A couple in Australia — already parents of three sons —have announced they have aborted twin boys in their quest to replace their baby daughter, who died soon after birth. Although sex selection via IVF is illegal in Australia, they petitioned a patient review panel for permission, which was denied. They’ve now appealed to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which is slated to hear their case in March.
In the event that their appeal is unsuccessful, the couple has said they intend to travel to the U.S. for assistance conceiving a daughter. Since 2008, Victoria’s Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act has prohibited sex selection except in cases where it would allow parents to avoid transmitting a genetic disease. It’s legal — though still controversial in many circles — in the U.S., where pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PIGD) is used to separate XX from XY chromosomes for reasons of “family balancing.”
[The woman]… says she is griefstricken over the loss of her daughter. Conceiving a girl has become an obsession “that has become vital to her psychological health.”
The case is stirring up plenty of discussion Down Under, where one doctor — described as an IVF “pioneer” — lined up behind the couple to express his support.
I can’t see how it could harm anyone,” said Gab Kovacs. ”Who is this going to harm if this couple have their desire fulfilled?”
Why are people treating children as if they are accessories instead of blessings? A long time ago, people were more used making sacrifices for their children, but now it seems like they are treating everything – including babies – as something to make them happy. It’s all very selfish.
More than 100 unborn babies were aborted last year by women who were pregnant with twins, triplets or quintuplets but wanted to give birth to fewer children.
With a rise in multiple pregnancies widely attributed to IVF treatment, increasing numbers of women are choosing to terminate one or more foetuses while continuing with their pregnancy to deliver at least one of their babies.
Experts suggest that many of the women opt for abortions because of health concerns, as multiple pregnancies are considered more dangerous to mother and baby.
But some women admitted they were considering the procedure because they did not feel able to cope with more than one baby at a time.
The figures are likely to renew the controversial debate over whether IVF clinics should continue implanting several embryos in order to improve couples’ chances of having a baby.
The Department of Health statistics reveal 59 women aborted at least one foetus while continuing to give birth to another baby in 2006 – the number had risen to 85 by 2010.
During 2010, 101 foetuses were selectively terminated because some mothers aborted one or more unborn babies.
Of the 85 women undergoing selective reductions last year, 51 were reducing a pregnancy from twins to a single baby, up from 30 in 2006.
There were also 20 procedures to reduce triplets to twins and nine terminations to take a pregnancy from triplets to a single child.
Separate figures from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) show that almost one third of selective abortions carried out in 2009 involved pregnancies that were a result of fertility treatment.
[…]Medical experts said there was a clear link between the rise in the number of selective abortions and the increasing use of IVF.
Under the NHS, up to three rounds of IVF can be obtained at taxpayer expense.
I am opposed to any policy or program that increases the odds that a child will not have a relationship with their biological father as they grow up. This would include anything that makes it easier for parents to divorce or that facilitates single motherhood. Consequently, I oppose premarital sex, abortion, sex education in schools, no-fault divorce, and giving legal recognition to cohabitation or same-sex marriage. I want children to be able to have their biological father and biological mother close at hand, and to be able to rely on them and know them, so that they don’t feel alone and lost in the world. Although I am willing to permit other arrangements, I think society should celebrate traditional marriage – for the sake of the children.
Well, consider one challenge to this ideal situation where a child grows up with a mother and a father: conception via anonymous sperm donor.
Here’s a video that shows how children are hurt when they are denied a relationship with their biological father: (H/T Stacy McCain)
The practice of anonymous sperm donors, and children fathered by them, is certainly legal and has a market. That would lead one to conclude that it is ethical, rather than unethical. In other words I’d say ethical means ‘not illegal’.
But is it moral? […]That is, does anyone think that the Almighty is pleased, and/or glorified by people thumbing their noses at the clear, simple, obvious, form-follows-function beauty of:
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Gen 2:24
There is vast capacity to use modern technology to tinker about with the natural order of things. I’d like to fall short of a sweeping judgement here, in the space of a blog post. It’s possible that there may exist a really good case for why using an anonymous sperm donor is not immoral. But it seems that protecting the father’s (or the mother’s in the case of an egg donor) privacy at the expense of dropping a sizable existential dilemma on the offspring is immoral. That is, the biological parents (i.e. DNA providers) are doing to the child emotionally what the government is doing economically: casting debts upon them without any sort of dialogue. A variation on taxation without representation, if you will. Progressivism seems to be about finding the least vocal victim.
I don’t think that it’s enough for the child to just know who their biological father is, or to just see a picture of their biological father. I think it’s important that we promote the best situation for children, where each child has a real relationship with their biological father. And we can do that, if we are serious, in several ways.
Promoting marriage
Here are few wild, shoot-from-the-hip ideas to help children to have access to their fathers:
We can research how fatherlessness affects children
We can research what decisions are likely to lead to stable marriage, e.g. – regular church attendance and chastity
We can repeal laws that are hostile to lasting marriage, e.g. – no-fault divorce
We can enact laws that are hostile to divorce, e.g. – shared custody laws
We can stop paying unmarried women to have babies
We can give tax deductions to married couples who have babies
We can give tax deductions to couples planning on marrying if they undergo marital counseling from a program of their own choosing
We can give tax deductions to married couples whose children earn incomes, e.g. – the parents get a tax deduction for 1% of income earned by each child for life
We can give tax deductions to married couples whose children don’t collect government assistance, e.g. – the parents get a 1% tax deduction on their household income for every child who doesn’t collect government welfare during the year
We ban IVF for women who have not been married for at least 5 years
We ban all taxpayer funding of IVF treatments
We ban ban all private insurance coverage for IVF treatments
And so on, like that. This communicates to women that it is not OK to have a baby with an anonymous sperm donor. It communicates that we as a society want fathers to be around their children. It communicates that cohabitation is not the same thing as marriage. It communicates that marriages are for life. We need to get tough if we want children to be spared from the harm of not knowing their biological fathers.
WINTERY KNIGHT 