological ties are very personal and should not be INTENTIONALLY donted, bought, bartered or traded in order to fill someone elses needs or wants.
I cannot empathise with your situation but I do not think the practice of INTENTIONAL biological severance is just....at the very least, it is a violation of our identity rights.
-Karen
Post a Comment
<< Home