« Chatter-box time :D | HomePage | Oh and.. »
05/19/2008
Good
Good
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7407589.stm
That is all I can say at the moment... relief...
I am not so bothered about banning true 50/50 hybrids (as that would get messy in all sorts of tangible and ethical/philosophical ways), now we just have: saviour siblings, abortion and the role of fathers in IVF.
The first I am really not sure of... Killing life to save life is one thing and hard to justify, but I think it is equally hard to justify creating a life just to save another. But then again, there are so many unwanted children in the world that the fact they might only be wanted for the sake of another is hardly credible as an argument. I can understand why people would want these saviour siblings. But part of me also says that people should be born unique and *untampered with*... And that people should have the chance to find their own purpose, not have one handed to them on a plate. (There was an interesting book along a similar yet very different line: "The Girls" that told the story of two siamese twins and their dependence on each other.) I think ultimately in this case there should be no law against it. There is also the question of to what extent we will screen embryo's and how selective we become... Apparently "My sister's Keeper" raises this issue, but I have not read it.
Abortion date. At 8 weeks an embryo becomes a foetus. At 10 the vital organs (including brain) are fully formed and by 12 weeks the neuronal development is such that the foetus has reflexes and muscle control. By week 20 we have facial expression, fully functional cardiac and urinal cycles, semi-functional digestive tract (obviously this doesn't actually finish developing until the child has been weaned), motor control (thumb sucking and other cure things apparently) and the development of the senses - taste, smell etc. At the critical 24 weeks the foetus has a 44% chance of surviving outside the uterus, at 23 weeks this is reduced to 16%. By now the eyes are developed (still no pigment) and the foetus is responing to sounds of the outside world.
The question really is... what is the significance in this reduction. Yes, 200 000 abortions a year is too much. And yes, I do not find the idea in any way appealing. Apparently, 24 weeks was chosen when this was the age that the foetus could survive outside the uterus with support. Recent medical develoments have made in more likely for a foetus to survive a younger age and now the limit is supposedly 21 weeks. Question: Is it foetal viability if they require life support? Or the date of the earlier premature child that survived? Or the date when any foetus could theoretically survive unsupported outside the womb. (btw: I believe the data here, is *survive into adulthood without consequential complications*... but I wouldn't swear to it)
The choice of whether or not to abort is one of the hardest ones I can imagine any couple/woman having to make. However, if the choice is possible, if we are still going to let people decide in advance that their own/their child's quality of life will be too low to be worth the living of it... If we let people have that choice then part of me says that the woman needs as much time as we can give her to make her decision as evenly as possible with minimal trauma and mental upset. There is also the issue of the speed of the legal process. Then there is the issue of abortion for medical reasons - in particular the mothers. As I see it, I don't think that the reduction is significant in real way except to keep the law in line with it's original intention.
I think the question really is the significance of foetal viability?
Father's Role in IVF. I can not find out quite what is being debated here as people ae getting too hyped up over abortion (as ever) and their new pet favourite or "Frankenstien's Monster" (a.k.a. hybrids). I think the move is to say that father's are unnecessary and giving single women and lesbian couples equal opportunities for IVF treatments. I am not sure where I stand on this... instinct tells me I am against it. However, I know as well as the next person how many people fail to find their family in blood relatives and instead look for mothers, fathers, brothers, aunts, cousins... in the people around them. A father figure is essential, yes. Or several...
As I don't know what is actually being discussed... So I shall say that I think I support the role in sperm doner father's finding the identity of their child... But I think if this is the case then maybe they should be expected to play a part in the support of the child.
I shall now witter on various related topics.
Ok... logically. I support the birth of children to single sex couples because I can not think of a reasonable argument against it. They offer more support and stability that single parent families and in my experience it is the complimenting of personalities and *roles* that makes a sucessful relaitonship. Whilst this may be more common (in my observation alone) in heterosexual couples I would never say it was impossible with single sex couples... and I am aware how the relative sample sizes will have colours my opinion. I would suggest that finding father figures in family friends etc, would be useful... but the same is true of many many families.
I am not sure if I could advocate the birth of a child to a single woman through IVF simply from a logistical perspective. Accidents happen so to speak, and people end up in single parent families with only one source of income and support. However, I don't know how much I could support the deliberate creation of a life with only one half of a family and equally only half the deserved support...
It is a hard one, and most of my views stem from my rather (odd maybe all things considered) strong opinions on family. And also balance within family, between the sexes, between personality... (losely) I think I believe, procreation was intended for man and woman who - ideally - between them can offer protection, education, support and fun through the combination of their own specific talents and traits. We all know that the actual occurance of this is rare - but the question is, to what extent are we willing to allow the deliberate breaking away from this ideal.
So I think I will stand - for the moment at least - with homosexual couples: yes... single parents... no.
It is interesting to note that some of the animal research into homosexuality has been a propensity for homosexual males to develop in a population where there are too many dominant males. These males act as ballast (so to speak), filling the role of an uncle, and supporting the community without actually reproducing. The suggestion is that in these circumstances, homosexuality is a means of controlling population growth.
Not sure what I believe about that, or how is affects the argument... but it is an interesting point.
xXx
PS: so much for organ practise.
20:04 Posted in Life , News , Thoughts | Permalink | Email this