"The MPs also suggest there should no longer be a need to consider… - Sally's Journal
"The MPs also suggest there should no longer be a need to consider the suitability of parents under "welfare of the child" considerations when approving couples for IVF treatment, because it is discriminatory"
Well, they're *right* I mean, any moron, if fertile, can have a kid, and yet we screen people for being good parents before spending lots of money helping them have babies. And we screen people before letting them adopt.
Unfortunately, (IM eletist and facist O) letting morons have IVF is exactly the *wrong* logical fix to this discrepancy. Although then we enter the minefield of basic human rights to reproduce and whether or not the people in power would let the good people (ie me ;-) ) have children if they were allowed to screen all would be parents before allowing them to concieve...
|Date:||March 24th, 2005 10:22 am (UTC)|| |
It seems to me to make more sense to screen people before spending lots of money on them than before they just go off and do things on their own...
|Date:||March 24th, 2005 10:30 am (UTC)|| |
But they also screen you before letting you spend lots of your own money.
|Date:||March 24th, 2005 10:32 am (UTC)|| |
Presumably there's also limited availabiity of the service, but yes, that's a thing....
There's perhaps a bit of an element of 'what, waste all [your money] raising children, to feed ruddy lions? Not me!' No point (for anyone involved) letting someone go through IVF and pregnancy if they're a cert* for having the child taken into care before its first year is out. :-( With fertile-but-unsuitable parents there's pretty much no way of stopping the process in its tracks, but with IVF/adoption there is.
* This is perhaps the contentious part - how do you know for sure that 'clearly inappropriate' people will not reform wildly during pregnancy/the adoption process (some natural parents do, after all), but sadly in some cases it's obvious even to the layman that it is going to be the case.
Got to admit it, while I think everybody should be screened (given the numbering of idiots out there) before having kids, but Senji has the nub of it. IVF requires lots of money and so it needs to be seen to be spent wisely.
|Date:||March 24th, 2005 10:45 am (UTC)|| |
It's not so much a matter of costing lots of money as about limited resources. There's a serious shortage of egg donors, and a limited number of good IVF clinics.
There's no way I would have donated eggs if I thought they were going to a family that hadn't been judged unlikely to make terrible parents. I'm unlikely to donate again for other reasons, but dropping screening on IVF recipients makes it even less likely I'd bother to get over the other reasons.
|Date:||March 24th, 2005 11:16 am (UTC)|| |
There is a wide-spread perception that because some criteria for discrimination are bad in some circumstances, all discrimination is always bad. It is a perception that is very useful to some people, and very destructive (in my opinion): being discriminating is one of the foundation elements in being an informed elector in a modern democracy.
[In theory, at least] there's certainly nothing wrong with discriminating agains 'people who would be likely to be bad parents' by not letting them reproduce. But here I think that Sally was talking about 'discriminating against people with fertility problems' by only helping them to reproduce under certain conditions, whereas fertile folk are allowed to reproduce no matter how bad at bringing up children they'd be. It's not clear to me why that should be considered a 'good' form of discrimination.
I suppose it's good in that it (slightly) reduces the number of bad parents in the world, but the discrimination aspect of it is not good (though it's not exactly a great evil either). I don't think it's in the same category as the kind of 'being discrimination' you're talking about.
|Date:||March 24th, 2005 01:00 pm (UTC)|| |
I'll admit I was indulging in an abstraction. Atreic's comment made me think of a rant I occasionally have, about the discreditation of words. "Discrimination" is one of them. Because certain types of discrimination are bad (eg. social discrimination dependent on race or gender) the word has been discredited, such that exchanging the word 'discrimination' for another words, such as (for example) 'due diligence' allows one to discredit the subject by extension.
I am, indeed, talking about something slightly different from the original post.
*nods* I'm with you there.
Of course there should no longer be a need, just like there should be no need for the word 'genocide'. It's just not going to be true that there is no longer a need for several hundred years.
It's probably best to spell elitist with an "i"!
|Date:||March 24th, 2005 12:35 pm (UTC)|| |
I think there should be criteria. Things like 'isn't a paedopdile' and 'has enough money to feed the child'. And all people should be sterilised at birth to enforce the policy. Also means that you can controll the population.
I don't see why it is your 'basic human right' to have babies in the first place let allone have babies that you can't/won't look after - think of the *baby's* right to have a life that doesn't involve abuse or starving to death.