How do you like your eggs?
Over the course of the next two days, the ‘Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill’ will be debated in the HofC. Tonight, the creation of hybrid embryos was given parliamentary consent. Details on this aspect of the bill plus others are laid out below
· The creation of hybrid embryos: These are mixes of animal and human tissue. Scientists say it would help tackle diseases such Parkinson’s. Opponents say it is tampering with nature and is unethical. Debate from 1530 BST Monday, vote due at about 1830 BST.
This is the topic that has attracted most coverage in recent days, although, personally, this is the least controversial aspect of the bill. This work is championed in the best traditions of medical research – the good that it could do, the pain and suffering it might alleviate - and the possible benefits more than outweigh the problematic ethics of combining 0.01% of animal DNA with 99.9% human. Although I can perfectly understand others might diseent. I doubt, however, they are related to Lily Shepherd, who is the seventh member of her immediate family to contract motor neurone disease.
· Saviour siblings: These are babies born from embryos selected because they are a tissue match for a sick older brother or sister with a genetic condition. Supporters say it helps children who have exhausted all other hope of treatment. Opponents fear children are created as saviour siblings alone, not because they are a wanted child. Debate on Monday from about 1830 BST, with vote at about 2200 BST.
Again, I have little quarrel with this. Parents ‘want’ children for a myriad of reasons that extend beyond the desire to produce offspring just for the sake of it. Whether it’s to ensure little Johnny/Janey has a sister/brother, or because the family business needs an heir. Indeed, thousands of parents every year give birth to children that they didn’t originally ‘want’ at all, but this doesn’t impair their ability to provide the love and nurturing children require. This may be eugenics of a kind, but it’s a long way from gender and eye-colour selection for purely lifestyle or cosmetic reasons.
· The upper limit for abortion: Amendments have been put down to the bill to cut from 24 weeks the time limit for abortions. Supporters say babies born at 24 weeks are increasingly likely to survive. Opponents says studies do not support that. Debate on Tuesday from 1830 BST, with votes at about 2200 BST.
A reduction in the abortion time limit to 20 weeks would still leave us way above the 12-14 week limitation applied in most European states, but I’d support any move in this direction, especially if it was accompanied by legislation that made it easier for women to seek an abortion and did away with the need for 2 GPs to give their consent. Many of the states where the lower limit is in operation have an official abortion on demand policy. Either way, this subject has been debated many times and I’d rather this thread focused on the aspect of the bill that causes me the most concern.
· Role of fathers in fertility treatment: Would end the requirement for IVF clinics to consider the “welfare” of any child created in terms of need for a father. Those in favour say it would end bar to lesbian couples and single women. Opponents say it denigrates the role of fathers in a child’s life. Debate from 1530 BST Tuesday, with vote at about 1830 BST.
It’s worth pointing out at this stage that I don’t doubt for one nano-second that 2 lesbians, 2 gay men, or indeed 2 heterosexuals of the same sex who just happen to be cohabiting can all provide loving homes for their children and the children of others. All reasonable people should be able to agree this. Unlike the other aspects of the bill, however, this issue really is about legislating to deliver lifestyle choices. Nobody is going to needlessly die and stay sick if this legislation does not pass. Obviously, the same is true of all fertility treatment programs, including those that help a traditional mother and father couple have children they otherwise would not be able to produce. But isn’t there are difference between using medical science to right the wrongs of a sometimes cruel nature, and reversing the naturally occurring consequences of being born male or female? Heterosexual couples who cannot have their own children are suffering a disability of sorts; gay and lesbian couples are not.
Now, people are free to spend their money any way they see fit. Changing the physiologically-determined destiny of the individual as a matter of preference is fine if we are talking about an adult opting to have a tummy tuck, penis extension or boob job. Or even a sex-change. I don’t see it as the business of the state to interfere in such choices. But there is someone else involved here. Existing legislation demands that IVF clinics consider the ‘welfare’ of any child produced as a result of fertility treatment and currently that means considering the need for a father. This has not and should not mean that single women or lesbian couples are denied access to fertility treatment as a matter of course, rather, it simply means that the presence/absence of a father - along with the stability of a relationship and any number of other relevant factors - is taken account when assessing the suitability of prospective parents for fertility treatment.
The two main arguments against the legal status quo are:
1 – it discriminates against lesbian couples and single women
2 – the presence of a father should not qualify as a default benignant influence.
The first objection has some validity. The question is, should this bother us? It’s entirely true, for example, that those of meagre income and unfortunate enough to be in tempestuous relationships, not to mention those whose jobs require them to relocate family at regular intervals, are all discriminated against in the matter of fertility treatment. None of these should be the single determining factor, but each is one of many. It’s impossible to practice a policy which means decisions are taken in the best interests of the child and not discriminate against different subsets of prospective parents. There will always be men and women who fall foul to such a policy and often for reasons well beyond their immediate control. The hope is that all factors are considered and decisions taken on the basis of all positive and negative influences. The only way to avoid this is to do away with the provision that decisions are always taken in the best interests of the child, which is no way for a civilized society to operate.
The second objection is, in my view at least, borderline wilful ignorance. Again, I must stress that I don’t need to be convinced that some fathers are utter bastards and/or that some non-traditional families can provide equal if not better child-rearing environments than the traditional. That said - and however difficult it is to generalize in these matters - we must anyway and the optimal arrangement for rearing a child is a mother and father. Darwinism has taught us that even if years of social studies have not.
Before we get cracking in the comments, please keep in mind that I am not arguing for the denial of access to fertility treatment for lesbian couples or single women. I’m arguing that we continue to place some value on the presence of a father during a child’s formative years. To relegate fatherhood to a sub-trivial status whereby it’s not even considered a ‘nice to have’, is a new low watermark in concessions to the ‘I want’ culture that pervades modern society.
Comments
| 19 May 2008, 9:27 pm |
What an excellent post. I agree with lots of it, but disagree with some parts: notably your conclusion.
But isn’t there are difference between using medical science to right the wrongs of a sometimes cruel nature, and reversing the naturally occurring consequences of being born male or female? Heterosexual couples who cannot have their own children are suffering a disability of sorts; gay and lesbian couples are not.
The starting point is this. Being a parent is the most wonderful thing ever to happen to me. Better, even, than being named the 71st Most Important Jew in Great Britain. I think it is terrible that somebody who wants to parent, and is capable of doing so, should be deprived of that experience. The State should only stand in the way of parenting where there will be a genuine risk of serious harm to a child.
We’d both agree, I think, on some sort of safety net obligation to consider the welfare of a child, generally, in IVF circumstances. However, we disagree on whether that obligation should specifically consider the gender of the parents specifically, or merely - generally - the environment within which the child is likely to be brought up.
We also both agree that there are children brought up very well in single sex households, or indeed in single parent households. Such circumstances do arise “naturally”. We wouldn’t expect the state to take a small child away from a lesbian couple where one parent had previously been in a relationship with a man. Similarly, we both know that there are poor heterosexual households, in which children are brought up. We would probably raise the bar quite high, before we would countenance the State taking a child away from a family with one poor parent.
This should lead you to supporting a general “welfare of the child” test, rather than the specific “value of father” test, that you seem to favour.
Perhaps you’ll say that there’s a difference between allowing a positive act (i.e. assisting the creation of life by IVF) and a negative step (taking a baby away at birth from ‘unsuitable’ parents). But there isn’t a significant moral difference. Both involve the state in applying what should be an identical test, and taking positive action to prevent parents from making choices about their families.
Also, I don’t know what you mean by “Darwinism has taught us that even if years of social studies have not.”
Incidentally, I really object to the extent to which IVF is bureaucratised, in other areas. I thought I would have to go for IVF, and got as far as signing up, before Charlotte was conceived. They gave me a whole series of forms to sign: one of which was to do with my right to say whether my sperm was used by my wife at some time in the future. I attempted to amend the document to make it clear that I was waiving this right: I don’t accept that I have such a right to revoke consent, in any case. They made me sign a fresh acknowledgement, minus my amendment!
| 19 May 2008, 9:43 pm |
This article has confounded my intuitive inclination and what I thought studies had shown: that Brownie was on the right track and although there were many successful permutations of family structures, all thing being equal, having a present father as well as mother was optimum.
It seems Iceland with a blithe disregard for the traditional family structure and high divorce rates, is the happiest, most prosperous country in the world. But then they also somehow manage to combine low taxes with superlative welfare and maternal benefits as well.
| 19 May 2008, 10:51 pm |
Can anyone answer this question: When donated sperm is used in an assisted pregnancy in which one of the parent(s) is not an infertile man, how can this be called “treatment”?
I think a case can be made for allowing lesbian couples (in a civil partnership) access to donated sperm as long as the one who isn’t the natural mother becomes financially responsible for the child under law should the relationship break down, in the same way a man would be. Basically, sperm donors are exempt from any financial responsibility. As long as someone assumes that responsibility then I don’t see a particular moral issue with it being a woman.
The same case cannot be made for single women. In that case, no partner = no sperm.
| 19 May 2008, 10:52 pm |
DavidT,
It’s the rarest of things; an issue about which I’m quite prepared to change my mind. I find this particularly convincing:
I think it is terrible that somebody who wants to parent, and is capable of doing so, should be deprived of that experience. The State should only stand in the way of parenting where there will be a genuine risk of serious harm to a child.
It could be that my instinctive reaction to the proposed withdrawal of the “consideration of the need for a father” requirement has more to do with my opinions about other, tangentially-related subjects than it does about the provision of fertility treatment. As a strong advocate of Family Law Courts reform, I’m hyper-sensitive to what I perceive to be the trivialisation of the father role in modern society.
I’ll think about this some more.
To clarify one thing, the “Darwinism” remark was a cack-handed reference to nature’s opinion on the optimal parental arrangement. It absolutely was not intended to imply that I think there’s anything remotely “un-natural” about homosexuality or lesbianism.
Standby as the resident anthropologists and evolutionary scientists prepare to rip me to shreds.
| 19 May 2008, 11:13 pm |
I do accept that many people do believe that the best environment in which to bring up children consists of a man and a woman, married to each other. That might be so.
But even if I did think that, I might still find myself voting on the side of people who took the view that the gender of the parents was not a primary concern: because we both would agree that this is an area in which the best thing for the State to do, is not to intervene.
I’m not arguing for non-intervention, for some sort of anti-statist RCP-ish reason. I just think, practically speaking, this is an area in which the State will often do more harm than good by intervening.
| 19 May 2008, 11:16 pm |
“The upper limit for abortion: Amendments have been put down to the bill to cut from 24 weeks the time limit for abortions. Supporters say babies born at 24 weeks are increasingly likely to survive. Opponents says studies do not support that. Debate on Tuesday from 1830 BST, with votes at about 2200 BST.”
Your Supreme Court still let’s your legislatures debate these things? Damn.
| 20 May 2008, 12:07 am |
I think that this is the thin end of the wedge.
Regardless of the questionable ideological (mainly religious, and often right-wing) motivations of those against this bill, I believe that what we are creating (unintentionally) with such research is a ground-plan for a future society in which there is no such thing as a ‘human race’.
As the possibilities of genetic modification and stem cell research grow we will increasingly see a tiered system of ‘humanity’ in which the priviledged will be able to engineer their own bodies in order to be more intelligent, athletic and resistant to disease. Those with the cash will submit to modification, and then only procreate with similar people.
The world has grappled over the past century with pernicious arguments supporting alleged inherent biological advantages of certain sectors of humanity, ie racism. Racism has been disproved by hard science. Why then should we actively support technologies which will ultimately segment the human race into sub-species whose ‘inferiority’ or ’superiority’ in certain areas will be scientifically irrefutable.
It is sad to say this, and no doubt it is a luddite position. But I worry that in 200 years time we will have moved into a Brave New World society in which the priviledged lead disease free lives and the worker drones are utterly expendable.
In short, what I fear is the law of unintended consequences.
| 20 May 2008, 12:42 am |
From ToL
The Islamic Medical Association, (IMS) which represents over two million British Muslims, has also condemned parts of the bill.
I assume they did a lot of door-knocking
| 20 May 2008, 1:58 am |
I wonder if companies supplying enhanced genes would protect their IPR by putting in a rights management switch to stop customers making copies of patented genes by having unauthorized kids?
| 20 May 2008, 3:45 am |
“Perhaps you’ll say that there’s a difference between allowing a positive act (i.e. assisting the creation of life by IVF) and a negative step (taking a baby away at birth from ‘unsuitable’ parents). But there isn’t a significant moral difference.”
While I agree with your conclusion, I categorically reject your assertion on the purported lack of a moral difference between the 2 cases you mention - though I think you further confuse the issue by applying the reverse of the conventional terminology.
Abstracting this to the economic sphere, what you are suggesting is that prohibiting an act which may result in financial gain is as morally wrong as the appropriation of property. This is an extreme libertarian position - indeed so extreme that even I do not fully subscribe to it. For example, it equates prohibition of Sunday trading with forcible tithing.
| 20 May 2008, 4:19 am |
Arguments over abortion and embryos are pretty dreary. All I say is that we need more medical research using stem cells, not less, and anything that pisses of Edward Leigh is probably a good thing.
I don’t think restricting the time limit on abortions is good thing either. Same sex parenthood is not a “lifestyle choice”.
Moreover this made me chuckle:
the optimal arrangement for rearing a child is a mother and father. Darwinism has taught us that even if years of social studies have not.
Darwin was a biologist, he made no comment that the “optimal” arrangement for bringing up kids is by a Mummy and Daddy. It’s merely true that they women and men fuck and sprogs spring forth. Darwin was pretty keen on keeping things strictly scientific, it’s others that drag the old fellow into other debates.
Reproduction of kids can happen by various forms. If all the men alive today dropped dead, and women then had only an enormous sperm bank to use for a few decades and only them brought up kids from them on, I am sure things would progress quite reasonably.
Then that would become “normal” (that is actually the meaning of Brownie’s use of the word “optimal” above). The human race is endlessly adaptable, Darwin knew that too.
It’s “normal” for kids to be brought by a mother and father, and its perhaps advantageous in a society that sees that as the norm. But it’s certainly not necessary, nor “optimal” in the full sense of the word.
| 20 May 2008, 4:34 am |
I’m arguing that we continue to place some value on the presence of a father during a child’s formative years.
Fine, then place that value. Up to you. Up to individuals. The proposal simply opens up the process to same same-sex couples. But in doing so that does not denigrate fathers. All couples can use the process.
Its a bit like the argument that gay marriage undermines marriage. It’s nonsense, of course, but there you go.
| 20 May 2008, 6:22 am |
Completely agree with Brownie here; and well put!
| 20 May 2008, 7:29 am |
Your Supreme Court still let’s your legislatures debate these things? Damn.
Yes, allowing politicians to decide political matters has successfully depoliticised the issue.
| 20 May 2008, 9:45 am |
“The State should only stand in the way of parenting where there will be a genuine risk of serious harm to a child.”
I completely agree. And I think the bar should be set high. The state simply should not have a say in whether or not adults in their right mind have children by whatever means unless the circumstances are such that the state would intervene whether IVF was concerned or not (such as a known child sex offender having children). If it is the state’s business which children have fathers, they are going to have to get down them estates and do something about it. God knows, I expect Dawn Primarola is dying to.
| 20 May 2008, 9:50 am |
Benji,
I look forward to your next set of comments i.e.the ones you make after actually reading my post.
| 20 May 2008, 10:13 am |
Same sex parenthood is not a “lifestyle choice”.
It is when you are a conservative like Brownie.
| 20 May 2008, 11:21 am |
So opting to have a baby is not a “lifestyle choice”?
The things you learn on here.
| 20 May 2008, 11:40 am |
No, lifestyle choices are essentially trivial.
Having a baby is not a lifestyle choice, whomever makes that choice. It’s more fundamental than that - to baby and guardian.
| 20 May 2008, 11:45 am |
Cobblers. Who says a lifestyle choice is “essentially trivial” - apart from you, that is?
Changing your job and relocating your family (except where circumstances force you to do these things) are lifestyle choices. Sure, there are lifestyle choices that are “essentially trivial”, just as there are lifestyle choices that are non-trivial - like having a baby.
| 20 May 2008, 12:41 pm |
I know of plenty of lesbian couples and single women who have had IVF and IUI without any trouble at all. The current legislation has not prevented them from having children.
I suspect that the background checks and emphasis on the need for a father figure is perfunctory in UK clinics. If so, then the reason for this is clear to me: IVF is so expensive and time-consuming that only those people who genuinely want a child and can afford to devote both time and money to it will go ahead with the treatment.
That is just a guess, because like adoption procedures, the nature of the checks they do are not made public, for reasons which I hope are obvious.
It would be interesting to know whether countries that offer free IVF (such as Greece and Israel) have more stringent requirements. I expect that they do.
As for the need for a father generally, studies are scarce but although they do show that a stable married couple is the ideal, having same-sex parental figures offers no significant detriment to a child, all other things being equal.
| 20 May 2008, 1:15 pm |
Well, not many people I know would describe having a baby as a “lifestyle choice”; that seems a particularly prattish way of describing it, even for, say, people living in Hampstead and Highgate.
Most people I know describe having a baby as simply a choice, and an important decision, and one that reflects a deep need or hope etc. A “style” of life is quite ephemeral, not profound.
| 20 May 2008, 1:21 pm |
I think you are confusing “life changing” events or choices, with “lifestyle choices”, Brownie. If you can find anyone else seriously describing having a kid as a “lifestyle choice”, please cite.
| 20 May 2008, 1:46 pm |
Well, not many people I know would describe having a baby as a “lifestyle choice”;
You mean it’s not a popular term amongst the ex-pat banking community in south-east Asia? That’s me convinced.
Most people I know describe having a baby as simply a choice, and an important decision, and one that reflects a deep need or hope etc. A “style” of life is quite ephemeral, not profound.
Funny, most people I know don’t describe having a baby as anything at all. They just have one, or don’t. But that doesn’t mean it’s inaccurate to describe it as a lifestyle choice. Most people would take from this the intedned meaning i.e. it is a non-compulsory arrangement that will have an impact on the life of the protagonists. It emphasizes the voluntary nature of the decision and any other meaning is one you’ve invented all by yourself. The fact that you’ve convinced yourself “lifestyle choice” may only be used in reference to matters of a trivial nature is your problem not mine.
I think you are confusing “life changing” events or choices, with “lifestyle choices”, Brownie.
Mange tout, Benji. Mange tout.
| 20 May 2008, 2:11 pm |
Again, I must stress that I don’t need to be convinced that some fathers are utter bastards and/or that some non-traditional families can provide equal if not better child-rearing environments than the traditional. That said - and however difficult it is to generalize in these matters - we must anyway and the optimal arrangement for rearing a child is a mother and father. Darwinism has taught us that even if years of social studies have not.
I agree. Fathers are a very important part of this equation, and their role has only been reduced over the past 4 decades because the whole subject of reproduction has been entirely dominated by radical feminists.
The more children lack the presence ( authority) of a father, the greater the chances those children will turn feral
Another thing, having 24 weeks as the upper limit for abortion is obscene for two reasons:
1)At 24 weeks some premature infants can survive.
2)Any women that has carried a foetus for 24 weeks is going to give birth come hell or high water.
At 24 weeks one doesn’t have an abortion. Instead a stillbirth is provoked after the foetus is then ‘terminated’.
It is sad to say this, and no doubt it is a luddite position. But I worry that in 200 years time we will have moved into a Brave New World society in which the priviledged lead disease free lives and the worker drones are utterly expendable.Jeff.
IVF is so expensive and time-consuming that only those people who genuinely want a child and can afford to devote both time and money to it will go ahead with the treatment.Mrs Trellis.
200 years?
The process is already underway.
And there are endless billions in profits at stake.
| 20 May 2008, 2:59 pm |
Deleted by Brownie.
Nope Benji, you’re not doing this, not on my thread. Nobody but nobody thinks this is a crucial aspect of the debate. Lots of people use lots of different words to describe lots of different situations. It’s not even a a pillar of my argument that you or anybody else has to agree that “lifestyle choice” is apposite in this instance. You just have to acknowledge that having a baby is a voluntary arrangement, so seeking medical help to assist you in this regard is not akin to seeking medical treatment to prevent you from dying, or to combat a disease.
By all means, join the debate when and if you have a meaningful contribution to make. The pissing contest you insist on having over the use of “lifestyle choice” does not qualify. Please take this message on board.
| 20 May 2008, 3:17 pm |
JP, the number of women having 24 week terminations for “social” reasons is vanishingly small, and none of those women are under any misapprehensions that the process will be pleasant. It is not.
Currently it is not possible to diagnose certain conditions and deformities in utero before 20-24 weeks. Perhaps this will improve over time. However, very few premature babies born at 24 weeks survive. The survival rate for these babies has not improved in the last 10 years. Perhaps if one of these changes, a reduction in the time limit would be feasible.
Such women would fall under the exception rules in this proposed legislation so I don’t think the number of late-term abortions will fall in any perceptible way. Brownie, you say that most other European countries have an earlier time limit. Do they have a similar rule?
| 20 May 2008, 3:30 pm |
I know some countries do have exceptional cases provisions. So victims of rape and incest, although I don’t know the extent to which this would apply in relation to foetal abnormalities or psychological problems for the mother.
| 20 May 2008, 3:53 pm |
Delete away, kiddo. I will just note that you can’t cite those examples. QED.
| 20 May 2008, 4:02 pm |
Benji,
Here’s an article in the Sunday Herald by Muriel Gray. The title is…wait for it….
Having a baby is a lifestyle choice, being elderly isn’t
I offer you an honourable way out, but you insist on parading your stupidity.
Now, you’ve been warned and even had your citation. So either fuck off or contribute.
| 20 May 2008, 4:17 pm |
La Grey says:
Surely boosting pensions is a tad more important than allowing a woman who fancies some quality time with her baby the luxury of not having to worry about the gas bill for a year.
Current maternity pay is just over £100 a week, before tax, after 6 weeks on 90% of your normal salary. I think anyone earning £400 a month is entitled to worry about the gas bill (let alone the food bill, the rent/mortgage bill and the electricity bill), and let’s not forget that additional maternity leave is unpaid.
The maternity legislation is updated and improved every year - it was much more stingy in 2000 when this article was written.
| 20 May 2008, 4:39 pm |
Mrs Trellis, sorry, that article was just to appease Benji’s demand for examples of people who aren’t anally retentive about language and phraseology.
| 20 May 2008, 4:58 pm |
Currently it is not possible to diagnose certain conditions and deformities in utero before 20-24 weeks.
And so?
One isn’t supposed to ’shop’ for a baby.
What will happen when any and all ‘abnormalities’, homosexuality included, become detectable and the babies thus ‘afflicted’ all aborted?
No more individuals with a cleft-palates, club feet or lesbian and homosexual tendancies.
This issue isn’t about women’s rights or liberation at all anymore, you know.
It’s about biomedical multinationals and profits and, ultimately, the complete de-sanctifcation of all human life.
And it’s somewhat ironic that one of the first groups that’ll be eliminated, gays and lesbians, are presently those who express the most enthusiastic support for these measures.
Eugenics is now not just acceptable, it has already become banal.
| 20 May 2008, 6:37 pm |
Brownie doesn’t seem to wish to distinguish between ‘father’ as genitor and ‘father’ as pater. This crucial distinction has been formalised in African societies by making the ‘pater’ figure the woman’s brother and distancing the genitor, who will often having a ‘joking’ relationship with his biological children, who will be in much more awe of their uncle.
John Palubiski: surely you recall the hysterical end of civilisation as we know it response to the birth of Louise Brown (the first in vitro baby). How the hacks rolled back a vision of the future based on Brave New World! And she is now a very normal woman with a small child.
| 20 May 2008, 7:04 pm |
John Palubiski: surely you recall the hysterical end of civilisation as we know it response to the birth of Louise Brown (the first in vitro baby).
Yes, I recall it and I applauded it, but that waqs 30 years Ago.
I’m no reproduction specialist, but an in vitro baby like L. Brown and genetic engineering are very different things.
There is nothing wrong with implanting a fertilised egg obtained through the mating of the parents genetic material. That’s a positive for couples with reproductive problemes.
However, we are now at the stage where abortions can be obtained if it becomes know that the foetus is less than ‘normal’.
So we’re no longer “aiding” reproduction here, as was the case with L. Brown. What we’re doing is engaging in an early form of eugenics which, in 30 years, will become much improved and therefore much more ’selective’.
At the moment only severe and obvious handicaps are being targeted, but with time and bio-medical improvements this selection process will become much more discriminationg and could one day include ‘problemes’ of aesthetics, such as hair and eye colour, sexual orientation and even potential intelligence.
Babies aren’t comodities. In childbirth you pays yer money and you takes yer chances
| 20 May 2008, 8:13 pm |
However, we are now at the stage where abortions can be obtained if it becomes know that the foetus is less than ‘normal’.
We are actually past the stage where abortions are obtained because the baby is not the correct gender. Witness the sex selection abortions so common in China and India.
And it’s somewhat ironic that abortion, seen as a ‘good’ for women, is being used to eliminate them.
| 20 May 2008, 9:53 pm |
To help campaign for family law reform please donate to ‘Families Need Fathers’.
You don’t have to be a conservative or religious to donate, all you have to believe is that children benefit from the active presence of a Father.
| 20 May 2008, 11:29 pm |
What alan said.
Write a comment