-
Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment
May 22, 2013 | 150 comments
-
Obama’s Far Left Hand
May 15, 2013 | 133 comments
-
The Left’s Captive Mind
May 8, 2013 | 85 comments
-
A Sportscaster Comes Out As Christian
May 1, 2013 | 291 comments
-
The Price of Obama’s Islamophilia
April 24, 2013 | 196 comments
Special Report
Three Humans and an Embryo
More child abuse from the world of IVF for the New York Times to defend.
Modern society, at the level of rhetoric, loves children “unconditionally.” But at the level of reality, its indifference to them borders on the surreal. Society increasingly places bald conditions upon loving them: Are they wanted? Are they perfect? If not, abort them; if not, re-design them.
The post-Roe slogan “Every child a wanted child” had a eugenic frost on it, but now the slogan might as well be updated and made even more explicit to read: “Every child a perfect child.” Few people seem to care or notice, but society is passing through a brutally eugenic period of history.
The latest news from Britain — that scientists and couples in pursuit of disease-free children have developed an in vitro fertilization technique to produce “three parent kids” — will probably generate yawns. It will be seen as just one more impossible-to-referee “ethical dilemma” teed up by an indifferent media to wash over the masses before they click to the next channel.
Apparently eighty “three parent” embryos died in the first trial, but that won’t cause too much consternation in a culture of choice and control which accepts blithely all the grim experiments and ruthless selection that those words imply. The lead researcher in the trial has been quoted as saying casually, “What we’ve done is like changing the battery on a laptop.” Such quotes make one think of Mary Shelley’s withering take on the Enlightenment, Frankenstein, in which the real monster in the tale isn’t the monster but the scientist.
This test run happened in the United Kingdom, but America is pretty far down this path too, having crossed the threshold of the total eugenics of designer children a while back.
Germline genetic engineering, which allows scientists to manipulate the genes of an embryo, is moving forward, as is preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), which gives scientists the power to select the most desirable embryos for in vitro fertilization.
“These are grown-up people expressing their reproductive choices. We cherish that in the United States,” Jeffrey Steinberg, a director of fertility clinics that specializes in designer embryos, told the press several years back. “These people are really happy when they get what they want.”
The bewildered children of surrogate IVF techniques are less thrilled. In 2006, one of these children, Katrina Clark, wrote an angry column in the Washington Post saying, “We didn’t ask to be born into this situation, with its limitations and confusion.”
“We offspring are recognizing the right that was stripped from us at birth — the right to know who both our parents are,” she wrote. “When I read some of the mothers’ thoughts about their choice for conception, it made me feel degraded to nothing more than a vial of frozen sperm. It seemed to me that most of the mothers and donors give little thought to the feelings of the children who would result from their actions.”
One can imagine the “three parent kids” from Britain, should they survive, joining her ranks. In the years to come, psychiatrists will have to open up separate practices for the “identity issues” of surrogate IVF children, and Dr. Phil and Oprah will probably roll out very special episodes on their discontent.
Previous ages regarded the creation of orphans as cruel; this one considers it enlightened. While the New York Times and company inveigh opportunistically against child abuse in the Catholic Church, they steadily advance a culture that specializes in its more disguised and celebrated forms: the child abuse of abortionists, eugenicists, IVF scientists, and “safe school” czars.
About the Author
George Neumayr, a contributing editor to The American Spectator, is co-author, with Phyllis Schlafly, of the new book, No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (41) | Leave a comment
More Articles by George Neumayr
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/16/three-humans-and-a-embryo
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Sarah Palin’s Rack
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- Of Wizards and Weapons
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 4.16.10 @ 7:33AM
The latest news from Britain, scientists and couples are in pursuit of disease-free children,.. "every child a perfect child."
Well with the way England is going these days, this is just mean going to mean, lots of disease free, perfect little, peace loving Muslims for them, and their future. Sounds like great prospects for the British Crown, huh? Is it prayer time yet? Which way's Mecca? Allahu Akbar (BOOM)!!
And if the scientists are so steadfast to manipulate the genes of their populations embryo's, to make a more perfect child, don't you think they could just eliminate the "Liberal" gene from them then? It could save them lots of money in entitlements, and lower their taxes at the same time too!! And if they really could eliminate that "one" gene, I think I could change my opinion, from opposition to this procedure, to supporting it.
Oh yeah, one more thing, the New York Times is still in business? I didn't know that!! Nobody, I know reads it!! But then again, once I figure out that somebody's a Liberal, I don't want to know that person anymore, they make me itch (they've got coodies, don't you know?), and they don't have a sense of humor (scientifically proven)!!
Purpleguy| 4.17.10 @ 9:59AM
You really should take a chill pill and try to excrete all that hate inside ... perhaps you need a colonic ... you'll feel better. You definitely need something. I would worry more about the conservative gene if I were you - there are more of us every day, while your group becomes more and more regionally isolated... Have a nice day.
Lullaby''s, Legends and Lies| 4.17.10 @ 12:01PM
Hey Purp: Did you take my coodies line personally, or was it the lack of sense of humor line badly? Well, they're both true!! But at least I didn't tell you that most Liberal smell too, but that doesn't bother me as much as all the itching and the "No" laughing when I'm around them, which is why I didn't mention it until now, but it's also true.
And about me taking a chill pill? Thanks for the offer, but I don't drink or do drugs anymore. I've been clean and sober for over a decade now (thank you very much), so I can't touch your "so called" chill pill, even if I really do need it.
Now about the colonic? Sorry, but that's an exit, not an entrance, so I'm just going have to live with all that hate, that's building up there in my colon. It's amazing how you were able to diagnose me from from so far away? Amazing!!
And about us conservatives becoming more and more regionally isolated everyday? We'll see about that, come this November!!
You have a nice weekend too Purp, and enjoy reading the Sunday edition of the New York Times tomorrow!! You need to update your talking points!! I hope you don't throw your back out, lugging it home (it's very bloated, with all those capatalistic ads they put in there).
Son Of Sam| 4.16.10 @ 8:12AM
Remember when a three way was just some perverted schoolboy fantasy?
stand strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
Campy| 4.16.10 @ 12:49PM
Or is this a No Embryo Left Behind scheme?
Big Don| 4.16.10 @ 9:20AM
If the writer feels he got a bum "life deal," he can always off himself. The planet is overpopulated already...
Greg | 4.17.10 @ 8:44PM
Thanks for the wonderful advice, Big Don (sarcasm)...
And for perpetuating the overpopulation myth: http://www.pop.org/
KyMouse| 4.16.10 @ 10:03AM
Don, lots of countries are trying to get their people to have MORE babies -- such as Italy, Spain, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Poland and the Czech Republic. A few years ago, a diaper manufacturer in Japan was about to go out of business; then it discovered that it could turn baby diapers into dog diapers. Since many Japanese are choosing pets over kids, the company got back on its feet again.
The Russian Federation established the Order of Parental Glory last year for parents who give birth to, or adopt, at least four children. Recipients of the Order get $50,000 in rubles. The Russian population is expected to drop from 140 million to just over 100 million by 2050.
Concerning eugenics, I'll note that we've had eugenics in this country for years: As many as nine out of every 10 babies who might have Down Syndrome are killed before birth.
The Big E| 4.16.10 @ 10:47AM
Ever seen Gattaca? Good movie. Ethan Hawke, Uma Thurman. Plot should be familiar after reading this article.
GW| 4.16.10 @ 4:45PM
Overrated movie. Does apply to the article. I guess I just don't like Uma Thurman.
Gibbson Girl| 4.16.10 @ 12:18PM
I'm extremely conservative in my views, but I'm not sure how this is all that different from a young child receiving an new heart or lung or eyes or liver from a donor. Part of a different person's body becomes part of theirs in order to give them a healthy, more normal life. What am I missing?
JP| 4.16.10 @ 3:12PM
Perhaps you should consider whether it is moral to "create" life in order for it to be exploited. Perhaps this is how are brave new world of the future will breed its slaves.
If you don't believe this is possible, just look at the recent news. A woman who adopted a Russian boy sent him back to Russia because he had a problem "behaving". Sick
Purpleguy| 4.17.10 @ 10:04AM
Man does not create life - God does. Is your belief in God so weak, it cannot stand up to Man's science? If the in vitro or other child is not blessed by the spark of God to come into this world, it would not. Do you really think that God does not know what Man is doing?
MikeBee| 4.18.10 @ 9:47PM
Hey, Purp!
You missed the issue (again). Creating a human life doesn't bother folks. What bothers folks is that some people seem to think that they have the right to kill human life, once it has been created (either naturally in the womb, or via test tube). Claiming the right to end human life once it begins is an inherent evil, and has always been viewed as such by most human societies, since the beginning of mankind, except in cases of self-defense.
Consider this| 4.16.10 @ 12:37PM
Gibbson girl, you'll note in the article that 80 "three parent" embryos died during the first trial. That's 80 human beings in the first stages of their development. Do we have the moral right to create human beings for research? How many millions will die through such experiments?
How will all of this change the definitions of "mother," "father" and "parent"? Heather has two mommies, indeed.
I see that you mention transplants of hearts, lungs and other vital organs. Did you know that the donors are still alive when their organs are taken? A person who is truly dead doesn't have transplantable organs. Mothers who have been declared "brain dead" have carried babies to term and delivered them -- a corpse cannot carry a living baby. "Brain dead" people are put on ventilators until their organs are taken; ever wonder why a ventilator works on a "brain dead" person but not on a corpse? Hmmm.
Purpleguy| 4.17.10 @ 10:28AM
It clearly says in the Bible that the life of a child begins at 40 days after conception if you are male, and 80 days after conception if you are female. Before that time, the miscarriage of a woman with child is a non-event. Go look it up... Exodus 21:22. Have a nice day
Bruce| 4.17.10 @ 4:06PM
Looked it up. I don't know what you are looking at but it is not the Bible. Exodus 21:22 says: "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows." New International Version (©1984) Where do you see any type of limit on days since conception? It "clearly" isn't there. It isn't a non-event. A fine is involved for extra care of the premature baby. If serious injury is involved (mother or child), there are extra penalties that are incurred. Go look it up...Exodus 21:22-25.
Nick| 4.17.10 @ 11:45PM
What would a bleeding heart liberal know about the Bible, PurpleJackass?
You're all a bunch of Molech worshiping neo-pagans.
Exodus 21:22 has nothing to do with the EVIL of abortion.
The two men fighting do not intend to kill, or injure, the unborn baby (fetus in Latin.) An abortion is the DELIBERATE KILLING of an unborn baby. See the difference, Einstein?
An abortion is murder, and therefore NEVER justified, for any reason.
"Before that time [...]."
Before WHAT time? The Bible starts with "In the beginning [...]."
Didn't you write that that "40 days" quote came from Saint Thomas Aquinas? Now, you say it's in the Bible?
Yeah, you're a real expert in theology and the Bible, aren't you? Moron.
ferengi| 4.19.10 @ 9:52AM
"It clearly says in the Bible that the life of a child begins at 40 days after conception if you are male, and 80 days after conception if you are female."
Can you site a reference please?
Pat| 4.16.10 @ 1:11PM
Well written sentiments ' ..."Every child a wanted child" had a eugenic frost on it..' - and a nice turn of phrase. But what we're living through at present isn't eugenics, it is simply another reincarnation of legal slavery - we don't call it that, but the concept of one human being owning another human being and exploiting that person for their own well being is hardly new. In fact, it's a concept as old as the pyramids, and speaking of which, Egyptian society's Beautiful People legally forced other human being to construct monuments to their death in line with their bizarre religious beliefs.
And no matter how often we civilized beings stamp out legal slavery, it always crops up again under a different guise and with different rationalizations justifying one person owning the life of another. Before the American Civil War, it was the bible and the obvious superiority of the white race, even Charles Darwin claimed Anglo-Saxons were the final culmination of evolution's efforts.
Today, it is the pursuit of science and "privacy" which justifies slavery. We speak about it in hushed whispers, if we speak at all, but we must experiment on embryos and fetuses to make genetic engineering and bio-technology work, there is no alternative. Embryonic stem cells can kill you before they cure you - you want and, in fact, you need to be matched with the appropriate stem cells and, though you may not admit it, you won't object to experimenting with embryos, then growing these embryos into fetuses inside host mothers, then aborting them to determine if the stem cells they plan to inject into you are going to do their intended job, while not killing you in the process.
If you have money, some scientist somewhere will want to "help" you and doing human trials solely for your benefit won't be an ethical problem, unless your check bounces that is. If science can cure an incurable disease and increase your life span, objections to owning embryos or experimenting on fetuses will be drowned out by the rich and powerful asserting their "right to privacy", or "the advancement of science" - we'll need to start the thankless task of freeing slaves all over again within this century.
Ray| 4.16.10 @ 1:28PM
Once again, scientific pursuit trumps common sense and humans want to act like Gods. Once again, "intelligent" people ignore the very evidence that life itself provides and believe that we, with our mere ten thousand years of accumulated knowledge, will be better are creating and manipulating a system that has, by the scientists own understand, be created through the use BILLIONS of years of the trial and error approach to the improvement of reproductive systems called "evolution."
What makes the scientists think that this unnatural "reproductive" approach will actually IMPROVE life? I mean, really, for people who claim to understand the "natural" world to such an extent that they believe themselves to be knowledgeable about it to the point of being able to manipulate and "improve" it, they sure do seem to be ignorant to the fact that life itself, after BILLIONS of years of evolution, has come to the conclusion that the combination of two separate genetic patters into one is the optimal way to reproduce. For if it were more optimal, more desirable, to combine three more genetic patterns into one, life would have evolve this process a LONG time ago. But life, being pragmatic in nature, has rejected this approach at it is a foolish approach, one that will introduce far too much genetic uncertainty, far too many undesirable genetic combinations, which will be detrimental to the processes of life itself, and has, through trial and error, created a far better means of genetic reproduction than we can possible create "in the lab," that of requiring only one or TWO sets of "donor" genes and not three or more.
MikeBee| 4.17.10 @ 10:05AM
Ray,
You're right. Once again, our generation, which is so ignorant of science and of the scientific method, delves into the world of science attempting to make themselves perfect. As a result of their efforts, all they will do is cause a lot of suffering and death.
When will they wake up and realize that perfection starts from within, and is DIFFERENT for everyone?
The eugenics community has already been responsible for enough death and dying, with their ideas. Early in the last century, eugenics was embraced by rich liberal idealists, who felt that abortion would be a good thing, as it could rid society of obvious genetic failures, like black people (their sentiments -- read about it). It's time to reject the ideas and approaches of the eugenics community.
fyi| 4.19.10 @ 1:26AM
Anytime a scientific issue is discussed, one must present the facts. Allow the populous to think for itself rather than be swayed by overzealous political enthusiasts. The value of this technique is to provide an opportunity to a mother and father to have a child if the mother has a pre-existing mitochondrial-linked disorder. Such disorders make it impossible for the family to 'naturally' have a healthy child. This article is emotionally-drive and unimpressive. The real debate is one of medical ethics, not a political-one.
Darragh| 4.19.10 @ 12:21PM
Thanks for the article. Sad, but unsurprising in a culture whose latest hero is Eckert Tolle, who was quoted in times recently as saying (I'm paraphrasing), "Jesus was the Son of God. Everyone is a Son of God." Euthanasia is clearly the next frontier for the "kindness society," as Walker Percy termed it--we are morally bankrupt, but kind to those poor unborn children whom we decide would have a difficult life, were they to live --ditto now for the old, disabled and inconvenient. Look for upcoming misty cable TV movies on the rightness of mercy killing--in your neighborhood soon.
Tony in Central PA| 4.20.10 @ 12:13PM
" These people are really happy when they get what they want " was the revealing quote from the director of a designer embryo clinic. Notice how human beings are no longer a ' who ' but a 'what '.
Imagine an entire society that has a consumer ethos for what was traditionally considered its most sanctified entity - - human life.
I imagine there will soon be the need to arrange for returns when your designer child doesn't satisfy your wants. Even Aldos Huxley didn't imagine something this awful.
jfksdj| 6.30.10 @ 11:12PM
beijing massage shanghai girl