every sperm is sacred

An aborted foetus could one day become the mother of a new baby by "donating" her eggs to an infertile woman.

"The highly controversial idea has been suggested as one solution to a worldwide shortage of women prepared to donate their eggs to help other women become pregnant."

Because of course we don't have enough fucking people already (and all the orphanages have been empty for years), so those whom nature has selected for elimination from the gene pool have a "right" to breed anyway at any costs.

Tags: , ,

41 Responses:

  1. baconmonkey says:

    by that, they mean "shortage of pretty, normal, white babies".

  2. g_na says:

    Ugh. There are too many people already. We don't need to go to effort to make more, especially from "people" that never existed.

    (And a zygote/embryo is *not* a person. A person can live on their own out of the womb.)

    Yes, I have strong feelings about this. Yes, I think abortion is a very good idea and should be encouraged, rather than discouraged.

    • jwz says:

      I'm in favor of abortion up until at least the 36th trimester.

      Barry's always saying "they should put birth control in the water, just like Flouride, then give away the antidote by request."

      • kyzoku says:

        Wow, I hadn't thought of that solution. That's an amazingly good idea. Then we can have a nice little test to determine who should be allowed to breed. Granted, the government would mess it all up anyway, but if it could be done right, it would be great.

        • jette says:

          The problem with that is that I wouldn't trust anyone to make that decision for others. And most certainly not the government.

          • jwz says:

            Trust them or not, the gov't (in this country, and all others) already makes far more intrusive decisions for its subjects, many of which have far less application toward the public good.

            Even a basic set of tests -- for example, "are you over 14?" "do you have somewhere to live?" -- would do a world of good. Hell, make the tests half as strict as what it takes to get a gun and you'll still be saving countless kids a lifetime of misery.

            • jette says:

              But I showered this morning!


              Well, sure, but to be fair, there's a good lot of 13 year olds that would make better parents than some of the 40 year olds I've met at the playground and at PTA meetings.

      • baconmonkey says:

        I like the idea of retroactive abortions.

        • fuck, you beat me, it took me this long to find this link!

          damned interweb.

        • cyeh says:

          I dislike the idea of retroactive abortions. It's not the kids fault the parents were lame/fucked-up/stupid/incapable and therefore brought them into the world.

          Now if you want to talk about punishing the parents, then you're on to something. But don't whack the kid. Ain't their fault.

      • jiritsu says:

        they should put birth control in the water, just like Flouride, then give away the antidote by request.

        that is the best idea i have heard in a while time.

        a few friends and i once had a serious, hour-long discussion (in a bar :) ) on the merits of requiring a license before people have kids. no one could come up with a compelling reason not to do it; at best they argued that it would be difficult to implement.

      • lproven says:

        [Riotous applause]

      • unabomber says:

        They should put birth control in beer. That way, they make sure it gets to the right people.


  3. Unless the article means "naturally aborted" (i.e., miscarried), this is not an appropriate use of the term "nature has selected for elimination." Abortion is a parental choice which, at this point in time, has little or nothing to do with the traits of the fetus. It isn't a case of selection because every possible genotype would give the fetus an equal chance of being aborted.

    The cases in which parents abort fetuses based on genetic screening would be a valid example of selection. As far as I know this isn't done widely, except in the case of gender, and that's not widely done in America where this procedure would be going on.

    On the other hand, wouldn't it be cool if there were genes that made fetuses less likely to be aborted? I'll bet a fetus that pumped out lots of oxytocin (or morphine) would have a mother who felt inexplicably close and protective towards it...

    • greyhame says:

      I think jwz was referring to the infertile women to whom these eggs would be donated, not to the aborted fetus.

    • jwz says:

      By "has selected", I didn't mean the embryo, I meant "the people who desire eggs that are not their own."

      • Ah, I should have seen that. But the infertile women are equally removed from the gene pool whether or not they impregnate themselves with alien eggs.

        I mean, don't get me wrong, I think a lot of problems would be solved if there were fewer damn people myself. But as a drug-law reform advocate, I tend to look for demand-reduction rather than supply-reduction.

    • baconmonkey says:

      Mmm, Morphine babies.
      But then it'd be like those toads people like to get high...
      or people would get preggers just to catch a 9-month buzz.

      but there are chemicals released durring pregnancy that cause mommy to feel bonded to the baby.



  4. cyeh says:

    What did you expect? It's in eons worth of programming: propogate your genes and survive. Fuck everyone else.

    Is this noble? No. Is it correct from a darwinian perspective? Yes.

    People want to have kids from their own genetic stock. This isn't going to change even if there are so many children that they are overflowing onto the streets. (see Romania) They want _their_ kids from _their_ genes.

    I'm somewhat surprised that you would expect people to somehow behave differently and act better.

  5. emesisgirl says:

    i believe that if you cant make a baby the natural way, you shouldnt be making one at all. its true, and sad, but nature decided it just wasnt supposed to happen.
    i also think there should only be a few hundred thousand human beings on the earth at most, not billions. its way out of control!

    • thedward says:

      "Nature" decides all sorts of things should happen. Should we also withold medical treatment from people suffering from "natural" illnesses, since nature has decided it is supposed to happen?

      I agree we have too many folks on our planet, but citing "nature" as a reason to do something is kind of silly.

      • jwz says:

        Solving the problem of "how to make even more babies" is fixing that which ain't broke.

        • thedward says:

          Agreed. I just don't think it makes sense to dismiss it on the basis that our caveman ancestors wouldn't have been able to do it (because there are so many good reasons to dismiss it).

      • vordark says:

        And of course we all realize that absolutely nothing that exists within the universe is "unnatural", right? ;)

        • unwoman says:

          I disagree, because it doesn't make sense to have a word with no meaning. If everything in the universe can be classified as "natural," natural means nothing and you may as well just call it "stuff."

          Like, I like to go to a stuff foods store and by some all-stuff veggie burgers.

          You are right in a way though, because the line is very fine.

          • jwz says:

            But the word "natural" is a political word, not one that reflects reality in any way, especially when it comes to things like food. "Organic" is equally meaningless. They're fear-words (or, less generously, "flat out lies.") "Genetically modified" is what we used to call "breeding." Before that, we called it "agriculture." You think cows always looked like that? Or horses? Or dogs?

            [ Cue music: No New Tale To Tell ]

            • unwoman says:

              I like it being political, that makes sense, but I guess I also want it to have at least some meaning, even if it's not conrete or immutable. I'm not saying, either, that "natural" means "good." But, say, by my personal standards, uranium is natual, but plutonium is not. Maybe some things are more natural than others. Maybe the word is more effective on an all-"natural" TV dinner package than in a debate.

              And I'm not even gonna start talking about "Organic" and "Genetically modifed" as they apply to foods -- those are obviously used in ways other than their literal meanings. So, yeah, I agree, but I like my words to mean something.

              • jwz says:

                I like words to mean something too. But that's not really a choice one gets to make: words start out meaning something, then lose all that meaning once they get politicized. The word "natural" might have meant something once, but when you hear it today, you have to figure out what agenda the speaker has before you have any idea what they mean by the word. (E.g., Politics and the English Language.)

          • vordark says:

            Not to sound wacky, but I actually tend to think that the word "natural" really has no meaningful usage. When we think "un-natural" we think "man made", a thought sponsored by the idea that we are disconnected or apart from nature when we're actually just another organism like any other.

  6. sw00p says:

    think there are too many people in the world? sounds like the perfect opportunity to think globally, and act locally. :P

  7. harryh says:

    > so those whom nature has selected for elimination from the gene
    > pool have a "right" to breed anyway at any costs.

    Given that we have developed the technology to make this sort of thing possible, hasn't nature "decided" that these people should be allowed to breed?

    People have been crying wolf about overpopulation for years. Exponential growth of a species until all resources are being fully utilized is just "nature's way."

  8. spider88 says:

    Very few pregnancies either miscarry or are chosen for abortion in the late second trimester, which is the point at which the fetus would have eggs to harvest. So this would be very unlikely to become anything remotely routine.

  9. I would have to say that this seems a little unfair to women who (for whatever reason) want to breed but cannot, and not for *natural* reasons; accidental exposure to radiation because they work in medicine doesn't seem Darwinianistically "fair", not does exposure to pollutants. And there *is* a lot to be said for womb development control if you want a healthy kid.

    That said, I'm all for population control, and enforced birth control would eliminate various people's complaints about abortions by effectively eliminating abortions. I suppose it might still be messing with "God's will" though, but then, God shouldn't have given me the tools...

    sadly, I don't think there's a medically sane way to add birth control to the tap water, at least not for *women* - exposure to the necessary amounts of girl-hormones would be unhealthy for males, and for that matter, immature females. "Don't drink the tapwater til puberty, honey." "Brita - now with birth-control-remover filters!" Male birth control is under-researched, but might be less unhealthy for the general population.

    Besides, science has at this point already been able to make "egg" cells from stem cells found in adult bodies, IIRC (don't have time to find the source article now; likely in New Scientist several months back). Ways will be found to do what rich people want for money.

    Besides, occasionally stupid people accidentally make smart, worthwhile children. I think we need to focus on just eliminating stupid adults; perhaps if you can't pass the basic breeding and/or driving tests and have no extenuating circumstances for such, you should just be eliminated, in case you try to do either without a license.