busy1) Any time it a law bans a technique that could prevent disease or save lives, without causing harm in the process, there is something seriously wrong with the law.
2) There's nothing inherently wrong with having three or more genetic contributors to progeny. If you don't like it, don't do it, but don't block the technique for people who want or need it. You aren't living their life -- or dying their death.
April 20 2011, 18:27:08 UTC 10 years ago
there shouldn't be anything objectionable from a Catholic perspective.
However, Pope Benny never asks my advice, so who knows?
April 28 2011, 20:13:27 UTC 10 years ago
Well...
April 28 2011, 20:29:52 UTC 10 years ago
Consider the impact of disability on families, too. One disabled child can destroy a family, if the burden of care exceeds available capacity. That is especially true in today's world with almost no safety nets left and employment often insufficient. Every child should be a wanted child; preventing the preventable disabilities is an effective way to improve those odds. It would be preferable for society to support people better, but it is choosing not to do so. That kicks things down to a level where individuals have to control what they can in hopes of keeping their lives livable. And when you cut the safety margins down, that reduces the level of disability that is sustainable. It does get ugly.
I've actually been looking at some of this stuff for fiction, recently, because Torn World has two prevailing cultures that handle disability in opposite ways. The Northerners try to keep everyone alive and involved to the best of their ability; but they have lower medical technology and a harsher environment which can kill even able-bodied people all too easily. The Southerners will provide total support but prefer to shut handicapped people out of ordinary life, and only the most resourceful people can get around that. The different decisions lead to very different experiences, and we've got stories dealing with that on both sides.