by H.S. Ayoub
BioHealth Investor.com
One of the most over-used arguments against assisted reproductive
technology (ART) is that couples do not need it. Opponents continually
point out that adoption is a great way of giving an unloved child
structure in his/her life, with love and a caring home to grow up in.
It is almost as if ART is a luxury in their view.
While I whole heartedly applaud couples who decide to adopt rather than utilize the benefits of ART, I still strongly believe in evolutionary instinct. There is no greater bond than that between a parent and a genetically linked child. Yes, it is possible to love an adopted child, and I am sure that many adopted children are, or have been, loved. In fact, according to adoptionstatistics.com only about 10 to 20 percent of adoptions are disrupted over the past 15 years (1998 stats). This means that on average about only 15 out of every 100 adopted children are given back by the parents. The numbers are much lower if you only look at infant adoptions. But no matter how good the numbers seem, most parents would still prefer a genetic child. There is no greater depressing moment than when a couple learns they cannot have a child of their own genetic makeup.
Who gives us the right to force individuals to abandon hope for a child of their own? If the technology is there, and proves to produce healthy offspring year after year, then why lash out at those that use it? It has been estimated that about 1 million children were born through in vitro fertilization (IVF) since the birth of Louise Brown, the first, back in 1978. I was born in 1978, through regular means, but yet I do not see Ms.Brown, who leads a normal and happy life as a shy nurse in England, as any different than myself. I would like to see opponents face Ms.Brown and say that it was wrong for her to be born. If her parents decided to adopt a child rather than undertake the ground-breaking procedure they would not have had Ms.Brown, a child they can truly call their own; a child which will carry on their genes, and thus complete their evolutionary goal. A genetic relationship is a powerful force. This can be seen by the strong bond between twins, or the lifetime spent by families trying to locate a lost member. Do you think that an acquaintance or a good childhood friend would spend a lifetime trying to find you just to see how life treated you? Long-separated family members would make it their mission.
I am still a little perplexed as to why infertility is not seen as a disease by many. Couples who are infertile, or have other reproductive problems, suffer immense mental anguish. They spend years of time at multiple attempts to conceive a child, and lots of capital at trying to understand what is happening to them. This is no different than what someone who feels sick might do, hopefully acquiring treatment and eventually being cured. So why not cure the infertile?
Opponents will cite the fact that many pregnancies, fetuses, embryos, and many other forms of reproductive products will die in attempting to perfect ART procedures. But how many pregnancies fail every year due to natural reasons? Dying offspring is not a rare event in nature. Actually, one needs to look within our own species to see a good example. Many young babies and infants die every day due to lack of food, and hostile conditions around the world. Failed ART attempts only destroy eggs, sperm, and early embryos; not living humans. Opponents of ART and pro-life organizations should concentrate their efforts at providing help to stabilize third world nations, which would be the best method of preventing millions of children from dying. Instead, they criminalize harmless couples whose only wish is to have children of their own flesh and blood; not for luxury, but for need!
Source: BioHealth Investor.com
by H.S. Ayoub
BioHealth Investor.com
One of the most over-used arguments against assisted reproductivetechnology (ART) is that couples do not need it. Opponents continuallypoint out that adoption is a great way of giving an unloved childstructure in his/her life, with love and a caring home to grow up in.It is almost as if ART is a luxury in their view.
While I whole heartedly applaud couples who decide to adopt rather than utilize the benefits of ART, I still strongly believe in evolutionary instinct. There is no greater bond than that between a parent and a genetically linked child. Yes, it is possible to love an adopted child, and I am sure that many adopted children are, or have been, loved. In fact, according to adoptionstatistics.com only about 10 to 20 percent of adoptions are disrupted over the past 15 years (1998 stats). This means that on average about only 15 out of every 100 adopted children are given back by the parents. The numbers are much lower if you only look at infant adoptions. But no matter how good the numbers seem, most parents would still prefer a genetic child. There is no greater depressing moment than when a couple learns they cannot have a child of their own genetic makeup.
Who gives us the right to force individuals to abandon hope for a child of their own? If the technology is there, and proves to produce healthy offspring year after year, then why lash out at those that use it? It has been estimated that about 1 million children were born through in vitro fertilization (IVF) since the birth of Louise Brown, the first, back in 1978. I was born in 1978, through regular means, but yet I do not see Ms.Brown, who leads a normal and happy life as a shy nurse in England, as any different than myself. I would like to see opponents face Ms.Brown and say that it was wrong for her to be born. If her parents decided to adopt a child rather than undertake the ground-breaking procedure they would not have had Ms.Brown, a child they can truly call their own; a child which will carry on their genes, and thus complete their evolutionary goal. A genetic relationship is a powerful force. This can be seen by the strong bond between twins, or the lifetime spent by families trying to locate a lost member. Do you think that an acquaintance or a good childhood friend would spend a lifetime trying to find you just to see how life treated you? Long-separated family members would make it their mission.
I am still a little perplexed as to why infertility is not seen as a disease by many. Couples who are infertile, or have other reproductive problems, suffer immense mental anguish. They spend years of time at multiple attempts to conceive a child, and lots of capital at trying to understand what is happening to them. This is no different than what someone who feels sick might do, hopefully acquiring treatment and eventually being cured. So why not cure the infertile?
Opponents will cite the fact that many pregnancies, fetuses, embryos, and many other forms of reproductive products will die in attempting to perfect ART procedures. But how many pregnancies fail every year due to natural reasons? Dying offspring is not a rare event in nature. Actually, one needs to look within our own species to see a good example. Many young babies and infants die every day due to lack of food, and hostile conditions around the world. Failed ART attempts only destroy eggs, sperm, and early embryos; not living humans. Opponents of ART and pro-life organizations should concentrate their efforts at providing help to stabilize third world nations, which would be the best method of preventing millions of children from dying. Instead, they criminalize harmless couples whose only wish is to have children of their own flesh and blood; not for luxury, but for need!
Source: BioHealth Investor.com
Top Gaining Stocks
Top Losing Stocks