Prev
Next

Playing God? We already are.

Andrew Dutney

by Andrew Dutney

17 Jan 05:59am

Must Reads

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project - this is a caption

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

76

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics - this is a caption

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

66

Please enter your password - this is a caption

Please enter your password

41

Filed under: Ethics, Genetics, God, Ivf, Reproduction, Sex Selection

106 comments

Should we play God?  It’s time we dumped that question.  It only shows how deluded we are about where we’ve already got to.

Let there be life!

Playing God is taking over responsibility for the things that once could only be committed to prayer, ritual and trust in the Almighty – the things that couldn’t be controlled, including most things to do with the health of you and those you loved. 

You become responsible for what was just “in God’s hands”.  A hazard of life becomes a risk you accept.  Nowhere is this more obvious than in the matter of starting a family.

The almost universal use of ultrasound in pregnancy is a case in point. 

It’s not used to narrow down the choice of names and get the appropriate colours in baby clothes. It’s not to get a really early baby picture for the grandparents.  Ultrasound is used to confirm the stage of the pregnancy, the likely due date, and to check for any obvious signs of problems with the placenta or foetus.

If a problem is identified the doctor will then help the couple work out their options.  There could be several, depending on the problem found, but there will usually be at least two: proceed with the pregnancy or terminate it. 

The decision will be the couple’s, and responsibility for the consequences of the decision will be theirs as well.  That’s how playing God works.

But it’s not as if they had a choice in the first place.  If a couple were to decide that they didn’t want to have an ultrasound and avoid the risk of facing a really hard decision about the pregnancy, they would be responsible for their deliberate ignorance too. 

It could be that they’d compromised the progress of the pregnancy and the outcome for their baby – for there’s no question that the use of ultrasound has been one of the factors that has improved pregnancy outcomes for mothers and babies.

The ancients praised God in wonder, singing, “you knit me together in my mother’s womb…your eyes beheld my unformed substance” (Psalm 139).  But that’s just another day at the office for antenatal care these days.

And now there’s a relatively cheap, simple genetic test to allow couples to screen themselves for inherited diseases before they start a family. It tests for nearly 600 “catastrophic” conditions, many of which will kill or disable a child who inherits them. 

The couple who discover they are carriers of one of these genetic conditions can opt to conceive using IVF with preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) of their embryos.

Only unaffected embryos would then be transferred to the woman’s uterus.  Alternatively they could use donor eggs, sperm or embryos, choose to adopt, or simply resolve to remain childless. 

Some might decide just to risk it, conceive naturally and then, if necessary, accept the consequences of losing their gamble – terminate the pregnancy or raise the disabled child. 

Whatever they decide, they’ll be responsible for the consequences.  That’s how playing God works.

But there are issues that concern us all here, not just the couple playing God. 

One of the reasons for the prohibition on sex selection in IVF is Australia is that it could reinforce a cultural preference for one sex that could entrench the disadvantages still faced by the other. 

Fair enough. 

One of the unforeseen outcomes of China’s one child policy was to create a shortage of women – not to mention the reported suffering of baby girls in that generation.  But the disability lobby mounts a very similar argument against the increasing use of genetic screening in family formation.

They point out that this isn’t a case of medical science being used to treat inherited conditions or to improve the lives of those suffering from those conditions, but to prevent them from ever being born.

A society that thinks that it would be better off if its disabled members had never been born will soon exhaust its moral reserves.  It will eventually mandate a government to penalise the parents of those individuals for ever delivering them and, finally, penalise those individuals themselves for ever being born. 

For they will continue to be born – or created, since most “disabled” people do not inherit, but acquire their impairments through injury, illness or ageing.
Should use of the new genetic screening kit be permitted in Australia?  I think it should.  There’s no doubt that it could help some families avoid the horrible anguish of having a baby whose life is cruelly short and agonised.

But aren’t we on a slippery slope?  Of course we are.  It’s not as if there’s anywhere else we could be. 

This is the only path we have and, given that it’s ethically slippery, we have to proceed with caution.

If we must “play God” we need to consciously import into our debate and decisions some of the qualities ascribed to the deity of choice beyond mere power – wisdom, compassion, justice, and a concern for individuals that keeps in view the wellbeing of communities, humankind, and the earth as a whole.

Most commented

431Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
336Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
266Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.

106 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Great Godessa says:

      06:57am | 17/01/11

      The well being of the world will only come about when there are fewer babies born and people take responsibility for themselves instead of praying to a make believe god made up by mere mankind.  If I were God, which I can’t be, because I’m a mere mother, I’d make it compulsory to do an exam to have children or be a politaician.

      Reply

    • PaulB says:

      08:45am | 17/01/11

      Lets go a step further Great One and say that what you dream of will come to pass when the World’s great religions finally come clean and admit its all a load of made up tosh, designed to enhance their own earthly power and influence.

    • God says:

      05:58pm | 17/01/11

      The world would be a much better place, if selfish people like you weren’t in it. You could do something about it!

    • Angry_of_Mayfair says:

      01:05am | 18/01/11

      Great Godessa, SIGN ME UP! I couldn’t agree more. Why is overpopulation the constant elephant in the room that no-one has the guts to mention? I’d go further by making the exam happen at the earliest opportunity and making the resulting sterilisation irreversible. Enough is enough!

    • Crumpy Gunt says:

      04:00pm | 18/01/11

      Well spotted GG. Too many children having babies. Too many post-pubescents of uncertain mental capacity, some intent on getting, in Australia at least, the baby bonus. Parental leave?  Not on your life.  This means an iphone, unlimitited texting, some recycled ‘new’ threads, a ghetto blaster for the bedroom in Mum’s house of course, a wierd hairdo, the obligatory tats, and oh, several pallet loads of disposable nappies, to be thrown in the wheelie, after the doting Grandma changes the kids arse. All this, without knowing how in the first place, she got pregnant. Too late I’m afraid, for the exam. Sadly, the exam for politicians, is the work of politicians. What hope.

      ____________________________________
      Common sense might win the occasional battle, but it will never win the war against the overwhelming forces of stupidity.

    • SB says:

      12:55pm | 19/01/11

      So the world exists for you and how dare people have children because it means you have less resources. As a mother, you contributed to over population just as mouch as any other mother. Anyone who believes anything other than you must be stupid. What a naive comment.

    • toms says:

      07:44am | 17/01/11

      as a father of a child with a genetic condition that has resulted in a medium range mental retardation I would urge caution in the use of this type of testing.

      had it been available at the time of my wife’s pregnancy I guess I would have tried it and had it picked up my daughter’s condition my guess is we might have terminated the pregnancy.

      however now in hindsight there is no way I would have deprived the world of the wonderful young girl my daughter has grown up to become. she’s a joy to have around, both within our family and within her circle of friends.

      unfortunately hindsight isnt available at the time of making the decision and there is a real concern that people will make decisions for all the wrong reasons, relegating compassion behind selfishness.

      remember that people with disabilities make those around them better people. it’s they who are doing us a favour.

      Reply

    • n_dude says:

      12:49pm | 17/01/11

      Hear hear. A great post and a wake up call for me. We need to look beyond disabilites and focus on the person and the positives they bring rather than the difficulties.

    • Gavin says:

      01:29pm | 17/01/11

      My partner has the 12 week scan coming up which should tell us whether the foetus has any chromosomal disabilities. Your post has made me stop and think. It has challenged my way of thinking. That’s all I’ll say.

    • Tedd says:

      02:27pm | 17/01/11

      There are a number of different contexts in which this may or may not work - having an extended family is helpful, as is a non-violent child.

    • Lisa H. says:

      05:00pm | 17/01/11

      I totally agree with your sentiments that family planning can often mean pre-empting and overly controlling what should be a fairly organic experience of sex and love. Our cultural conversation encourages this rigid control, of course.

      We all have so many pre-conceived ideas about family planning, from the sex of the child, to the number of children and the circumstances in which we have them.

      I was surprisingly disappointed when my third child was a girl, because I thought I was carrying a boy for some reason, and I knew my husband was really wanting a boy.Our little girl is an absolute delight! And yet the disappointment I felt at that time was sickeningly real.

      I know that if I returned a poor prognosis in in-utero testing for disability, my husband and family may pressure me strongly to abort.
      My voice would be one of a chorus, and not necessarily seen as the most ‘important’ voice in the chorus.

      In this way, in-utero testing can increase pressure on families.

      It is a great shame that extended families, partners and the carrying woman herself can make choices that, without even knowing it, are actually ill informed, even arbitrary, when it comes to family planning.

      The technology is, I understand, not always completely accurate in predicting the nature or extent of disability.

      Extending ourselves via loving and parenting our ‘wrong’ children is an interesting and common ‘growing up’ experience. It’s a shame to see us expend so much effort in preventing what could ultimately be very good for us.

      Depnding on the individuals and situation though, of course.

    • baal says:

      05:02pm | 17/01/11

      I say this as someone who has a disabilty and suffered from it.
      In all due respect I just want to say that we can still cherish the born without bringing another into the world.
      If my child suffered an accident I would never turn my back on her and would love her all the same, I would however do anything to prevent it.
      I also feared she would inherit my disability which thank god she did not.
      We can prevent suffering but at the same time still look after those who suffer.
      We should add that at the moment that we do not look after those already born as it is.
      Your child is lucky to have a loving parent, I wish you good passage.

    • Jake says:

      08:10am | 18/01/11

      I agree that caution should be heavilly exercised when making decisions about the life, or termination of a foetus based on early scans, but while many disabilities needn’t lead to a life of pain and misery, some of them do.

      I’m not saying I know where the line in the sand lies and I hope to never have to make the decision, but consider the scenario that a doctor tells you your child has been diagnosed with something like Harlequin-type ichthyosis which offers a very low chance of survival and the liklihood that whatever time they have will be painful.

      Like it or not, you have to gamble with someone elses life. When they have a one in a thousand shot at survival and pain and suffering is the alternative, what’s the right decision to make for them? That’s the price for “playing god”. You have to make the hard decisions rather than leaving it to chance.

    • Catching up says:

      07:44am | 17/01/11

      I do not believe in a god but I do find problems with your argument.

      If I believed in god, I would not find it hard to believe that god gave us the science that puts the responsibility on us.

      We cannot have it both ways.  If god made the world, he also allowed us to evolve to the stage were we are at now with the ability of understanding the world he created. 

      At the end of the day we are responsible for our own actions, god or no god.

      Reply

    • PaulB says:

      08:47am | 17/01/11

      I tried this line of reasoning with a Jehovah’s Witness colleague on the subject of blood transfusion technology being a gift revealed by God over the fullness of time.  Forget it.

    • Steph says:

      11:25am | 17/01/11

      That’s because they were Jehova’s Witness. Good luck arguing ANYTHING with them.

    • Seano says:

      07:53am | 17/01/11

      I believe we should embrace technology but with any tool we have to use it with common sense.

      I just don’t see why we need to invoke the name of a deity to apply “qualities of wisdom, compassion, justice, and a concern for individuals”. You don’t need to to be a believer to have these qualities.

      Reply

    • Lachlan McKenzie says:

      07:59am | 17/01/11

      Agreed.

      ‘God’ and other nonsensical terms should be removed from any consideration of parenthood.

      I think screening is ethical for these ‘disastrous’ disabilities.

      We also need to debate where it should stop so we don’t end up with a Gattaca-style population with super-human selections. Ok, that’s a bit far off, but you get the point.

      If it were possible, for example, should we be able to screen for height? weight problems? intelligence? It gets tricky there…

      Reply

    • Ian Powell says:

      07:59am | 17/01/11

      The article raises good points. I have a few friends who are “professional” ethicists for Anglican church and i have never heard them retreat to the “playing God” argument. It is most often raised by journalists as a theoretical position to debate with or it is used by us ordinary folk who haven’t thought much about the area but don’t like an idea - its a same something argument.
      I have a few friends who are ministers in a variety of churches, I have never heard them use the “playing God” argument.
      From the beginning humans have been making decisions that can be described as playing God (selective breeding in animals and agriculture, playing with river systems etc) and certainly biblical religion endorses humanities responsibiltiy to do so, but always reminds us we are not the owners of the eearh and will answer to our owner. SUch decisions must always be done with as much wisdom as possible, and “concern for the other” (ie love) must rule rather than my private pursuit of ease and happiness.

      Reply

    • Lexi says:

      08:01am | 17/01/11

      Watched The Black Balloon on ABC last night… You can’t screen for autism (Charlie - one of the main characters in the film is autistic). His condition affects his family in ways you can’t imagine, and yet his parents love him for who he is - and his brother eventually accepts him, warts and all.

      My point? His family would have preferred Charlie didn’t have autism, but they still loved him. And I think our society does have enough kindness to support people with acquired conditions - of course there will always be people who take advantage (like those looting during floods).

      It is the very heart of parenthood to want the best - perfection even - for your child. So also is it is natural to want your child to be like yourself. While some able-bodied and intellectually mainstream parents may consider abortion in order to prevent having a child with a disability, some parents with disabilities see themselves as normal and would prefer their child was hearing/sight impaired, a dwarf etc - to be like themselves.

      After all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder - and disability or not, every parent sees their newborn child as beautiful ?

      Reply

    • Trish says:

      08:02am | 17/01/11

      Well done for braving such a difficult subject. My children are grown up now, but during our pregnacies my husband & I agreed that no matter what the ultrasound showed, we would still have our babies. I could not live with killing anyone especially not my own flesh & blood.

      Reply

    • Horse says:

      08:06am | 17/01/11

      To say most things that to do with our health couldn’t be controlled is a pretty sweeping statement, and implies we can now control a lot we still can’t.  Taking responsibility for aspects of one’s health one can control is not playing God.

      To say decisions about whether to apply routine pregnancy ultrasound or not is somehow “playing God” seems to be a dubious argument.

      Reply

    • Elphaba says:

      08:08am | 17/01/11

      It’s in our blood to evolve.  We’re animals after all.  We might not have evolved that much physically, but we’ve certainly evolved on an intellectual level.

      Most people would not shirk health care if it was offered to them because they were sick, and by its own design, it is extending our life well beyond where it should be.  But we can’t just stop because of an ethical dilemma.  It is then up to the individual to make an individual choice, and not take part in certain things if you don’t like them.  But to put on the breaks and say no, is to deny who we are.

      If there is a God, he didn’t give us whopping big brains to sit around and navel gaze.  He wanted us to use them.

      Good article.  Just because there’s a few bad apples out there doesn’t mean the whole system is rotten.

      Reply

    • Elphaba says:

      08:53am | 17/01/11

      Grr… *brakes*.

      Not often I do that… hmmm

    • A Bob says:

      08:35am | 17/01/11

      The fact that this new test exists already means that potential parents are playing ‘god’ even if they don’t use it. They may choose to remain ignorant and ‘leave it in gods hands’ or they may choose to take it and make further choices based on the results.

      Either way, the line has been moved and the increased responsibility lies with the parents.

      Reply

    • NESLIHAN KUROSAWA says:

      08:36am | 17/01/11

      Hi there,

      I truly believe that a child born into our world without any physical and mental problems is a the ultimate gift from God.  You can call me religious if you like, a perfect new born baby is the a blessing from above.  When it comes to things like the IVF definitely serves much needed purpose in our society.  This also includes all the research into genetic problems as well. 

      I totally agree with you when you talk about China`s One Child Policy, how baby girls are treated so badly and their mothers suffer in this process as well.  It is very degrading and insult to any kind of intelligence, that most people are obsessed with having boys.  What will happen when these so wanted all grow up and need partners & wives one day??

      Playing God??? I am not certain how to answer that question.  However, I know for sure when you start playing with the delicate balance in nature, you run the risk of causing more harm and it is definitely is a risky business.  May be we should just appreciate, what we already have “naturally” . Best regards to your editors.

      Reply

    • baal says:

      05:09pm | 17/01/11

      We are talking about preventing people born with preventable ‘natural’ disease.
      We are talking about less suffering in the world and since God is unwilling to lessen suffering it befalls humanity to do it for him.
      peace be with you

    • Jake says:

      09:42am | 18/01/11

      While the one-child-per-family policy in China resulted in terrible human-rights violations, there is an important flipside to recognise. The approximately 400 million births which were prevented by the policy represent an average reduction in carbon emissions that outweighs any emissions mitigation plans currently being undertaken by any government worldwide. Add to that factors such as reduced impact on natural resources, economic relief and increased availability of basic services such as health care, and one can understand the motivations behind such a policy.

      I don’t think any reasonable person would argue that China’s implementation of the system didn’t result in major problems, not the least of which was the dreadful marginalisation of female babies, however the evidence supporting the benefits of nation-wide family planning is compelling, even if the approach was wrong.

      So many people consider having children to be not only a right, but a duty. Why? When there are healthy babies awaiting adoption, how ethical is it to bring new children into a world where overpopulation is a real and immediate problem. Maybe some heavy handed action is called for. Not necessarily in the form of strict laws a-la China, but maybe offering things like the baby bonus to first-borns only or imposing tax levies on large families.

      I think that rather than throw the baby out with the bath-water, we should look at the positives of wide-scale family planning and address the reasons why China’s approach failed instead of simply calling it a bad idea and forgetting about it.

      Whatever you believe, it would seem that no gods are going to intervene anytime soon, so it’s up to us to deal with these issues - “play god” if you will. As long as our growth rate continues to accellerate, it is a *mathematical inevitability* that we will eventually overpopulate the planet and when that happens, nature will fix the problem for us. The population cycle of African Elephants on the savannah are testament to that.

      If you think 250,000 deaths in the 2004 Tsunami’s was a tragedy, you have no idea how brutal nature’s population control policies are.

    • James Hunter says:

      08:36am | 17/01/11

      To talk about “Playing God” is outrageously presumptive in as much as you are presuming that there is a God.
      Discussion of the ethics of different decision making processes and the effects results of these for each of the interested parties is a very different thing.
      It is without dispute that the intelligence of the human organism that has delivered the ability to intervene in the procreation chain( of events) be it for better or worse is debatable .
      The “morals” of this are to me matters for the   persons involved and society has guidelines within which these decissions should be made. Invoking some Deity of choice as a final arbiter or even as a guiding source of principles is going too far.

      Reply

    • ZSRenn says:

      08:37am | 17/01/11

      Again ignorance of China’s one child policy comes to the foreground in my reading of the story. Let me say it again.

      If the Chinese are a member of an ethnic minority they are able to have as many children as they wish if they live in the area of their ethnic heritage. The only people really affected by the one child policy are the Han and their sub-group the Cantonese and then only if they work for the government.

      If the Han people do not work for the government and have a son first they can have as many children as they like but must pay a 15000RMB registration fee for each child.  If they have a daughter first they can then try again for a son at no cost but then must pay for the children after that time.

      Testing for sex is illegal!

      To say there is a shortage of women in China is a myth. Sure their may be discrepancies in rural areas as many daughters move to the big cities to find work but don’t we have the same problem.

      I therefore must call into question the accuracy of the story as a whole. My sister has taken into foster care a severely handicapped child. She is sadly unable to have her own children. At first I thought this was a mistake. But watching the care that goes into the child and the love from my sister and mother I have had to change my mind.

      Not only does this child bring joy and happiness to our family but it also gives my mother in her old age a purpose. A direction in which to live her life as she is not locked away in some guarded lawn manicured gated prison but is active and alive caring for someone who would have had no life at all if not for these two women.

      We have already given away our souls by locking our elderly away in these prisons and not keeping them in the family fold and caring for them as the Chinese do. Why give away more of it by the heartless killing of children because they may be different than us.

      I would love to hear Stephen Hawkings view on this subject.

      Reply

    • baal says:

      05:06pm | 17/01/11

      Hawling was lucky enough to have money and resources to look after himself. I have heard the laments of the disabled messed up homeless people I used to work with pushed to the outshirts of a society that does not care for them.
      Less suffering not more, look after those already here and prevent unneeded suffering.

    • Lisa H. says:

      06:08pm | 18/01/11

      Hasn’t the one child policy been relaxed over the past years? isn’t this partly because the gender imbalance was becoming obvious to the central planners?
      I cannot believe that the gender imbalance in China is simply a bizarre myth propagated by ‘anti-chinese’ forces.
      I can understand why a poor Chinese in a rural area might be reluctant to feed a baby girl. Isn’t that exactly why these rules were eventually relaxed for agricultural Chinese?
      India also has similar claims made about its cultural preference for boys.
      Why so precious?

    • Ihatenaivety says:

      08:42am | 17/01/11

      God or no god, the one thing that makes us different from other animals on this planet is our ability to show compassion. There are few animals that show this characteristic and when we take this away we become nothing better than them, and at the point that humanity has reached, I’d argue there are animals which are much better than we are. To use a quote from a movie (Terminator) “The difference between us and the machines, is that we bury our dead”. How long before we become as emotionless at the machines?

      As someone rightly pointed out, who are we to choose who should live and who should die simply because it inconveniences our lifestyle. Who are we to choose that someone isn’t good enough to live simply because we “think” they won’t have a good life? Have you ever seen a child with Down’s Syndrome smile? Does that not qualify as a good life if they enjoy it? Do they not have as much right to walk this earth than any other child? Ironically, its the people with the most simple of lives that appreciate life for what it is and don’t get wrapped up in the ratrace of trying to make as much money as possible. I have a friend with a child who has Cockayne Syndrome. Their children (two born with it due to a genetic problem) will not live to see their 15th birthday’s and yet, they wouldn’t have it any other way and they cherish every day with their children knowing it could be their last. While some parents gain enjoyment from seeing their children play footy, they gain enjoyment seeing their children reach other milestones like walking which we all take for granted and they have to work that much harder to reach.

      Reply

    • KH says:

      10:27am | 17/01/11

      I once saw a couple on the tram with their daughter.  They held her hand as they got off at their stop, and they spoke to her in a childlike way so she would understand.  It was a lovely scene, only the parents were easily in their 70s, and the ‘child’ was in her 40s, obviously downs syndrome.  I think this is what many people would prefer to avoid.  You expect your kids to leave home, and be independent.  When there is no chance of that ever happening, and you find yourself having to worry about your own demise and what will happen to them, it can be really awful.  Its not much of a life for what is ostensibly a woman in her 40s - but the mind of an 8 year old.  Sure she might be happy in some way, but I would still argue its not much of a life.  Its not much of a life for the parents either.  .  I don’t object to testing for these kinds of things.  I draw the line at changing things for vanity or ‘fashion’ - like hair/eye colour, or height etc.  That for me is when it is going too far.

    • DG says:

      08:45am | 17/01/11

      “A society that thinks that it would be better off if its disabled members had never been born will soon exhaust its moral reserves.”

      Perhaps one should note the difference between regretting the birth of disabled members and taking steps to reduce the risk of the creation of a disabled persons. Especially when such a circumstance is (biologically) one of chance (i.e which sperm happens to get to which egg). I think that you would agree that taking steps to ensure the desirable outcome in a matter of chance and risk mitigation is worthwhile.

      In fact, we as a community have already taken steps to ensure that we take steps to reduce the creation of disabled persons. We mandate seat belts and bicycle helmets, we prohibit the use of certain pharmaceuticals and we demand that persons take steps to prevent others from harming themselves (fences around cliffs, roadsides and pools) - we even criminalise incest.

      Is it playing god when we take action that is calculated to minimise the risk of disability or death within the community?

      If it is a slippery slope (the minimisation of the creation of disabled persons) then it is one that we have embarked upon long ago - and it is certainly not something of which we should be ashamed.

      The unsupported major assumption that existence is better than non existence is, in my opinion, unjustified. You will “not exist” for far longer than you exist. Your 30 score years and ten is far less than a blink of the eye in the scale of human existence let alone the 13.7 billion years since the big bang - it is unjustified to assume that just because it can happen that it is worthwhile or beneficial. However I would suggest that if it were possible to cause an egg and sperm to come into contact in a manner that would create a healthy, biologically viable entity would be preferable to causing a sperm and egg to create a child that is likely to be biologically compromised.

      We are still a long way from stating that we would be better off if our disabled members had never been born. The allegation is unhelpful and needlessly emotional.

      Reply

    • Steph says:

      08:48am | 17/01/11

      If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids
      already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one
      mentally retarded, and she had syphilis, would you
      recommend that she have an abortion?

      If you answered yes, you just aborted Beethoven.

      Reply

    • Kevin says:

      10:03am | 17/01/11

      Bollocks.  Ludwig Beethoven was the second oldest child.

    • Jason Todd says:

      01:52pm | 17/01/11

      Steph, A lovely and warm fuzzy argument, but flawed. What is to say that if Beethoven was aborted that there wouldn’t have been some equally talented prodigy to fill his place? The world would be no poorer, because the non-existence of Beethoven would essentially be a non-issue. Likewise, are you saying that if you had the chance to go back and abort the monsters of history, you would do so because of their potential future actions?

      The circumstances of a persons birth begin to define their life for good or bad, but the contribution of a person to society cannot be judged until their death. There isn’t a “musical prodigy” test, nor is there a “genocidal dictator” test that you can run in utero to work out if the child you are carrying is Mozart or Hitler. This sort of genetic testing is about giving a child the best chance of being healthy and happy. Not about determining their fitness to function in society.

    • Tim says:

      03:40pm | 17/01/11

      Steph,
      Yes we probably would have been spared his awful, awful music.
      What was your point again?

    • Steph says:

      07:59pm | 17/01/11

      The argument I’m trying to portray is not to abort someone because it looks like they have an abnormality (or there are genetic abnormalities in the family) because they, as a person, could give of themselves so much to society, history and the planet. It’s not “save the good ones, get rid of the bad”, it’s “Give everyone a chance, sometimes talent can be found in the unlikeliest of places”.

      I could also say I have a friend who’s now received his PhD in Aviation Engineering, he’s getting married next month and he’s a glider pilot.

      But he has one hand.

      How many people would have looked at the genetic defect before he was born and said “Only one hand, his quality of life will be compromised, abort the foetus”? Probably a fair few. But he’s made so much of himself and despite the handicap, followed his goals and is now happily settling down with his partner.

    • Jim says:

      09:14am | 17/01/11

      Isn’t “playing God” and oxymoron? I mean, you’d have to Believe in God to play God, but anyone who believes in God wouldn’t dare pretend to be God…

      Anyway, here’s an interesting quote from http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/902.aspx

      “Charles Darwin himself believed that morality plays a role in human evolution by natural selection. A high standard of morality may give the individual and his children no advantage over other group members, Darwin wrote, yet it works to give his tribe an advantage over other tribes.

      Thus, over time, groups whose members value morality or practice unselfish altruism are more likely to survive and thrive, passing on the genetic traits that encourage ethical behavior such as empathy, fairness and generosity.”

      So yes, we evolved along the lines of ‘survival of the fittest’, but we, as social animals, do not define ‘fittest’ as being the most able-bodied hunters with the best plumage.

      Reply

    • DG says:

      09:34am | 17/01/11

      Survival of the fittest is such a misleading phrase - which is why Darwin preferred (and used) the phrase “by natural selection”. Darwin did comment that the development of a species can be observed in the way that they treat their weakest members (i.e the more ‘developed’ the species the more likely they are to protect sick and weak members of the group).

      He did observe, however, that if any such species required less effort to protect the sick and frail, or produced less sick and frail young, they would dominate (for reasons that should be obvious). The nature of the “cost” of an inherited trait may well be detrimental, even though the trait is socially desirable.

    • notsurprised says:

      12:16pm | 17/01/11

      “Thus, over time, groups whose members value morality or practice unselfish altruism are more likely to survive and thrive, passing on the genetic traits that encourage ethical behavior such as empathy, fairness and generosity.” An example of theory and practice sometimes being polar opposites. This statement doesn’t fly when there are so many countries living under dictatorships whose moral and unselfish members sometimes are assaulted or murdered.

    • daniel says:

      09:17am | 17/01/11

      1. We’re not China, we do not have a preference for 1 sex over the other in western society, numerous studies have shown this.
      2. Claiming that genetic screening and sex selection technologies will lead to a “slipperly slope” towards discriminating against the disabled is absurd and insulting.
      3. Holding back on these technologies will only cause harm to all the parents who could have led normal happy lives with healthy children will be ruined because of your ignorance and fear, leading to the genetic dice rolling against them, which we could’ve prevented. It’s sad and you should be ashamed of yourselves for trying to prevent these advancements from becoming common use.

      Reply

    • Lisa H. says:

      05:10pm | 17/01/11

      But… there is plenty of evidence of discrimination against disabled people all around us. Primary school teachers see familiarity as an important tool for teaching people understanding of disabled people. At least, that was the reasoning behind closing all the special schools in NSW so many years ago. My brother left a beautiful and fully equipped special needs school, so that he could spend his days in drafty demountables, being called ‘spazzo’.
      I wonder, does he teach understanding of mentally ‘retarded’ people by being such a wonderful person?
      Yes, he does.
      Would he have that effect on people if he did not exist?
      No, he would not.

    • Sheldon says:

      09:24am | 17/01/11

      Since we are made in the image of God it is inevitable that will will ‘act like God’.

      Reply

    • David of The Grand Academy of Adelagado. says:

      09:43am | 17/01/11

      It’s a shame such drivel gets an airing on Punch. There is no God, Zuess, Thor, Isis, Easter Bunny or any of the other ludicrous dieties man has invented over the centuries. So an essay written by someone who believes in God is as tainted as an essay written by someone who believes he has been abducted by aliens.

      Reply

    • Marc says:

      10:42am | 17/01/11

      @Dave: Not “I don’t believe in God”, but “There is no God…”

      Millions of people hold a different opinion and there are some strong arguments as to why that belief is not unreasonable.

      Your proof?

    • notsurprised says:

      12:21pm | 17/01/11

      You forgot to mention that its about as ludicrous as the entire universe being made up of a bunch of tiny vibrating strings.

    • Marc says:

      12:39pm | 17/01/11

      @notsurprised: lol,

      Well, it’s equally as ludicrous as a singularity, containing the potential for all those vibrating strings, suddenly popping into being entirely of its own volition, out of absolute nothingness, then choosing to explode.

    • Tubesteak says:

      12:46pm | 17/01/11

      Marc
      It is the religious that assert that there is a god so it is up to them to prove god’s existence by asking him to present himself to us all.

      Science has volumes of evidence supporting itself. A good start would be your local library. Check the non-fiction section.

      notsurprised

      Go and join Marc in your local library. That will be a start.

    • Marc says:

      01:26pm | 17/01/11

      @Tubesteak: Sorry, but I disagree. Our friend @David asserts absolutely that “There is no God…” Surely the burden of proof therefore is on him. I’m merely asking him to provide that proof. I have asserted nothing absolutely, nor I am trying, necessarily, to persuade you or Dave to my point of view. Therefore there is no burden of proof on me. I ask only for the right to have my own opinion.

      I have read some of the literature you are describing and I find nothing prove-able that refutes my belief in a creator. Current big-bang cosmology asserts that the universe and time itself came into being out of nothing, then exploded. This fits perfectly with my belief in a creator, who created that singularity and caused it to explode. I have no problem with the science, but it has no prove-able answer to the source of the singularity.

      I don’t expect you to share my belief, but I do get a little miffed when people question my sanity just because I have drawn a different conclusion to them, based on the same set of known and unknown factors.

      BTW:
      “Science has volumes of evidence supporting itself”

      Science also has volumes of evidence refuting itself. If I were to believe all the scientific literature at the moment I would have to believe that we are living in a world affected by man-made climate change, but also that we are not. I would have to believe both that the universe started with the big-bang but also that the universe is eternal. A few years ago, I would have had to believe that smoking adversely affects your health, but also that it doesn’t.

      Lots of things are proven beyond reasonable doubt, but I’d suggest that the origin of the universe is far from that point.

    • Marc says:

      01:30pm | 17/01/11

      @Tubesteak: BTW, I love your use of the lower-case “god”. It’s a nice touch.

    • True Believer says:

      06:31pm | 17/01/11

      @David of the etc

      Ignorance like yours spouts foolishness - mankind has been unable to stamp that out - is that a possibility in your brave new world of Godlessness??

      Surely if one buys evolution model we should be breeding out this sort of foolishness that stems from ignorance???

    • Gerard says:

      08:03pm | 17/01/11

      Tubesteak, my belief that the non-fiction section of the local library actually exists is no more provable than my belief that God exists. I know nothing other than what I can perceive. If I reject your assertion that the non-fiction section exists, you are unable to prove to me that it does- in fact, you are unable to prove to me that you yourself are not a product of my imagination. Of course, after weighing the evidence of my perceptions I do believe that you exist, and after weighing the evidence of my perceptions I also believe that God exists.

    • Rosie says:

      09:45am | 17/01/11

      Unfortunately there is no consensus on what God is. It is up to each of us to believe whether God exists or not because his existence cannot be proven right or wrong scientifically.

      We can all play God if we want but no one is poweful enough to be God to everybody.

      If you believe in God it is the way in which you use that God to determine how you live on this planet.

      I try to live on this planet guided by the goodness of the God I believe in and hopefully contribute to the beauty of existence and accomplising something meaningly, something worthy of being called a human being.

      Reply

    • Marc says:

      10:36am | 17/01/11

      Sorry Rosie, you are obviously wrong when you say “It is up to each of us to believe whether God exists or not because his existence cannot be proven right or wrong scientifically.”

      @David of The Grand Academy of Adelagado clearly has that proof, since he can state categorically that “There is no God…”

      I wonder if he’d be kind enough to pass that proof on to the rest of us…?

    • Rosie says:

      11:41am | 17/01/11

      @ Marc - God or no God - please read my last paragraph, I have my opinions and beliefs and will stick to ithem. At the same time will respect the opinions and beliefs of others.

    • Marc says:

      12:03pm | 17/01/11

      @Rosie: Sorry, my comment was tongue-in-cheek.

      “At the same time will respect the opinions and beliefs of others.”
      As will I.

      Cheers

    • TChong says:

      10:06am | 17/01/11

      I too, was a doubter, until I saw my reflection in the full length miror, then I realised , ONLY a God , could have created what I saw.
                You Gotta Have Faith, Faith, Faith. !!!
                            smile

      Reply

    • Jim says:

      10:54am | 17/01/11

      Good to know the Big Fella upstairs has a sense of humour then! raspberry

    • TChong says:

      11:21am | 17/01/11

      Set ‘em up, set ‘em up, then knock ‘em down !!!!!!!!
      ( a philosphy learnt from The Gong Show)

    • Zeta says:

      10:30am | 17/01/11

      I wonder if God had to put up with the accusations of playing God by all the other Gods.

      God: What are you doing?

      God: I’m creating an entire universe by smashing the building blocks of reality together.

      God: Isn’t that playing God?

      God: Well, yes, I suppose so.

      God: I’m not sure I approve of that.

      God: I don’t need your approval, I’m God.

      God: So am I. I’m going to make a universe over here with humility and compassion and without playing God.

      *seven days later*

      God: How did you go? Was it difficult being God without playing God?

      God: They ate each other. I got as far as the fundament and then they started eating each other.

      God: You should have played God then.

      Reply

    • Elphaba says:

      10:48am | 17/01/11

      “God: They ate each other. I got as far as the fundament and then they started eating each other”

      Hahahahaha, love it!!

    • Jolanda says:

      10:37am | 17/01/11

      I don’t think that it is ‘playing God’.  I do however think that it is developing and using the abilities that God has given us. 

      Ultrasounds have been used for a very long time and not every time a disability is identiifed the parents make the decision to terminate.  It isn’t that easy to terminate a pregnancy.

      When it comes to gender selection, given that I have two boys and two girls I really find it hard to comment as I am not sure how I would feel if I had three of one and had a choice.

      I guess if we were not allowing terminations then we would be playing God but by giving people the choice to terminate problem pregnancies then we are being what we are - human. 

      From what I understand an animals instinct will be to kill their young if they are born deformed/disabled.  It is a survival instinct.  At the end of the day we are animals.

      Education – Keeping them Honest
      http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/

      Reply

    • Von says:

      10:47am | 17/01/11

      The RT industry already plays God in producing children who have ‘donor anonymity’ for parents.Yes genetics do matter, to know them means we know our identity, ask any adult adoptee.
      We’ve already lost our sense of compassion and our sense what is right for children and the future, where to next?

      Reply

    • Andrew says:

      11:10am | 17/01/11

      This article and most of these comments still show a total lack of understanding about God and why we are where we are today, and how we are still trying yo play god. Try reading the bible with your mind open to actually understand it (not with your current tinted/tainted glasses on). Then you may begin to see why we have all the problems we do, and that mankind cannot fix them as we are part of the problem. But of course, in our so deluded mind, we seem to think that we are the most intelligent beings and can solve all the problems of the world - what rubbish.

      Reply

    • Jason Todd says:

      02:02pm | 17/01/11

      You are absolutely right Andrew. I’m with you 100%, and more people should take your reccomendation.
      I remember vividly the first time that I read the bible with an open mind and without prejudice or pre-concieved notions about the content. I decided to do so after I had an argument with a nun about the basis of religion when I realised what SHE saw in the bible was different from what I saw in the bible.

      So I re-read it. I put aside what I had been told by my parents, priests, nuns, friends and just read the book as a book with an open mind.

      That was back when I was eleven years old. I have considered myself a agnostic atheist since I finished my first read through. I’ve read the bible (different versions) many times since then, and it always astonishes me the way that people bring their pre-concieved notions about the ‘goodness’ of the bible and read without placing a historical context around it or even thinking about what was written and why.

      I’m with you, if more people read the bible with an open mind, we might have more people who turn their back on on the shadows of ancient mysticism and step into the light of discovery.

      And what a glorious world we could create if that happened.

    • Bobster says:

      03:32pm | 17/01/11

      I think that’s the problem - we assume we’re the most intelligent beings on Earth and utterly ignore the dolphins and the mice.

    • julie says:

      11:19am | 17/01/11

      If you don’t want healthy and disease and detrimental genetics- free children, don’t have them!
      Don’t stop the rest of us from trying to have the most healthy child.

      Reply

    • Razor says:

      11:42am | 17/01/11

      Anything we do that diverts the course of natural processes is eesentially playing god.  Taking anti-biotics, using anti-septics, taking an aspirin, building a dam, building a house, using a car. . . almost all modern life is playing god.

      If we can put humans into space, let alone fly, then we are playing God.

      Knowledge, informationa and technology are not good or bad or God.  It is humans who use it these things that make the value judgements.

      Reply

    • P. Darvio says:

      11:50am | 17/01/11

      GOD has been very kind to the people of Queensland - killing innocent babies, children, Men and Women and mainstream Christians are gloating how wonderful and powerful their Christian GOD is.

      http://catchthefire.com.au/blog/2011/01/08/are-the-qld-floods-the-result-of-kevin-rudd-speaking-against-israel/

      Religion, in all its forms and the concept of GOD is truly evil, sick, immoral and unethical.

      The official Christian - Vatican Population Policy is that the Earth can sustain over 43 Billion people, and the local Vatican Commander, George Pell, implores on the Women of Australia to Populate or Perish. These Christian people are sick. Rape the Planet along with little Children I guess they are thinking.

      Official Christian Bible Policy is to stone Women to death, kill children like Moses did, kill all the gays and through mass genocide kill over 3 Billion Humans – that’s a real human, moral and ethical population policy for you. This stuff is no joke – this is all in the Bible and Christians are required to believe it and enforce it including this Professor.

      Reply

    • Wilson says:

      01:20pm | 17/01/11

      P. Darvio says:11:50am | 17/01/11

      Hey mate, your comments are extremely misleading and misguided.

      As a “mainstream” Christian, I consider Catch The Fire views to be extreme and offensive - not to mention, in the minority. And they are in no way mainstream, rather, they are fringe.

      What is “Official Christian Bible Policy” anyway? There is no such thing.
      Jesus commands us to Love God, Love Our Neighbours, that’s it. You’re confusing the actions of men and versus the actual commandments. People are by nature imperfect, but that has no bearing on a bearing God.

      Respectually, please educate yourself before sprouting drivel like this.

    • Tim says:

      03:45pm | 17/01/11

      Official Christian Bible Policy?
      ahh the ramblings of an atheist bigot can be funny sometimes (and i’m not even religious).

    • P. Darvio says:

      05:53pm | 17/01/11

      Bigot? - for holding Christians to account for what is in their Bible? Please….......

    • Angry_of_Mayfair says:

      01:15am | 18/01/11

      Well put, P. Darvio! From what I’ve just read, it would seem that the only drivel here is that which pours from the perverse mouths of Herr Pell an God’s Rottweiler himself.

      It’s reassuring to hear that others believe that these nonsensical beliefs are actively encouraging the wholesale rape of Planet Earth.

      POPULATE AND PERISH!

    • TheRealDave says:

      12:22pm | 17/01/11

      I like God. He does all this good stuff. But its that bastard Man’s fault for all the bad stuff.

      Hey, I think I just invented Christianity!

      What….someone else already invented it? Shit…how far out was I? 2000 years?

      Damn…..

      Reply

    • notsurprised says:

      12:33pm | 17/01/11

      “Official Christian Bible Policy is to stone Women to death, kill children like Moses did” - Incorrect. It is not official Christian Bible Policy to stone anyone to death, not even in the first century. If you bothered to learn anything, Jesus’s words were ” Let those without sin be the first to cast a stone.” to which no one could be the first. You also seem to be confusing Moses with Abraham, neither of whom were Christian.

      Reply

    • P. Darvio says:

      02:42pm | 17/01/11

      Quote: If you bothered to learn anything, Jesus’s words were ” Let those without sin be the first to cast a stone.” to which no one could be the first.

      I’ve done some research on this - you are wrong - not a problem - people from that other Religion (the one that starts with “I”) don’t believe in the concept of Original Sin - so no problem - just need the stoners to be non-Christian religious people who don’t believe in original sin - problem solved – so people can be stoned to death in accordance with Bible LAW and not defy that person you call “Jesus” !!!

      You could also just recruit Atheists who don’t believe in Sin anyway to do the stoning for you…...but I doubt they would because they don’t have a funny book that tells them stoning women is OK.

    • notsurprised says:

      03:34pm | 17/01/11

      ??? After reading your post I’ve changed my opinion on selective breading, go for it…

    • Jeff says:

      01:09pm | 18/01/11

      So because Abraham was Jewish his actions don’t count, despite the fact that most of the attrocities committed in the bible were at the direct behest of god, or were committed by god himself? The same god who was the father of Christ whom you apparently worship?

      Please… The bible is filled to the brim with evil actions which are either sanctioned of performed by god. Stoning women is a tame example. If an entity is supposedly capable of creating anything with nothing more than a thought but still permits pain and suffering then the only logical conclusion is that said entity *wanted* pain and suffering to happen. Can you really argue that the all-powerful being which created the universe had no option other than to allow “the fall” to happen? Why did we *have* to have free will? Couldn’t we have been bestowed form the beginning with the perfection so that nobody had to suffer mortality?

      Sorry, the whole concept is completely flawed. I take tremendous comfort in the knowledge that such a tyrant doesn’t really exist.

    • notSue says:

      01:26pm | 17/01/11

      Try the term “faith births” for those who choose to NOT genetically manipulate their ofsping, by choosing whichever traits the parents consider desirable, including eye colour, sex, IQ, physical trength, etc. The discriminatory possibilities and the societal fallout have been brilliantly explored in the movie “Gattaca” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/  in 1997.
      We are well on the way to the scenario portrayed. It should give every person who sees it pause, religious or not.

      Reply

    • Wilma J Craig says:

      01:42pm | 17/01/11

      When the world’s population was approaching 4 billions we were told that the world was now over-populated. Now we have 6 billions! So why do we need IVF? Why do we need our government to offfer us a $5000 Bribe to have more babies?
      There are untold millions of unwanted babies being born around the world. Let people adopt them & as an incentive the government could give them the $5000 Bribe Money.
      If people can’t create their own babies isn’t it always possible that NATURE has decided that they should not pre-create?
      I used to breed dogs & after one mating the female aborted. On going to the vet, he had been the female’s vet & had told the breeders that she should never be sold as anything other than a pet.The breeder ignored that advice & sold her to me at top dollar without telling me of the vet’s advice.
      She became the best pet I have ever had.
      Maybe Nature can tell when two humans are incompatible for breeding purposes!
      One of the most disgusting things I ever heard was when an IVF Team in an Australian State told a couple, who just happened tobe related to me,when they queried their chances of success if they went the IVF route, “Oh, Don’t worry about that for today we can make an Egyptian Mummy Pregnant”  (They were referring to those ones they find in the ancient tombs of Egypt).
      If IVF is not playing god then I don’t know what is. Just think of those unfortunate children born to those women in the late 50s to mid 60s. Just what effect will it have on those children when other children say to them ” Is this your Grand-mother?” ” Oh! Really, your MOTHER, why is she so OLD?”
      How will those old men & women who have had these children created be when those children are entering that very difficult period of Puberty & the rebellious Teen Years & their parents are in their middle & late 70s or 80s? That is, of course, assuming they will have live long enough to see these manufactured babies grow puberty or young adulthood.

      Reply

    • bella starkey says:

      01:49pm | 17/01/11

      I had a friend, who died last year, whose daughter wasseverly disabled. She had a physical disability which restricted her mobility and caused her to suffer oxygen loss at birth, which caused mental retardation.

      She can’t walk, talk, feed herself etc. She has the same level of development as a baby.

      My friend loved her daughter, although she never spoke of it I am sure she would insist that she wouldn’t change her for the world. However later in life my friend developed breast cancer which later spread to her bones and then liver, her husband was also diagnosed with MS. I can’t even imagine how heart breaking it must have been for them to realise that thier daughter was going to end up on her own. She is completely helpless and is now living in a high care nursing home. I can’t help but think that all her suffering in the past and certainly in the future (after he father becomes more ill and possibly will end up in a similar position), is it actually worth it?

      I really don’t think I would be able to cope. Not only with the extreme level of care this girl required but also the grief caused by knowing what her inevitable fate would be.

      Reply

    • David of the Grand Academy of Adelagado. says:

      02:29pm | 17/01/11

      The stress probably contributed to your friends death. These cases are so often an endless misery for everyone but the one being cared for, who may be oblivious to the suffering of those who must care for them. Most do-gooders don’t have a clue. The nightmare goes on and on. I’m speaking from some experience.

    • Bobster says:

      02:09pm | 17/01/11

      As a dedicated polytheist (I try to believe in a different god each week - this week it’s Hyperion) I’m offended by the author’s narrow-minded use of the word ‘god’ as a proper noun.

      By capitalising ‘god’ he has cast the entire argument in a Christian context and I’m not due to be Christian until Monday, October 18th, 2038.

      Why, oh why, must everything always be about Jesus?

      Including any consideration of religion, even in a semantic sense, always, always seems to railroad an argument into unworkable territory.

      Get God out of Parliament.

      Reply

    • Jake says:

      12:52pm | 18/01/11

      Pfft… Heathen! Hyperion is nothing more than bronze age claptrap. There is one and only one true God: Mithras. Turn to him or suffer eternal damnation.

    • David of the Grand Academy of Adelagado. says:

      02:09pm | 17/01/11

      Science is slowly dismantling the house of cards that is religion. Mr Jutney knows this. I’ve heard him many times on ABC radio and I doubt he really believes in God himself. But he enjoys the intellectual pursuits of theology and its better than having a real job. God is a ‘concept’ or a ‘belief system’ he might say. I doubt you’ll get him to say God is a ‘living being’ who physically created the universe with a Word. So Mr Jutney is just another charlatan living off the donations of the gullible.

      Reply

    • Clancy of Sydney says:

      02:15pm | 17/01/11

      It is usually considered that modernization and science destroys belief in God and restores believe in Evolution. but ironically it is modernization and science that destroys Evolution! How? The most basic fundamental principle that evolution rely’s upon is the question of who dies and who lives to reproduce? Then Modernization and science comes along and says, no, lets help ‘everyone’ possible to live and reproduce, hence Evolution in Humanity is destroyed.  So if humanity really want’s to play God, then we will have to stand up and have the guts to play ‘Evolution’ and say who can and cannot have Children!

      Reply

    • marley says:

      03:09pm | 17/01/11

      Evolution is not about who lives and who dies - at least not on the individual level.  It’s about the survival of the species as a whole.  Children born with life-shortening genetic disorders will not affect the survival of the species, because their genes are less likely to be passed on than those of healthier, longer-lived children.

      Which brings us back to what is essentially an ethical rather than a religious question.  How much should we intervene in a natural process?  Where do we draw the line?

    • Tedd says:

      02:30pm | 17/01/11

      It doesn’t have to be that way, Clancy.

      Reply

    • Great Godess says:

      03:37pm | 17/01/11

      Bpbster - Agree = god should not ‘be’ in parliantment.  That invisible man has not been elected and is entirely a figment of the imagination of people over 2000 years ago.  If we were that old, we’d be dead and buried by now but unfortunately, there is always someone to gain authority or get votes by keeping god alive and stop euthanasia.

      Reply

    • Kerrie O'Rourke says:

      06:15pm | 17/01/11

      Humans made up the concept of GOD to explain everything they couldn’y explain by science or philosophy or education..
      GOD is Good Old Drivel.

      Reply

    • Kerrie O'Rourke says:

      06:17pm | 17/01/11

      Why not play God? We have mastered every other game.

      Reply

    • kerrie o'rourke says:

      06:20pm | 17/01/11

      Why do Atheists and Agnostics always win the game of God?
      Why do Christians and Muslims always lose??

      Reply

    • Marc says:

      10:40pm | 17/01/11

      @kerrie o’rourke: Not quite sure what you mean by this one, but, in my experience, outspoken atheists (atheist evangelists) tend towards sweeping statements that brook no serious discussion - “Humans made up the concept of God…” - as if these were self-evident and need nothing to back them up.

      Atheists, at least in on-line forums such as these, also tend to dismiss theists out-of-hand as “loonies” or similar insulting epithets, in an effort to discredit the theist viewpoint, again, without any attempt at serious discussion.

      Inaccurate and/or out of context quotes from the Bible are also a great mainstay of the atheist evangelist, as are sweeping generalisations about “science” and its apparent (to them) inconsistency with the theist view.

      In short, it’s pretty easy to “win”, if you only have to present a straw-man argument and refuse (or are unable to) engage in any meaningful discussion of same.

      This is certainly not true of all atheists but, in my experience, is a common thread (no pun intended) in these on-line forums.

    • Kiddo says:

      08:47am | 18/01/11

      @Marc Hear hear!

    • jamie says:

      06:36pm | 17/01/11

      And what if there is no god,

      what are we playing then?

      Reply

    • marley says:

      07:53am | 18/01/11

      Whether there’s a god or not, the ethical issue is the same - where do we draw the line when it comes to determining the characteristics of our children?  You don’t have to believe in any religion at all to be troubled by some of the issues being raised.

    • Lisa H. says:

      05:33pm | 18/01/11

      In many ways this is the kind of conversation we have if we say it is okay to abort children because they are unplanned, or inconvenient.
      Will we one day be able to test and abort for blindness? What about homosexuality?
      The implications of being able to test for genetics, and then abort all those that fail those tests - however inaccurate the results - makes my head ache.
      Even our down testing, which is offered to every mother over 30 as standard, has changed / become more accurate since my first pregnancy.
      No doctor ever informed me of the possibilities of false positives/ negatives… but I guess I never had to go too far.

    • Roland says:

      11:16pm | 17/01/11

      Playing “God” would be to let all the awful things that God already seems to allow just continue to happen.
      In such situations we are actually playing “Human” by seeking to improve things and alleviate suffering.
      That ain’t in God’s CV, if you read the bible.

      Reply

    • Elisha says:

      11:23pm | 17/01/11

      We all bring our own slippery slopes to the debate already. Mine are shaped by my German upbringing, inadvertant shudders at the thought of genetic testing, yet I am a strong supporter of David Suzuki’s analysis of our planet’s overcrowding. Could genetic screening become a tool for population control in the hands of nifty politicians? Shuddering again ! As far as the deity of choice is concerned - mine does not include genetic screening, but love of the fallible, the excluded, the neglected , and cultivation of extending myself to strange others. It also shows a deep desire for all to be well, always. Hm.

      Reply

    • PK says:

      01:54am | 18/01/11

      *Sigh*

      Why is abortion being refered to?

      Testing for genetic illnesses which could likely be passed on to the child is when an egg is artificially fertilised by sperm which is then tested. So the egg and the sperm is only between 1-5 days old. Just mere cells. Not a baby.

      As the wife of someone with a chronic illness (who can reproduce), I WILL be chosing the IVF route to try and prevent our child going through what he did.

      Yes he is a good person, yes his experiences made him the person he is today , I am so glad that he exists and he is in my life. I couldn’t imagine my life without him… Imagine however being chronically ill and having your friends from the hospital dying off over the years from a similar illness.

      Watch them die from something that has been genetically inherited.

      In fact, watch some parents have baby after baby with the same genetic illness. 7 babies.

      Yes, give birth to 7 children with kidney disease who need dialysis to survive and a kidney transplant. And they then said it’s in the hands of God.

      Is that ok? To have fulfilled your biological need without taking precautions to try and prevent a baby being born with a genetically inherited illness?

      I am not taking the risk.

      I will be using IVF. Not to create the perfect baby but to try the best I can to prevent the illness my husband and his cousins suffered (and the illness my father in law now has which is linked- it doesn’t run through the family MY ARSE - my in laws need to stop bullshitting me) be passed on through the next generations.

      Reply

    • Sir Osis says:

      07:56am | 18/01/11

      One simply needs to watch the society of the movie “Gattaca” so see where this is going

      Reply

    • Elisha says:

      10:12am | 18/01/11

      What if we human beings were willing to accept suffering as part of our humanity? I dont mean that passive kind of suffering that sends us all to hell, but a discerning acceptance that compassionately bears the suffering in self and others that cannot be changed in the short term - if ever, the passionate acceptance that drives us human beings to change the things that can and should be changed and the at times agonizing process of discerning which is which. Living with genetic imperfections, as I know from personal experience, requires all of the above. So let’s get on with being human and allow God to be God,  shall we? Or let’s get on with being that privileged and blessed dwelling place of the divine communion and live and love
      accordingly.

      Reply

    • OchreBunyip says:

      10:49am | 18/01/11

      Ultrasound along with other developmental checks, in some cases, also afford the parents the opportunity to opt for medical intervention for the developing foetus that can assist in its healthy development. Medical conditions concerning the unborn are not always the black and white of keep or kill.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 27 May 12 04:24PM

@AndrewCatsaras Agreed. Kills more people than AIDS. Yet tolerated. Meanwhile: Good Insiders piece again Andrew.

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 27 May 12 02:08PM

RT @JamieTravers: I'm in Europe and don't care for Eurovision, why is my twitter feed filled with Aussies recounting the bloody thing!?

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:27PM

Dementor doing a good job for sweden #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:11PM

Ukraine song pinches chord progression from The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony. Fo real #sbseurovision

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

by David Penberthy

132

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

by Paul Toohey

17

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

by Angela Mollard

2

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed