Playing with nature - the ethics of sex selection

KH says:

07:29am | 10/01/11

And you will always find a way to see opinion pieces as a personal attack on men, regardless of the actual content.

Benrama says:

07:36am | 10/01/11

There are many relationships out there where one of the two is wearing the proverbial pants Eric. Sometimes it’s the wife beatin’, arse kickin’, beer drinkin’ Son of a Gun husband. In other instances, the shrill, harpy wife, intent on nothing more than claiming her downtrodden husband’s seed and running off to Fiji with her librarian lesbian lover in tow. Both just examples. Like the one Sam has happened to choose. 
  Whilst unfair gender discrimination against men is a very real issue, and one that over the years you, quite rightly i may add, have chosen to champion over the years on The Punch forums, please as a male I beg you, stick to the real battles.  “Wolf, wolf, wolf!”
  As for me, Love the baby, but does it come in brown?

fairsfair says:

08:23am | 10/01/11

I agree. WTF is that line supposed to mean?

This article should be about the psychological health of BOTH parents involved in this horrific decision. It is not normal and I am really shocked to read it. This article should also be about the doctors who are facilitating this process when there is clearly something amiss with mum and dad.

I can only imagine what it is like to lose a child - it would be horrific - but how do you rationalise “replacing” a baby and then killing its replacements.

I literally can not believe what I am reading on this Monday morning.

Its a womans right to choose. Are we being told that in a few years it will be a woman’s right to choose the colour of her baby’s hair at birth? Oh, damn I wanted a red head…. lets try again… How far are we, as a society going to allow this to be pushed?

This has nothing to do with religion.

Syl says:

09:57am | 10/01/11

I read this line as AN example, not THE example.

I generally agree with your sentiments Eric, but in this case I think your criticising a non-point.

Hagar says:

12:57pm | 10/01/11

The author chose to make point about controlling spouses by giving an example. They could have used an example where either spouse is controlling, but chose to make him the controlling one. That choice wasn’t entirely random and was the product of years of biased reporting about domestic violence.

Leah says:

02:19pm | 10/01/11

oh gosh Eric, the writer was just making an example. Get over yourself. Besides, factually speaking, if you looked at the global community men DO have the most say. Look in countries like India & China - the most populous countries in the world - and I am sure you will find that the man’s opinion is almost always favoured due to the culture and social expectations.

Zac says:

02:33pm | 10/01/11

Can’t agree more Eric!! Remember that tax payer funded advt “Violence (men’s) against women Australia says no”? By the way this is fruit of secularism.

fairsfair says:

02:36pm | 10/01/11

@ Leah - we are not talking about those societies though - we are talking about our own society in which two people thought it OK to conceive with the desire to have a girl and then terminate the pregnancy because it was not. So in sticking with the context of the article, Eric is simply questioning the example given by the author. I think Syl is right, but it should read ‘one parent” and not refer to the sex of the parent with the most “power”.

Besides, in Australia women tend to hold the cards in this situation and I have noticed that most of my family and friends prefer girls to boys. So we are indeed different to India & China in many many ways and whilst I think it admirable that you are advocating their rights, it is not applicable in this context. Eric’s point is fair enough. I balked at that when I read it (before I got to the comments) and I am female. Though I am certain that there are extreme cases of abuse out there - I find it quite unlikely that hoards of Aussie women are being forced into abortions by their partners beause the males don’t want the babies for whatever reason.

Leah says:

03:48pm | 10/01/11

fairsfair - gender selection has been going on for years in China. Not at a zygote/foetus level, but at a newborn baby level. The suggestion that we are not talking about these societies might be right for this specific article, but in regards to the general topic, I believe it is applicable in other countries, especially China. Plus, you’ll note the author does refer to a global preference towards male babies. While your average Indian or Chinese might not have access to IVF gender selection (as most Australians don’t either), gender selection still often happens, just via a different method (eg. killing newborn little girls). And in those cultures - and many others - it is still the husband’s voice that will get the most attention. I think the author’s point is that if we - whether at an Australian level or global one - start allowing gender selection, then who do we listen to? Because in many instances, one partner will often have the predominant say, and the author gave the example of the dominant loud-mouthed husband.

david says:

05:02pm | 10/01/11

Dad wants the child and Mum is keen on an abortion. Who legally wins the argument? The woman. Who will legally win the case in child selection? The woman.

Eric says:

05:04pm | 10/01/11

Amusing, Leah. First you attack me for pointing out a sexist stereotype - and then you use the same sexist stereotype yourself!

You assume that it’s “loudmouth husbands” who dominate, because of the general culture of misandry in which we live. Yet there is no evidence to support your assumption - just your prejudice.

I think you have illustrated my point rather nicely.

Labor Hater says:

08:16am | 11/01/11

I had a fling with a women that fell pregnant and waited until the abortion period was over until she told me. Now I do want to support her and the child but cannot be 100% sure I am the biological parent and was presented with no choice in this situation and my main concern is do I devout my time to a Women I barely know and support her with a child that potentially may not be mine??

Sam says:

12:34pm | 11/01/11

Well, from my experience men tend to believe in self-determination more than women. How many times have you heard a guy say “If it was meant to be, it was meant to be.”? So, it follows that men take more of the credit and more of the blame for everything.

MelD says:

04:48pm | 11/01/11

@Labor hater - get a DNA test moron, find out for sure

and boys, boys, boys, the reasont that all the laws and media etc are about violence against women because for hundreds of years that’s the way it’s been, it’s only now with equality that we can be just as abusive to waste of space males, you want to change it? go to the media and talk about how some woman beat the crap out you and get a whole lot of other men to do the same and with more awareness comes laws, it took years before it was illegal to beat your wife and children, years of lobbying, get started

Eric says:

05:18am | 12/01/11

Oh MelD, what a perfect example of misandry and feminist lies.

Domestic violence has always been an equal opportunity occupation. And there is no evidence for your false claim that it was legal for men to beat women until recently.

Attitudes like yours are the reason I need to keep raising awareness.

Bethwana says:

02:06pm | 10/01/11

As a married 27 year old having to save my butt off for IVF I can GUARANTEE you the rebates through medicare for IVF/ICSI/IUI etc. are garbage in comparison to people who have fallen pregnant naturally and are claiming for scans, doctors appoints, specialists etc. I can safely say that fertility treatment is NOT covered under private health insurance. I’ve been insured for 10 years and the only thing I’m covered for my hospital stay for egg retrieval.

Vicster4053 says:

08:49pm | 10/01/11

I’m with you Bethwana… we spent in excess of $15,000 net to have our babies through IVF and I have had private health cover all my adult life.  Lets put in perspective the fact that 99% of IVF patients would be grateful for ANY child and absolutely wrapped to have twins.  IVF isn’t about “breeding horses” or “sponging off medicare” and anyone who wants to debate such topics should firstly look at their own fertility and thank their lucky stars that they have been blessed with the gift of life.

PaulB says:

07:42am | 10/01/11

I for one wouldn’t want to be their kid.  Imagine trying to grow up where the parents have taken such complete ownership of you from day one.

Horse says:

08:23am | 10/01/11

Emotive language like murder or even describing early foetuses as children tends to skew perceptions of an argument, deb.

Shane says:

08:53am | 10/01/11

Horse, do you mean kind of like how the author suggests that aborting unwanted ‘genders’ skews the argument away from the obvious ethic debate around abortion by focussing on the gender of the CHILD in question? No “gender” is ever aborted. Gender is a charactersistic of… you guessed it!... a human being.

fairsfair says:

08:55am | 10/01/11

A lot of people believe that to be the case, Horse. I am not religious, but I view “the potential for life represented by a healthy feotus” and “life” to be pretty much the same thing. I also believe terminating that potential in this type of circumstance to be a form of murder. I don’t understand how anyone can rationalise their behaviour to be acceptable.

Horse says:

09:43am | 10/01/11

Fairstar, I agree with your position. I think abortion is a unfortunate event, and the rate is too high.

We ca rationalise their behaviour as a profound desire to have a daughter, and perhaps that desire will be better met by choosing sex before implantation, a concept that is addressed by various comments in other posts here.

Simo says:

11:05am | 10/01/11

Horse, killing something just because of its’ sex (whether it be a foetus or an unborn baby call it whatever you like) is murder.  IVF should be used respectfully and with great thought about what the outcome might be. Prior to entering into any treatment surely they would have thought about their history of having boys and anticipated that this was a likelihood.

fairsfair says:

11:42am | 10/01/11

Yes but it is still not acceptable Horse. That is what I am struggling with. This is just all kinds of wrong and everyone is discussing it like “did you hear about that crazy couple in Melbourne?” in amongst their lunch plans.

It is just a bit worrying is all. Worrying in that this is a pretty big step in the ethics and moral department. People will find it unsettling. Myself included.

Danny' says:

11:52am | 10/01/11

Interesting that the tilte of this article contains the word ‘ethics’. Ethics without God is subjectionable (i.e. individual’s own values) where as ethics as taught in the Bible is clear..in this instance “thou shalt not kill”. Regardless of whether you want a boy or girl, how can a parent kill an unborn in order to get what they want?

Andrew says:

01:35pm | 10/01/11

No, Danny, I’m afraid you’re completely wrong.  ‘Ethics’ without thought or reason is the most dangerous thing in the world, and religious people pretty much have a monopoly on that.  And if you think your ethics aren’t ‘subjectionable’ (I think subjective might be the word you’re struggling to find), then please ask yourself why you don’t follow the particularly nasty, barbaric, and inhumane rules expressed in the ‘holy book’ of whatever religion you profess to believe in?  Oh that’s right, because your ‘interpretation’ of those ‘laws’ is different from what is actually written in the holy, infallible book.  It’s not as if there’s an awful lot of wiggle room in Leviticus (for example).  Stoning is the required punishment for many crimes, so why are you not doing it?  Is your subjective application of these ‘ethics’ more correct?

Ethics without god?  I’m afraid that’s all we’ve got available to us in this reality..

Leah says:

03:16pm | 10/01/11

Horse, ‘murder’ is not an emotive word, it’s a legal word. And foetuses are children. Your opinion that they are not, is no more valid than deb’s or anyone else’s opinion that they are.

Matthew says:

03:38pm | 10/01/11

So simo,  that steak you had last night is murder too?

DS says:

06:08pm | 10/01/11

Leah, ” ‘murder’ is not an emotive word, it’s a legal word.”

Indeed, and as such to call the killing of foetuses or unborn children (whatever you want to call them) murder is wrong. Abortion is not against the law.

Akrasiel Rising says:

10:59am | 13/01/11

@ deb… Under Australian law a foetus in utero cannot be the victim of any kind of homicide, regardless of the stage of pregnancy at which it is killed.

A foetus can only be the victim of murder or manslaughter if it is born in a living state. For these purposes, a child is born in a living state when it (but not necessarily the umbilical cord, placental tissue or afterbirth) is completely extruded from the pregnant woman’s body.

Except in the Australian Capital Territory, and in New South Wales for murder prosecutions, a child need not have breathed to be considered born alive. Nor is it necessary that the child be viable in the sense that it has the capacity to stay alive. A functioning heart is probably sufficient. Birth includes surgical removal of the child from its mother, as in the case of birth by Caesarean section, as well as vaginal delivery.

Legal Abortion or Child Destruction (depending on the circumstances) are most likely the more apropriate terms for the termination of the foetus’ of the couple at the centre of this argument. The difference is predominantly one of timing for a case of Child Destruction (being that the woman was pregnant for more than 28 weeks and that she was carrying a child capable of being alive).

From a legal standpoint at least, Horse is right on the money. The ethical debate over genetic manipulation to attain a desired outcome is by far the more complex issue here.

Silverdragon says:

09:39am | 10/01/11

Absolutely agree, Super D!  You have hit the nail on the head, as it were.

I am fully in support of Medicare/health fun assistance for couples who are unable to have a child the ‘normal’ way and for those who have a heritable condition that would adversely affect the life of their child, but not for “designer” babies.

There is so much wrong with aborting two perfectly healthy children because you’d prefer the other gender.  How many childless couples in Australia would have given their right arms for those kids?  Especially those who can’t afford IVF??  (Note Medicare only pays less than half the cost, which is huge - around $10,000 per cycle!)  This couple clearly has (a) more money than sense; and (b) some significant grief issues that they should overcome before they try for any more children.

The law in Australia should NOT be changed.  If they are so very desperate, go to a country where gender selection is legal - and pay for it 100% themselves.

Kika says:

10:33am | 10/01/11

Hahaha that happened to me! My dad wanted a boy and was only comfortable knowing he was going to be a parent when thinking of the possibility that I might have been a son. Unfortunately he was disappointed on that.

Then I was blonde as a baby. My hair went brown. It’s still a source of disappointment to him right to this very day. Maybe if he knew I was going to be a brunette female instead of a blond son he might have aborted me too! Haha.

Shannxi says:

11:24am | 10/01/11

Silverdragon ‘couples who are unable to have a child the ‘normal’ way’.....does that make me abnormal if I cannot?
‘How many childless couples….’ stacks especially those of us who cannot afford IVF.
So, are you advocating that gender selection is fine, but only when not done in your own backyard?  I think the issue may be a little bit deeper than this!  Gender selection should be banned in ANY COUNTRY.

Bilby says:

12:31pm | 10/01/11

Shannxi - Yes of course it makes you abnormal. Most people are abnormal in one way or another. I don’t see any basis on which to challenge that.

Silverdragon says:

02:07pm | 10/01/11

Shanxi - no, I’m not suggesting that you aren’t normal if you can’t conceive naturally - that is why I put the word in quotes.  Hopefully you can tell from the rest of my post that I am very much in favour of IVF for infertile couples?? 

And no, I do not think that gender selection is okay anywhere, but it is a fact that in some other countries, the US included, it IS legal.  What I am saying (ethics aside) is that we should not bend the law in Australia for one couple who thinks the “deserve” a girl.  What did their twin boys “deserve”??  Maybe a chance at life?

I find the concept of gender selection through IVF (or any other post-conception method) abhorrent and ethically unacceptable, but I find the idea of tax-payer dollars subsidising it even worse.

Please, don’t get me wrong, I’m pretty sure we’re on the same page.  I have been down the infertility road, had several miscarriages myself and understand the pain of not conceiving a longed-for child.

Matthew says:

03:51pm | 10/01/11

So Silverdragon, I find your botox usage abhorrent and ethically unacceptable.  No?  You’ve got breast cancer and had a breast removed and need a new implant to replace.  Too bad, I find that abhorrent and ethically unacceptable.  Whether you agree or not, using IVF isn’t the worst thing in the world.  It’s only using a egg and sperm from the parents (which they produced) and then helping it along.

Do you disagree with using fertiliser to help your plants grow?  Planting seeds in the ground?  IVF is no less natural than having a leg removed.

Gav says:

12:11pm | 10/01/11

IVF shouldn’t be covered under Medicare/Safety Net as it isn’t essential to survival - it is a want - not a need.

Mayday says:

11:45am | 10/01/11

Very good point, professional ethics went missing in this situation,  the “parents” and doctors should hang their heads in shame.

Ajent says:

12:23pm | 10/01/11

Welcome to China mark II.

This would be called discrimination. Population control is entirely another issue, and IVF doctors do not have the right tell parents that they already have enough children.

That said, you would hope that IVF parents do get some level of pysch evaluation and perhaps the extreme desire to have a girl should have been flagged.

I’d also like to know if this was publicly funded IVF or not.

Andy says:

01:45pm | 10/01/11

I don’t think it is right for the doctors to tell a couple who already have children that they cannot get IVF.

But couples who already have children should have to pay the full cost of their IVF, no government assistance. And they should have to go to the back of the line, every childless couple who registers for IVF should get preference over those who already have children.

Nafe says:

08:57am | 10/01/11

Umm, I don’t think Homosexuality is tested for considering its a choice, not a defective gene.

I am one of your so called religous freaks but a Child of God is a Child of God, no matter what. It is not my job to Judge a person on their sexual choice

Tedd says:

09:50am | 10/01/11

Nafe

The proposition ‘homosexuality is a choice’ is false for almost all homosexuals. Most find they come to terms with their sexuality when most people come to terms with it - at puberty.

That false proposition undermines the attempted arguments against homosexuality, and is also ‘false witness’.

Bilby says:

09:52am | 10/01/11

Nafe - I fear that by capitalising “Child of God”, it shows that in fact you are one of your so called “religious freaks”. Saying the being gay isn’t a choice also didn’t help your claim. Happy to discuss.

Storm says:

10:06am | 10/01/11

Nafe, are you serious…it is a defect in the brain.  Explain to me why some animals are gay?
Being that you are a religious nut wouldn’t you say that animals are too stupid to make a decision.  So I suppose that would leave instinct, maybe a defect in the brain…

Syl says:

10:16am | 10/01/11

Nafe

You assume Homosexuality is a choice.  I have some gay friends who would have chosen differently if such a choice was offered…

Did you choose to be Heterosexual?  Do you think you could fall in love with someone of the same sex because you chose to….

JKR says:

10:45am | 10/01/11

Nafe, homosexuality is not a choice.

St. Michael says:

12:07pm | 10/01/11

@ Everyone: hence why eugenics is such a vague area.  How do you define what a genetic ‘defect’ is?

Steph says:

12:11pm | 10/01/11

Nafe, I agree with you on this. I’m not going to enter an unrelated-to-the-OP debate here but we, as Christians, do not abort. It’s murder. Even thinking in non-Christian terms, when does a “foetus” become human? At a certain age? a certain developmental period? When do we classify it as having a life?

James1 says:

12:55pm | 10/01/11

To be fair on Nafe, maybe not being homosexual is a choice for him.  Many homosexuals and bisexuals choose not to act on their homosexuality or bisexuality.  Sure, for me (and I am sure many others) there is no choice - I am heterosexual and I am not attracted to men in the least.  But for Nafe, he has clearly chosen not to act on his homosexual tendencies.  That is his choice, and we must respect it, just as much as if he did act on his homosexuality.

Clare says:

02:37pm | 10/01/11

James1 - nice

Andy says:

03:25pm | 10/01/11

James1, that is an extraordinarily long-winded way to call someone a poofter. Makes me wonder who the bigot here really is.

Thin Kaboutit says:

05:16pm | 10/01/11

@ James1

“choose not to act on their homosexuality” Silly them. I wish I was gay.  Then I wouldn’t have to navigate and negotiate the differences between women and me. I wouldn’t have to work women out.  I wouldn’t have to suffer feminisms ills. But I’m not gay.  But I wish I was. Life would be so much easier.

Bilby says:

08:03pm | 10/01/11

Nafe - For my next act I plan on accusing bears of shitting in the woods :-(

James1 says:

09:04am | 11/01/11

Andy, given your choice of words, and the fact that I have no problem with people being gay at all, I would say the bigot is you.  Well done sir.

Andy says:

11:57am | 11/01/11

Come on James, on the one hand you claim to “have no problem with people being gay at all” but then on the other hand you attack someone whose opinion differs from yours by inferring that they are a closet homosexual. If you have no problems with homosexuals why do you use homosexuality as a slur and a way to ridicule people.

Again, sounds a lot like bigotry to me.

People like you who claim to their dying breath that they aren’t homophobic yet still seem happy to use homosexuality as an attack on the character of others are doing as much damage to the cause of acceptance for gays as those who claim their beliefs allow them to discriminate.

Dressing up your attack by omitting words like poofter does not stop you from being homophobic.

James1 says:

01:19pm | 11/01/11

Stating that someone is a homosexual is not a slur at all Andy.  It is a mere statement of fact - I am surprised that you think it a slur, and can’t help but wonder why.  I make that statement on the basis of the evidence - Nafe has chosen to be a heterosexual, therefore homosexuality is an option for him by definition.  It is not meant to say anything about Nafe’s character at all - it is more a slur against his logic than anything. 

Can you explain why you think being homosexual is a bad thing?  Or how my post in any way implies that?  I think you need to take a good hard look at yourself if you think my saying Nafe is homosexual in any way affects his character, as it is you who clearly thinks this, not me.

Let me finish with a quote from my original post: “That is his choice, and we must respect it, just as much as if he did act on his homosexuality.”  Are these really the words of a bigot?  You seriously think that me calling for respect for homosexuals and heterosexuals alike is a statement of bigotry?  How very strange…

Rock and a Hard Place says:

12:31pm | 10/01/11

“The fact is that unborn children, regardless of their sex or their disabilities or the extent to which they are wanted, have a right to life”.  No they don’t - don;t know where you come from Blazes but in this country an unborn child under a certain age does not have that right - the parent has the right to terminate.

Bilby says:

01:35pm | 10/01/11

RaaHP - There is in fact no such right in Australia at all. It’s a common misconception (no pun intended). It is legal under a certain age (about 24 weeks I think) in some states, but in NSW, QLD, SA, and WA it is illegal excepting where a doctor has decided that the woman’s mental and/or physical health is in danger. In SA and WA two doctors are required. It is this proviso that allows unethical doctors to perform social terminations which, as stated, are in fact illegal. A doctor and woman can still be prosecuted as seen by the Queensland couple last year.

Rock and a Hard Place says:

08:58am | 11/01/11

Hi Bilby - you are splitting hairs - the fact is that as an Australian you can go to a clinic in whatever state allows it and with little or no questions asked get an abortion to me means an unborn child under a certain age has no “right” to life.  And the very fact that mental health can be so subjective means that anyone in NSW who goes to get an abortion just has to say they are stressed and it will be granted.

Bilby says:

09:41am | 11/01/11

RaaHP - The lack of rights doesn’t confer any protection on the unborn sure, but that wasn’t really what I was saying. People assume that women have a legal right, which they don’t. That may be a subtle distinction, but an important one. If it were moved into law, we might be forced to undergo a serious examination of the issue which is currently simply avoided. I tend to think that the rights of the mother and unborn are in complete conflict, so I can’t see an acceptable answer at all.

Silverdragon says:

09:48am | 10/01/11

Ian - not sure what you mean by this???  IVF is a perfectly legitimate method for infertile couples to conceive a child and the vast majority of them value the resulting pregnancy and child more than life itself!

The “consequences” of IVF are generally a healty child NOT a tragic abortion of two healthy babies for completely unacceptable reasons.

Syl says:

10:19am | 10/01/11

Supporting a system that allows couples who are unable to conceive naturally and experience the joy that is haveing a child somehow means I should agree with aborting a child because of Gender??

A pretty bloody big leap in logic there…

iansand says:

11:13am | 10/01/11

If you support IVF (and I do) you support interfering with the natural order of things.  Those people were never meant to have children.  I thought that was pretty obvious.  Interfering with the sex of the foetuses is only a small additional step.

Syl says:

01:00pm | 10/01/11

Uh no Iansand, it’s not a “small additional step” at all.

Who determines who is “meant” to have children?  You? The government?  An invisible sky wizard?.  What about where one partner is fertile and the other isn’t?  That one person was “meant” to be able to have children but cannot due to external circumstances, would you deny them the chance when we have the means to help?

I have had friends who have been through the IVF programme, they desperately wanted a child, they were not fussed over sex etc, they were ecstatic when they conceived, and would have been regardless of sex.  They would NEVER have aborted due to gender, to suggest so would have been abhorrent to them.

IVF should be used to help couples who are incapable of conceiving to conceive, NOT to custome tailor your children.  There is a huge gap between these concepts, if you cannot see that, it is more indicative of your prejudices than mine.

Please do not assume what people who agree with IVF would think about a seperate issue.  You DO know what they say about making assumptions…

iansand says:

12:58am | 11/01/11

Sorry, Syl.  Your friends were infertile.  You condone interference.  For some reason some interference is good, and some is bad.  don’t see much of a distinction.

Elphaba says:

07:56am | 11/01/11

@iansand, I agree with you.  All medical care at some point extends life and thus interferes with the ‘natural’ order of things.  I fail to see the difference between helping a couple that nature has determined cannot breed to conceive, and then not allowing that couple to choose the sex.

It’s a contradiction.  It’s already unnatural.  Why not go all the way?

syl says:

08:27am | 11/01/11

iansand

If you were having a heart attack and died, would you not accept a medical officer trying to revive you?  Or is that “inteference” of the natural order too?  Surely you were “meant” to die.

If you had cancer would you go in to hospital for treatment?

If you were born unable to walk, but there was a medical breakthrough that allowed you to, would you do it?

The “natural order” line is bullshit.  If we can help people we should.  Tailoring babies to suit a lifestyle is not helping people, it’s an affirmation of self obsession.

Oh btw, congratulations for completely dismissing my post without actually answering a single point made in it.

iansand says:

09:50am | 11/01/11

Fortunately Syl, I did not use the phrase “natural order”.  Can you explain why IVF is OK, but sex selection not?  Eeeewww yuck does not count as an explanation.

Syl says:

12:48pm | 11/01/11

My argument, iansand, unless you missed it, is that IVF should be for couples who are unable to conceive, not to those who simply wish to tailor children to their lifestyle.  My concern is that those parents who are only after the children who looks/sex etc who fit a certain stereotype that complements their lifestyle are probably not fit to be parents in the first place.  I believe such a mentality of the parents may very well be detrimental to the child (what if a parent chooses a child who is male but is born gay, or decides to become transgendered, the parents are prejudiced from conception).  I ESPECIALLY do not believe that children should be aborted because of their sex.
I have no problem with sex selection if it is for a medical reason (i.e. hereditary disease).

Also, as a side note, before saying things like “Fortunately Syl, I did not use the phrase “natural order”” you may want to check your previous posts.
For example

  iansand says:
  11:13am | 10/01/11
  If you support IVF (and I do) you support interfering with the natural order of things.  Those people were never meant to have children.  I thought that was pretty obvious.  Interfering with the sex of the foetuses is only a small additional step.

So, my answer was not ewwww, this is actually a topic I have thought long and hard about (having recently found out that my wife is pregnant) and have come up with MY opinion.  I would appreciate it if you didnt try to tell me what I should or shouldnt have a problem with (i.e. your first post before you decide to tell me you didnt say that either).  The world is not black and white, no matter how much you wish it was.

P.S. You still havent actually addressed any of my points, but I expected that.

True Believer says:

09:28am | 10/01/11

@stephen:

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm and where are the dinosaurs now?

Dan says:

12:11pm | 10/01/11

@True Believer, there are actually A LOT of dinosaur descendants still on the planet. Turtles for one, crocodiles, and I’m not sure but I’d have a stab at the Komodo Dragon being pretty close to what a dinosaur would have looked like…. A particularly eloquent dinosaur once remarked that “reports of my death are greatly exaggerated”.

In terms of this article, the only thing I’d add to the ethical debate is whether we should be spending so much money making children for infertile couples when we have a population explosion happening globally… But I’m not touching any of those ethical questions with a fifty foot pole!

James1 says:

01:01pm | 10/01/11

Dan,

Those are reptiles, and are not descended from dinosaurs in the sense you are talking about, although crocodiles (or at least similar reptiles) existed concurrently with dinosaurs.  Some think that birds evolved from dinosaurs, and there is some very strong fossil evidence to support this, in the form of several so-called missing links.  But your central point is correct - we should not just go ahead and assume that the dinosaurs all fell off the ark while Noah was in the toilet, and thus have no ongoing genetic heritage.

Nafe says:

09:00am | 10/01/11

The Christian Faith believes we are all sinners, Even the Priests are sinners, bishops are sinners, and every person on earth is a sinner.

Baal says:

05:55pm | 12/01/11

@nafe.
I live my life without the burden of sin becuase I do not believe in the concept.
There is no sin and there are no sinners.

Frances says:

09:40am | 10/01/11

Agree Gonzo…appears the final intent was simply meant to be a religious dig.

Grrrrrrr! says:

08:46am | 10/01/11

MelG - I agree!  I saw a heated debate about this on Facebook yesterday and as objective as I am - I couldn’t understand how anyone could defend this couples decision.  Purely ‘cosmetic’, cowardly and absolutely unjustifiable.  There was always the option of going full term and adopting the boys out or, perhaps, considering fostering a baby girl. Community Services are desperate for carers, particulary long term.

I best move on, these people just make me feel sick.

Hmmm says:

10:06am | 10/01/11

I dare say that if you can afford IVF then you earn too much for the baby bonus- it is income tested ($75000). Maybe I’m wrong though.

Syl says:

02:18pm | 10/01/11

Hmmm

If you are desperate to have a baby having a low income will not stop you raisng the money, it will just make it harder.  IVF is not exclusive to higher income earners.

KH says:

08:56am | 10/01/11

I think that is what makes me so angry about these people - the immense selfishness of their actions is astounding, and should not be rewarded because they stamped their feet and cried about how unfair it all was.  They have already abused the IVF system in the most appalling way, and should not be allowed another shot when clearly they can conceive naturally, and no mention was made of any serious genetic illnesses.  I also know people who have gone through hell in IVF and still not been successful.  When the outcome is supposed to be a healthy child, for these people to then terminate because it isn’t the right gender is just beyond belief.

retroangel says:

12:31pm | 10/01/11

Annabel: I am so sorry for your loss and the struggles you have been through to conceive. Your heart breaking journey is the main reason I am so disgusted with this couple. They are abusing the IVF system and basically giving the finger to the couples who are having difficulties and struggles that other couple have in trying to conceive and would give their soul for any gender.

Kika says:

10:36am | 10/01/11

Wait, the couple themselves didn’t exactly walk into an IVF clinic, impregnate themselves and when it turned out wrong walked into a abortion clinic and curette themselves, did they?

There are doctors involved who obviously did not do their jobs probably as health practitioners who failed to diagnose a couple grieving over a lost daughter. They are just as liable as the couple who did it.

Mike t says:

12:48pm | 10/01/11

@ Kika.

I agree with you 100%. The professionals that were involved in this need to answer some serious questions. They can start with the obvious one being “Did they know this would be the couples actions if they fell pregnant with a boy/boys???”

To often in our scoiety we simply blame those making the final call and let those that allow/encourage the actions to occur to waltz away without a spot light being cast over thier actions

James1 says:

01:33pm | 10/01/11

I have noticed a strong correlation between people using the term “common sense”, and being unable to spell it correctly.

DS says:

06:38pm | 10/01/11

Nafe, what an absurd post! You keep on throwing around the term murder, when nobody was murdered!!!

“They both should be banned from conceiving any way in the future.”

How are you going to do that? Forced sterilization? Disgusting.

Bilby says:

09:34am | 10/01/11

Does Godwin’s law apply when we’re talking about eugenics? I reckon along with genocide this is an exception topic.

Ironside says:

10:19am | 10/01/11

But the article isnt about eugenics, this couple wanted a girl and got an abortion to try again…personally i am appalled by it, but there it isnt eugenics

Michael N says:

10:51am | 10/01/11

It probably doesn’t apply when the alleged post is fictitious also…

@ Elphaba, I commend your liberal aproach to this argument but I think some issues go beyond the “pro-choice” argument. While I am a firm advocate of the woman’s right to chose, until this case arose I had generally only considered unwanted pregnancies as the ballpark.

I could also condone the abortion of a foetus that will develop into a child with severe disabilities because as much as we should unconditionally love any child that is born without a leg/arm/working organsor other “quality of life impinging” defects, if we have the ability to bring only healthy babies into the world then we shouldn’t begrudge any parent who wishes to pursue such an option. And as a society, such a decision benefits us all…

...but by this point we are then well on our slippery slope argument and that’s why we need the rules as you say. And I cannot fathom how any lawmaker or judiciary could support abortion when it based on gender grounds only. To permit such an outcome would indeed be the seminal move towards realising Hitler’s Master Race (apologies again, Mr Godwin). And while a nation of Barbies might increase my chances of scoring a hot chick, it would also be just plain dull.

Bilby says:

10:52am | 10/01/11

My position is that when we decide on whether a child lives or dies (let’s not get into the “when does life begin” argument here) based on the genetic makeup of the child, then yes we are talking about eugenics. I understand this case lacks that “towards a perfect society” aspect, but still… same ballpark.

Elphaba says:

11:10am | 10/01/11

@Michael, like I said, I think the whole scenario is a bit sickening.

If nothing else, perhaps what we can hope for with this kind of situation, is that it sets a precedent.  I don’t see there’s anything wrong with letting a couple choose the gender of their child - clearly the IVF outfit should have been able to screen the embryos and determine the sex of the children before implantation.  If that had happened, the outcome would not have been what it was.  I don’t think this couple should be allowed to take any further part in the IVF program here is Aus - but it’s an opinion, nothing more.  I just don’t like the sound of shouting these people down and calling them murderers, when I have no idea of the desperation that drove them to this situation. 

At the end of the day, their actions have no bearing on me and my existence, so… leave it to those more knowledgeable, and less emotive, to sort it out.

Rock and a Hard Place says:

12:29pm | 10/01/11

@michelle “until this case arose I had generally only considered unwanted pregnancies as the ballpark”.  This is an unwanted pregnancy, really not too far different that the people who have unprotected sex and “accidently” fall pregnant.  I get that there is gender discrimination at work here - but the couple don’t want these babies and the law allows them to abort them - it is no more murder than any other abortion of an unwanted pregnancy.  Whilst I personally find their reasons incredibly distasteful, perhaps this is a bit of insight to the reasons that pro lifers find any abortion wrong. I am pro choice and find it a bit hypocritical to condemn this couple because have different boundaries to me, or a different definition of unwanted. 

To make myself totally clear - I hate the fact that this couple of aborted these healthy children - but I do recognise the hypocracy of my feelings.

As to those bloggers who state that IVF is for couples unable to conceive, as the single mother of and IVF child I beg to differ.  IVF (in some states) is availble to all who can afford it - the medicare rebate is only applicable to those who can’t conceive.

As for those who are carrying on about the waste of taxpayers money - how about you expend your energy on lambasting that waste which is significant in terms of our economy - instead of the pittance that IVF is in the grand scheme of things.  There is a lot more out there that you could get upset over - useless art grants, incredible rental amounts paid by government for empty office space, governments who pay huge premiums for school buildings to large construction firms to save the nation instead of allowing local builders to do the work at a fraction of the cost (and yes I know about onerous OHS requirements which preclude most local builders).  And if you want to keepit to Medicare waste, what about a community that devalues its elderly so much that they have to visit the doctor all the time to get human contact, all paid for by the taxpayer.  The list goes on!

Frances says:

09:45am | 10/01/11

What’s that got to do with Catholicism??

Daemon says:

12:00pm | 10/01/11

The views being expressed seem to be Universal. Usually this is just a shite-fight with 2 or more sides screeching for supremacy. This issue appears to have raised generally negative feelings.

Frances says:

12:43pm | 10/01/11

Again, what does that have to do with Catholicism?

Silverdragon says:

02:26pm | 10/01/11

Frances - I think I can help you with that one… I believe Daemon is meaning the small “c” version of catholic (not Catholicism as in the branch of the Christian church).  Catholic (small c) means ‘all-encompassing’.  Here is the wikipedia reference for your info:

The word catholic (derived via Late Latin catholicus, from the Greek adjective ????????? (katholikos), meaning “universal”[1][2]) comes from the Greek phrase ??????? (kath’holou), meaning “on the whole,” “according to the whole” or “in general”, and is a combination of the Greek words ???? meaning “about” and ???? meaning “whole”.[3][4] The word in English can mean either “including a wide variety of things; all-embracing” or “of the Roman Catholic faith.” as “relating to the historic doctrine and practice of the Western Church.”

Kika says:

10:40am | 10/01/11

Obviously far enough for them to be able to check the sex!

Kirsty says:

02:09pm | 10/01/11

On 10th October 2008, Victoria passed it’s abortion law reform (you can check out the bill at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/bill/alrb2008219/)
This bill allows abortion till 24 weeks (viable point) FOR ANY REASON. After 24 weeks it can be performed up till 40 weeks with the permission of 2 doctors- this includes socioeconomic reasons or for the mother’s psychological health ( as in this case). There is at least one Victorian abortion doctor who has publically stated he will perform abortions till full term at the mother’s request.
So to answer your question there was absolutely nothing illegal in what happened… which leaves the question- why have we allowed this law to be passed when almost unanimously as a nation we say this is wrong??? BTW other states such as Queensland also want to see our laws changed to mirror Victorias.
Other parts of the bill which may interest you include:
1. No pain relief for the foeutus/unborn child.
2. Minors allowed to have abortions without parental consent.
3. No mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse.
4. Doctors/nurses/pharmacists are unable to have a conscientious objection to abortion. If they abstain when requested they risk job loss or gaol sentences.

Kate says:

10:04pm | 10/01/11

Because we don’t see it as unanimously wrong. Support for abortion in Austrailia is somewhere above 70%. Why don’t you move to Poland or Ireland? They have nice overly-religious democracies there. Other nations including this one allow individuals to make their own decisions regarding THEIR OWN bodies.

Steph says:

08:02am | 11/01/11

Kirsty… I didn’t know that.

That’s sick! They may as well just legalise partial birth abortion! I don’t condone abortion at all anyway, but I sooo wish I could get my hands on whoever made those laws!! How can humanity have slipped so low?!

Steph says:

08:09am | 11/01/11

Kate. the “THEIR OWN BODIES’ agument is old. Seriously, can’t you think of a new one? The mothers forfeit that right when they have unprotected sex. And even then, the abortion rate should be cut off at 14 weeks. A mistake, fine, throw all the “I get first say in everything because it’s my body” crap at me and I’ll let it slide, but you’re basically saying it’s not human until it’s born. So you’d support partial birth abortion then? Maybe you should watch one performed, and perhaps you’ll change your mind. Perhaps you should become a nurse at an abortion clinic and hold the aborted baby until it chokes it’s last breath before you put it in a biohazard bag. Maybe mothers should be shown the dead (or in some cases still alive) “foetus” after the operation. Maybe then it wouldn’t be so condoned. Try looking up “20 week old baby” in google images sometime. I did when I was pregnant with my first, just to see how he would be looking inside me, and almost vomited at the images of aborted babies at that stage. They look… human. Try it sometime.

Daemon says:

10:33am | 10/01/11

I actually agree with you Adam. I don’t know whether it so much selfishness as just how utterly uncaring of the people around them, like their parents and parents-in-law who they would have told, one would expect, but they are expecting twins and then they turn round and abort them because they both boys.

Last month, my niece announced that at about 2 1/2 months pregnant she was going to have an abortion because she was being upset with her boyfriend of the day. My wife and I both offered to take the child as an altruistic surrogacy, because really our 4 cats have never really replaced the children we were not able to have.

At first, she seemed okay with the idea, then went off and spoke to her mother, who was always a fairly useless bill of goods, and the next morning she rang up to tell my wife that she had an abortion. Apparently she still doesn’t understand why she has been told never to call us again for any reason, at any time, including in any life-threatening situation.

WombatQueen says:

12:03pm | 10/01/11

I totally agree, Tony. Sex selection through IVF would not impact overall gender ratios in society if it were restricted to people who already had a large gender-imbalanced family. And it would help prevent ‘wrong sex’ abortions like the one in this case (this one made the headlines but imagine how many others are carried out in Australia each year that never make the newspapers).

KH says:

11:41am | 10/01/11

I wouldn’t be so sure - look at the people who would be bringing her up…........

Michael N says:

11:38am | 10/01/11

Daniel, to keep things simple lets assume (as you have) that no-one does indeed have to raise these children other than the parents. As part of society we all have a vested interest in the progeny of others and the current system (natural selection) seems to dish out a pretty good mix of boys and girls. Supposing everyone decided that they just wanted boys (and they were permitted to abort female babies) it would spell the end of the human race as soon as the last female could no longer give birth. This is your argument taken to the extreme (and possibly the absurd) but surely the 30 million extra men in China indicate that when given the choice, we are a selfish species and will not necessarily act for the benefit of wider society if it contravenes our desires.

I agree that there is merit in eradicating hereditory diseases but I can’t think of many things more abhorrent than a civilised society seriously pursuing a policy to create Plato’s Republic. Variety is the spice of life Daniel, not to mention an essential ingredient in ensuring that we have balnced views to properly assess the morality of our actions. And without causing you any alarm, you have unwittingly engaged in an ethical argument here; perhaps you intended to say that “ethics are unimportant” in this discussion? A chilling sentiment either way.

papachango says:

11:57am | 10/01/11

The Spartans used to take any newborn child that didn’t look perfectly healthy and either throw it off a cliff or leave it to die of exposure on a hillside. Are you seriously advocating that?

St. Michael says:

12:00pm | 10/01/11

@ Daniel:

What’s wrong with selective breeding is that it is pissing in the gene pool.

Natural selection and evolution are just that—natural.  Life overall figured out for the most part how to organise things so its various species would flourish without any conscious decision about whose convexity should be inserted into whose concavity.  And as with most things on this planet, when we mess with the way life has things set up at a fundamental level, we tend to screw it up badly because we still don’t fully understand the process.

The biggest problem with selective breeding is that its logical endpoint is inbreeding.  We are not designed (or evolved, let’s not get into God vs. Darwin right now) to reliably or safely produce offspring with close relatives.  Selective breeding increases that risk over time.

By the way, evolution does not equal “the strongest will survive”.  It doesn’t mean that at all.  What it means is that the species most capable of adaptation to new circumstances will survive: advantageous qualities, like opposable thumbs, will take over since they advantage a species over others.  Occasionally stronger members of a species will be better survivors.  But the biggest and strongest dinosaurs all died out over time because they could not adapt to the Earth’s changing conditions.

Nice try at confusing “hereditary diseases” and blond, blue-eyed children.  It’s not the same thing.  For one, there isn’t any agreement about what a genetic defect is.  There’s also precious little research about whether having one genetic quality is better than another, precisely because that sort of research can be seized on as an excuse for genocide (e.g. the blond haired, blue-eyed ‘Aryan” falsehood.)  For another, there’s a vast difference between breeding to eliminate a disease and breeding just for aesthetic choice.

Daniel says:

12:55pm | 10/01/11

@Michael - the view that soceity as a whole is responsible for the raising of children is unfortuantely antiqiuated. This is evidenced by the public backlash against family groups and concerned parents who dare to voice strong opinions about abortion etc. The current view held by soceity is one of choice as evidenced by the recent debate about same sex adoption. Therefore given that society has accepted the view that reproduction is a choice made by the individual then on what grounds does society have a right to determine then how an individual uses that choice? Why are ethics important? Other animals do not think of the ethical consequences of allowing their weaker offspring to die, they think of survival. In many countries having boys leads to survival (as they can protect the family and do hard manual work) whereas having girls leads to death. Whose ethical system do you propose we use?

@papachango - what is wrong with this viewpoint, it obviously worked?

@St. Michael - there is a greater chance of inbreeding occuring today (with sperm donars, woman who have had children through multiple unknown fathers etc) then a documented and regulated process. Aryan children and children without heriditary diseases are not different they are one in the same. Both may be desirable qualities. A blond haired blue eyed girl may have a greater chance of advancing through life then a brunette with brown eyes. A person with a heritary disease may be prevented from advancing through life due to a disability. The parents of both children desire the best outcome. Also what may be considered a desirable quality is subjective and market driven. If everybody had a blond haired blue eyed child then the market would prize brown hair brown eyed people more and so on.

St. Michael says:

01:27pm | 10/01/11

@ Daniel: way to go shifting ground when you get into difficulty!

“there is a greater chance of inbreeding occuring today (with sperm donars, woman who have had children through multiple unknown fathers etc) then a documented and regulated process”

Ah ... I’m not sure how you equate sperm donation with increasing the chance of inbreeding, or where you get your citation and figures from.  As it is, sperm donation is a documented and regulated process.  As for “women who have had children with multiple unknown fathers” ... well, that’s actually in favour of a stronger gene pool, since logically the odds of inbreeding are *less* if the fathers are not known to the mother, i.e. not her blood relatives.  And in nature this is pretty much the process that happens anyway, without inbreeding as a significant result.  Fail on that argument, mate.

“Aryan children and children without heriditary diseases are not different they are one in the same. Both may be desirable qualities.”

I had to read that twice to make sure you weren’t saying that Aryan chikldren have no hereditary diseases.  Anyway, I call logical fallacy on your post.  “Desirable” does not mean “advantageous” in an evolutionary sense.  And blond hair/blue eyes does not fit the criteria of “advantageous” if you’re looking at the entirety of the human population across the planet: a vast majority of people are in fact neither blue eyed nor blonde haired.  Blonde hair and blue eyes are solely a Nordic offshoot, not a superior or “advantageous” trait ... although I’m sure you weren’t saying they were genetically superior, were you? Across the entire species, the Aryan look is a minority look, and by definition in terms of evolution, less successful than that of, say, the Asiatic or Negroid design.  I say less successful since the measure of success in evolutionary terms is population and adaptability, in which respects it can be said: there’s more black and Asian people on the planet than there are white.

“A blond haired blue eyed girl may have a greater chance of advancing through life then a brunette with brown eyes. A person with a heritary disease may be prevented from advancing through life due to a disability. The parents of both children desire the best outcome.”

Ah: but there’s a very big difference which you’re not seeing.  A girl with blonde hair or blue eyes carries no inherent superiority in her mental or physical functioning to a girl with dark hair and/or dark eyes.  The “best outcome” her parents are after is culturally based and purely cosmetic, which is what the Nazis were hanging their hats on in describing the Aryans as the “master race’ and trying to breed for it.  A child with a serious intellectual or physical disability is an entirely different thing since, by definition, there’s an inherent inferiority in either the mental or physical functioning.  In that case the parents know very well there the child will always be behind in some respect because he/she lacks some of the basic building blocks of the brain or body.

A totally different kettle of fish.  Cassie not getting a date for the Year 12 ball is entirely different from Cassie being unable to wipe her own bottom or use a fork.

“Also what may be considered a desirable quality is subjective and market driven. If everybody had a blond haired blue eyed child then the market would prize brown hair brown eyed people more and so on.”

Got to say that’s the first time I’ve heard the free market used as a justification for genetic breeding.  Taking it on the chin for Godwin’s Law, I don’t think girls with large noses, dark curly hair and dark eyes suddenly became more popular in 1930s Germany merely because less of them were around.  If anything it was the reverse: Aryan children became even more highly prized.  But you also make my point: what is “desirable” is subjective.  For that very reason you shouldn’t allow breeding for it.

Daniel says:

03:01pm | 10/01/11

@St Michael
I don’t need facts and figures to support an argument which concludes that an uncontrolled process is always going to lead to more issues than a controlled process especially in the area of genetics. Any breeder will tell you that which is why certified bloodlines are so important. A child of a sperm donar does NOT know who the father is (unless the donor wishes to be named), so the chance of falling for somebody who is potentially a half sibling is greater then if everybody knew who their father (and mother) was as part of a selective breeding program.

“As for “women who have had children with multiple unknown fathers” ... well, that’s actually in favour of a stronger gene pool” yes in the instances that the children do not mate. However since the children do not know who their fathers were (except for DNA tests) then inbreeding is a possibility (especially in smaller communities) therefore my argument still stands, a regulated process of selective breeding is going to result in less chance of inbreeding then unregulated “natural selection”.

Desirable DOES mean advantages in an evolutionary sense. Male or female animals that are more colourful, dance better, sing better, fight better etc are more likely to reproduce and further the species then those that don’t. Yes the animal does have to contain preexisting traits that make them adaptable to the environment but if they are not desirable then they will not mate. See Darwins theory on sexual selection.

“A totally different kettle of fish.  Cassie not getting a date for the Year 12 ball is entirely different from Cassie being unable to wipe her own bottom or use a fork” Not really as in either case Cassie may not be able to reproduce or get get very far in life. For example the Cassie that doesn’t get a date has a trait that makes her overweight and disproportiante and historically (just making this up) girls of her appearance end up alone and unhappy. As a parent would you want this to happen to your children especially in the knowledge that you could have prevented it?

The use of the aryan example is perhaps a little extreme but my point is still the same if large noses are undesriable and do not confer any advantage to the individual then what is wrong with selectively breeding for small noses?

So far you haven’t given me any convincing reasons as to why selective breeding is wrong. If “mucking with nature” (ie peeing in the gene pool) is your main argument then I would argue that keeping people alive on life support “mucks with nature” or giving people medications that prevent disease or cure diesease is “mucking with nature” and “abortion mucks with nature”. To what level do you think its apporpriate for people to muck with nature?

St. Michael says:

02:17pm | 11/01/11

I had a brilliant response all typed out for this, and the Punch and or the censors ate it.  Ah, well, that’ll teach me to spam the thread.

St. Michael says:

12:42pm | 10/01/11

Just to take up the last two paragraphs of the post, Kika—

I suspect that most doctors who look at doing IVF and/or abortions are loath to lift the lid on why a person either wants kids or wants to terminate kids for one of two reasons:
(a) Lack of moral courage; and
(b) The profit motive.

The profit motive probably needs no further explanation, but let’s talk about the other.  A doctor gets consulted about an abortion.  He asks whether she’s thought about it.  She has.  He asks if she’s talked to other people about it.  She says that’s none of your business.  He asks (unlikely) whether she has any religious ramifications against it.  She gets more angry and says it’s not your business, and I just want it gone.

A doctor in that situation is faced with two choices, neither of which are palatable.  In one, he stands his ground and insists on some counselling for her before she goes through with termination, along with at least a verbal report from the counsellor or psychologist before he will end the life of a foetus.  The consequences of that act, which I think is the morally courageous one, are mostly bad: at best the woman says “Stuff you, I’ll go to a doctor who fewer scruples than you”; at worst the woman goes to Today Tonight and/or the Medical Board and accuses the doctor of invading her privacy (or worse).

The other alternative is for the doctor to say to himself: this woman has good money.  I am bound by the Hippocratic Oath which says ‘Do no harm’ first to my patient.  I’ve no desire for a bunch of Pro-choice protesters on my doorstep.  The foetus is not my patient, this woman is.  And anyway, if I don’t do it, one of my competitors will.

This is the disease which infects the so-called “noble professions” of law and medicine these days—their commercialisation.  Ideally both lawyers and doctors were meant to ascribe to a code of ethics which had the status of a code of honour.  These days such codes are seen as the boundaries of acceptable conduct rather than the guiding principles.  But leaving that excuse aside: when it comes to money or dealing with Today Tonight/ACA, moral courage is usually a rare quantity.

Elphaba says:

10:48am | 10/01/11

But IVF is bending nature’s laws anyway - regardless of whether you choose the sex or not.  IVF allows couples that have been deemed infertile by nature, to have children.

If here was no IVF, they wouldn’t be having any children at all.  So why does it matter that they choose the sex of the baby?

St. Michael says:

12:12pm | 10/01/11

@ Elphaba: IVF is beneficial to the gene pool at large because it allows children to exist who otherwise would not.

Sex selection is not because it is a restriction on the gene pool, and therefore bad for the species at large.

Bilby says:

11:04am | 10/01/11

“Its a personal choice if you want the feotus or not”

The life and death of another human being should NEVER be someone else’s personal choice. We’ve gone far too far down that road.

“yes its not a baby until its born”

Dude… that’s just silly. The day before it was born it wasn’t a baby? That’s quite apart from the fact that looking at the ultrasounds, it’s a baby from very very early on. I was stunned at how early.

daniel says:

11:29am | 10/01/11

Except it’s not the life of another. It’s not a life any more than your skin cells are a “life” because they’re alive. Just because you think it looks familiar, and that provokes an emotional response doesn’t make it correct. Look at the facts: It does not have consciousness. It is not aware. It does not have higher brain function. (this is all up to a certain point, of course i agree that late term abortions should only be carried out if the health of the mother is at stake or in extremely rare cases).
As for the down syndrome case, yes I agree, if you find out early on that the child will have down syndrome, and you can with an easy test. I don’t believe it is ethical to carry it to term.

Bilby says:

12:19pm | 10/01/11

daniel - If not the life of another, who’s life is it?

The awareness that you mention develops slowly. At what point would you consider a foetus aware, and how would you test for that given the vast range of human variability?

At 1 month sure, there is not much human about the embryo, but a two months they start to look familiar, not because they LOOK human, but because they ARE human. I don’t understand this coldness which says that it’s just an emotional response. We wired for that response. It’s kept us as a species going for millenia.

Kika says:

12:20pm | 10/01/11

I reckon the difference here Chris is that these guys created these babies in a test tube intending to carry a pregnany to full term. It’s not like they felt unable to support a child. They were. It’s just they changed their mind when it didn’t fulfil their criteria.

They didn’t even do it thinking of the child’s quality of life. If parents decided to abort an embryo because it’s carrying a genetic or chromosomal abnormality, I could understand why they would because they are thinking of the child. But in this case they were only thinking of themselves and their own desire to replace their lost daughter.

St. Michael says:

01:00pm | 10/01/11

Apparently that’s exactly what they’re “threatening” to do if VCAT turns them down.  So I reckon the balance of convenience is actually for VCAT to refuse them as well.  I just wish someone at VCAT had sufficient balls to say “Well, you’ve said screw us in the media if we say ‘No’ to you, so screw you, too.  If you’ve got the resources to pay for it privately, do so.  Australian IVF’s stretched with a waiting list long enough as it is without having to put designer families like yourselves on it.”

Jade says:

11:24am | 10/01/11

It may sound horrible but I agree with you. If I was having a baby and found out it would have any kind of disability that would not give it the quality of life it deserves I would abort.  Luckily my partner has the same opinion.

I personally don’t think it is selfish, why burden yourself when its not necessary.

Elphaba says:

01:07pm | 10/01/11

@A.K.A and Jade, agree three. It takes a truly remarkable person to do that.  Sadly, I am not that remarkable.

Jade says:

01:34pm | 10/01/11

Neither am I Elphaba! :/

Kate says:

03:14pm | 10/01/11

A.K.A, I don’t think this makes you selfish at all. You made the decision that you would not have the emotional and financial ability to raise a child with a disability- that is a mature and rational decision and I would not judge you in the slightest. I agree with you 100%.

Megs says:

03:17pm | 10/01/11

If we are to accept the joys of parenthood then we must also accept the struggles it may bring.

I’m curious, what will you do if your perfectly healthy child at some stage in its life suffers a debilitating and permanent injury requiring full time care?

I have 4 children and passed on the option of foetal testing during each pregnancy simply because of the question above. If I am prepared to love and care for my children unconditionally then I must be prepared to accept this challenge always, from birth until death.

Every parent will want their version of the very best for their children, but life often throws a curve ball and this is where we, as parents, are asked to be something we may never have imagined. Being remarkable is just an extension of who you already are.

Astounded says:

03:46pm | 10/01/11

Jade says:11:24am | 10/01/11

“I personally don’t think it is selfish, why burden yourself when its not necessary.”

Wow.  Just wow.

Defintition of selfish - devoted only to the caring of oneself; concerned primarily with one’s own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.

Jade, Dictionary.com just called - they would like a photo of you for the next update.

Elphaba says:

03:51pm | 10/01/11

@Megs,

Since you asked: I am one of those people who does not believe it’s a baby until it can survive outside the womb.  If I had a child that developed a debilitating illness later in life, of course I would care for it.  But I don’t simply believe that a life crippled by disease or disability is better than no life at all. If I had the chance to stop it in its tracks before it became a baby, then I would abort.

But then again, I don’t want kids at all.  This is merely hypothetical.  I like animals.  Much more my thing.

Elphaba says:

05:32pm | 10/01/11

Hahaha, @Astounded, you crack me up.

You’re a picture of selfless abandon, are you?  People who have kids are selfish too.  Not one parent I know had kids for the good of all mankind.  They had them because they wanted to.  And that selfishness is alive and well, with people still breeding despite our planet groaning under the strain.

Nice work.  You paragon of virtue, you.

Jade says:

06:17pm | 10/01/11

@ Astounded, it is selfish to bring a child into the world when you know it will be denied a proper life due to an illness or disability.  Why bring something into the world when it will only suffer.  People don’t do that with animals, why people.

@ Megs, if that were to happen you just live with it, thats how life works and there is nothing you can do about it.

When I have kids I want them to have the best start and opportunities for the future, not doom myself and the child to a life of dependency.

Lisa H. says:

11:41pm | 11/01/11

Wokring with disabled people and children can give a person a better understanding of them - as PEOPLE.
My own brother is disabled (cerebral palsy) and had a terrible diagnosis as a baby.
He is an independent, interesting and WORTHWHILE human being, living a full life.

To consider him as a possible subject of these kinds of discussions, eg he may have a poor quality of life and therefore should have been aborted to save anybody any bother is frankly disgusting to me.

To me, the self-serving screening of disabled babies for possible abortion could, depending on the situation, be as ‘unselfish’ as the habits of the labouring Chinese peasants who ‘put down’ their infant girls to save the pressure on their rice supplies.

Every one of my three pregnancies has been screened, as I follow the advice of the doctor monitoring my pregnancy. The early ultrasound is the carrot for the stick.

It’s an ‘interesting’ society that pressure women to abort their disabled children as a matter of course.

Most women placed in the situation of having to ‘choose’ do go through with an abortion.

I guess the combined effects of family, husband and social pressure puts paid to any motherly feelings of wanting to protect their unborn.
Saves the government a whackload in health funding, I guess.

But as Megs says, what happens to your perfect life if your darling is injured once out of the womb?

Gav says:

12:23pm | 10/01/11

But where does it stop? Hair colour, eye colour, height? “Balancing families” nice buzzword how about “enhancing gender synergies”? I’ve just now copyrighted that.  Pretty sure the World has gotten by OK for the past (insert number of centuries here) without this ability, sadly because some people are so obsessed about what they want, they have forgotten to consider the cost. If that was my Mum & Dad - I’d be devastated they could do that, just for a stupid theory - Family balancing.

Mike T says:

01:08pm | 10/01/11

@ Daniel.

Many of the posters here that are outraged are not dead set against sex selection. Im sure that many would say that if you can select the sex then create the life, then go for it (personally i dont agree with this by the way). The reason people on here are outraged is due to the creation of life (purposely) then aborting becasue it does not meet specific genetic standards, ie, sex/height/hair colour etc.

Im not sure how even the most Pro-choice advocate could not be a little concerned with this??? surely even they agree that thier must be some line in the sand that we should not cross ?

Whats line would you be happy with??? Is it ok in you world for a couple to continully fall pregnant and abort untill they believe it will have blonde hair. What about a an athlete that contnually falls pregant for competition (shown to boost hormaone levels), then aborts after the event.

daniel says:

01:33pm | 10/01/11

@Gav: If that was my mum and dad, I’d be happy, in fact, Id be happier if they had had the opportunity to remove some undesirable genetic traits from me. Who wants to inherit all the genetic defects of your parents?
If your family had a history of early baldness lets say, wouldn’t you jump at the chance to remove it from your child? (Not that we have the technology to do that, or select eye colour for that matter).

@Mike T: Of course I wouldn’t advocate that. THe thing is, pro-choice people don’t want abortions, if we could reduce the abortion rate to 0, we would all be happy, but we can’t, we don’t have 100% preventative measures yet, Yes I’m concerned with this issue, but it’s an issue that was caused by our Australian bureaucracy, why couldn’t this couple choose the sex of their child? Because of red tape, and it caused them to become desperate, so desperate they thought they’d risk another pregnancy for the chance at a girl to replace the one they lost, yes, they have mental issues, and i don’t like this case at all, it’s terrible, but if they were given the choice none of this would’ve happened.

Lee says:

03:41pm | 10/01/11

I don’t see why you can’t just accept what children you are given.

Isn’t that enough?

This idea of family balancing is just nonsense and I should know.
I am the proud mother of 4 boys, not the mother who didn’t get a girl.

Try it on for yourself and be happy with any baby you get the opportunity to love as your own.

daniel says:

12:20pm | 10/01/11

No. It doesn’t.

St. Michael says:

12:20pm | 10/01/11

Godwin’s Law!

TCB 24 X 7 says:

01:46pm | 10/01/11

Yeah it does Daniel,
Read up on what they tried and did.

Jade says:

01:41pm | 10/01/11

No it doesn’t. You can’t kill something just because its not what you wanted.

Luke says:

11:33pm | 10/01/11

They got ivf… they wanted another child… they knew the 50/50 risk
Want a girl? should go to us where they can…

Kika says:

12:44pm | 10/01/11

OMG! What makes you think someone who is pro-choice hates the opposite sex? And you assume that people would prefer a son? I feel sorry for you. Pro choice doesn’t mean pro-abortion. It means the right to make a decision and choice on whether to keep the baby or to terminate.

Did you know many MEN make the decision to abort for their partners? It’s true. Some men threaten to leave their girlfriends/wives if they go through with the pregnancy and a lot of those women don’t have support from their parents in case she needs to make that decision. So she goes along with what her boyfriend/husband wants in fear that he will leave her. And in many cases men and women make the decision equally. It’s hardly ever just a ‘woman’s choice’.

I agree with you. Abortion clinics push girls through like cows in an abbatoir. They don’t ask questions, they just shuffle you through. And I think this is the case in this scenario. The clinic and the referring GP obviously did not ask enough questions to diagnose that these people were grieving over a lost daughter and wanted to replace her.

I don’t understand for the life of me why they don’t ask questions or assist in counselling the couple before going through with it. I have heard that in NSW in years gone by that counselling was offered first, but in QLD there’s pretty much none. Just get a referral, call and make an appointment then off you go through the abbatoir.  It’s really really sad. I don’t think abortions should be banned, I just think that more counselling should be offered first.

philip says:

01:26pm | 10/01/11

ahh fran then I guess you dont really know what constitutes ugly then is ugly physical or is it personalality I have known so called ugly people with wonderful personalities yet have know beautiful people with ugly personalities

James1 says:

01:37pm | 10/01/11

Warning: do not feed the troll.

Fran says:

03:14pm | 10/01/11

But Phillip it should be up top the parents not you!!!. Stop trying to tell me what to do and what is ugly or wonderful. It should be the womens choice to terminate a child, to much of society today tell others what to do how to live etc.

Leah says:

02:07pm | 10/01/11

Dave of Sydney: how many celebrities have been having twins? The only twins that occur to me are the Jolie-Pitts and Julia Roberts’ twins. Oh, and Princess Mary now I guess. There could be more, but remember that IVF is always more likely to result in multiple births. Celebrities are rich, therefore they can afford IVF more often that your average middle-class mother. Chances are (whether they admit it or not) many of these celebrities have had IVF which has resulted in twins - you can’t specifically be “implanted” to have twins. Usually IVF entails implanting several embryos and hoping one latches on. If several do, well, you end up with twins/triplets/quadruplets or end up like Octomom.

Silverdragon says:

03:00pm | 10/01/11

Leah - that is actually not the case, at least not in Australia.  The guidelines here (not law, note, but strong recommendations) state that the preference is for only ONE embryo to be implanted, not two or more.  The reason for this is that multiple pregnancies are considerably higher risk than singleton pregnancies and the aim of IVF is always to bear a healthy, full-term child with as few complications to both mother and baby a possible.

Therefore, if a couple did want twins they could choose to be implanted with two embryos - of course, there is no guarantee that both, or either, would implant and survive, but it does significantly increase the chances of bearing twins.

Also, I note that the Danish royals have denied that Princess Mary had any fertility treatment.  The prevalence of twins does naturally increase with age, so it’s just as likely that she conceived them naturally and not as a result of fertility treatment.

Syl says:

03:07pm | 10/01/11

Hmm
except, of course, that this related to a story that is current news and is obviously important to a lot of people (judging by the responses so far).

Perhaps if there are less trivial ethical issues related to this field that you would like discussed you should submit your own opinion piece to the Punch.  At least then you would be adding something to a discussion.

Dr John Fleming says:

07:59am | 11/01/11

Syl, you miss the point. I am not complaining about the fact of commentary on this v important story. I am complaining about the way in which the commentator dealt with very imoortant issues in such a trivial and superficial way. As for writing my own piece - it is good manners to wait until one is invited.

Syl says:

01:42pm | 12/01/11

My apologies, I misinterpreted your post.

Bilby says:

02:22pm | 10/01/11

“They just want their baby girl back”

Well obviously they can’t have her back. She’s dead. I think it’s profoundly disrespectful to even suggest that the dead girl could be replaced. She was an individual, just as any new child that comes along will be.

Sure they must be grieving terribly, but apparently not to the extent that it has inflicted any humanity upon them. They just aborted two healthy boys. No sympathy here what so ever.

Terrible things happen to people all the time. It’s how we respond that makes the difference.

acinom says:

06:32pm | 10/01/11

Bilby, isn’t that what they are trying to do? Replace their lost baby girl??

I feel sorry for the daughter that they may conceive in the future, because she will have the death of her sister and the trauma of this case hanging over her head forever more.

That’s a lot to live up to.

Steph says:

03:56pm | 10/01/11

Bearman, I hear you, but how would it be regulated? The clear issue that many seem to bring up with sex selection is that, as a society, we’re going to want to swing towards a certain gender mroe than the other (a fair amount of people are saying boys would be the dominant choice, but judging what I’ve seen, I think we’d have a female-dominated sex preference). If this happens, how would we as a country stop an overbalance of one gender? If there was an answer to that… then maybe it wouldn’t be so frowned upon.

Yes, it’s sad that people can’t be grateful for the blessings they receive and must always have things their way (including the gender of their children), and that they’d commit all kinds of atrocities to make their world perfect for them, but that’s the world. Numero Uno. With such a shortcoming (and it is), would it be better to stop unwanted babies being born (or killed or whatever), or to stop the selfish mentality of society that is inevitably seeing us on a slippery slope?

Leah says:

03:49pm | 10/01/11

Why would you not then just put up the child for adoption rather than kill him/her? You’d not be forced to raise him but you’ve still given him a chance at life.

Kate says:

05:48pm | 10/01/11

I wouldn’t be ‘killing’ anyone. I don’t believe a foetus is alive until it is born, given that it cannot exist independently of the mother’s womb.
If I was anti-abortion I’m sure I’d view it differently, but I am pro-choice.

If I was critically disabled I would not want to live. I know this isn’t everyone’s viewpoint, but I am ethically opposed to bringing a heavily disabled child into the world.

Alan says:

06:15pm | 10/01/11

Putting a child up for adoption is a terribly painful thing to do. I wish people would stop posing it as the ‘easy’ solution as if women who abort are just silly for not realising that there is a better solution out there.
A mother has the right to abort at any stage. I see no moral ambiguity in doing so.

Kirsty says:

04:40pm | 10/01/11

What this couple did was legal. See a previous comment of mine above about the Victorian abortion law. The pro-life community did try to stop this law but were unable to prevent it’s passing. Women in Victoria are legally allowed to make a choice to abort their babies up until full term. As a fence sitter I suggest you do some research into abortion (read the actual bill: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/bill/alrb2008219/ and abort73.com) are good places to start and decide whether you feel strongly enough about what has happened to help make a change.

JulesG says:

07:39pm | 10/01/11

Kirsty: This is not just about abortion or choice or whether or not you’re anti or pro. It’s about the reasons for abortion (for the record, I tend to lean toward pro).

If the law allows the abortion of 2 healthy foetuses for such frivolous and irrelevant reason as the wrong sex, then the law really is an ass! It’s about the disrespectful, demeaning and casual misuse and disregard for the whole IVF program and the couples in it, that are trying desperately for their first child.

There is such a thing as moral law and what this couple have done is transgress them all. They’ve trampled everything that most of us hold as normal and as guiding principles. They are utterly shameful.

This whole issue goes way beyond abortion and is the thin end of the wedge. What next? Another ayrian race, perhaps? Some things just shouldn’t be allowed and this is one of them!

Kirsty says:

10:37am | 11/01/11

I agree with you JulesG! The law is wrong, but that is the way it is… we live in an age of relativity,-society says abortion is ok under certain circumstances so we change the law to make it legal. Society says IVF is ok- so it is legal. When you put two and two together under tragic circumstances we get this story. People are already crying out about Australia being a “nanny-country” and too restrictive, hence we have the lightening of some of our laws. This is when morals/ethics and law collide. I agree wholeheartedly that these people did was wrong. But who can stop this from happening again? No one at present! You say you tend towards pro-abortion - why? Why, is it ok under certain circumstances and not others. The comments on this page show people all have different moral standards- mine are different from yours and yours are different from this couples. Neither you nor I are the moral-police. We can’t force our morals onto others. But we do have laws to protect the innocent- unfortunately we now live in a society that is divided as to whether the unborn child is human or not. As far as laws for IVF and eugenics- again morals versus legal- who determines what is right?? How does society pick a moral compass in an age of relativity? Who’s morals do we ascribe too- are yours better then mine, are ours better then this couple?

Nosibling Foryou says:

04:53pm | 10/01/11

“and eventually end up adopting.” Do you know any? If you do then you move in unusual circles.  Everyone I know who has recently tried has failed.  There are much easier paths. Possibly even through VCAT.

From wikipedia: In 08-09 there were just 441 adoptions. 104 were ‘Known Child’. 269 were intercountry.  And just 68 were local adoptions. 

68 is tiny. I’m not saying that number is good or bad. 

But I’m saying to you all: drop the notion that adopting is an option.  Because in most cases: it ‘aint.

Is anyone here going to try and tell me that the absurd barriers to adopting in Australia isn’t a factor influencing this couple to choose this path? If you do then you’d better know what you’re talking about.

Carl Palmer says:

01:02pm | 12/01/11

@ Nosibling Foryou says:
As a matter of fact I do. The couple I refer to are very normal people and their dad a board member of a large corporation. I’m aware that the adoption process is riddled with red tape and made almost impossible, but so too is having a baby when you can’t seem to have one.

Also, I’m not sure what you mean by “unusual circles” but I do move around, maybe you should too.

Steph says:

04:27pm | 10/01/11

Appalled, I agree with you completely, and I’m sorry to hear of your loss. Praying you get the little blessing you’d like, too

Nosibling Foryou says:

04:40pm | 10/01/11

That’s 21st century Australia for you. All care no resonsibility. All running around demanding our right to feel better without due process of looking at the reasons behind those feelings.

As for the medical profession. With about 100 thousand abortions a year in Australia, most for ‘emotional wellbeing’ reasons, are you really that surprised it doesn’t raise any red flags?  I’m not.

Kirsty says:

05:43pm | 10/01/11

As a Christian, I hope they find forgiveness and peace. This couple is obviously in need of help. Firstly to overcome their daughter’s death and secondly to overcome their abortion.  Don’t throw stones Michael, we’ve all done things we need forgiveness for.

Michael says:

06:19pm | 10/01/11

Sorry Kirsty, I find it easy to forgive most things but not the murder, for cosmetic reasons, of little unborns.

Kirsty says:

07:23pm | 10/01/11

Society as a whole must accept some responsibility for what happened. If we (legally) give mother’s a choice to abort then this is what will happen. Other babies are being aborted (late term) for “defects” like cleft palates and club feet or at any stage of the pregnancy because the are conceived at an inconvenient time.  The statistics show 1 in 3 women will have an abortion- are you suggesting that no women who has an abortion is forgivable? Women need better options given to them then abortion- in this case the couple needed counselling (not IVF and abortion).

Colin says:

10:40pm | 11/01/11

No Kirsty, women don’t need better options to abortion, they just need to grow up and take responsibility for the human life they help conceive, instead of thinking of themselves and their own feeling all the time.

DS says:

11:18pm | 10/01/11

Where in Australia is a criminal who kills a pregnant woman charged for the murder of 2 people?

iansand says:

02:54am | 11/01/11

What makes you think that someone who kills a pregnant woman is charged with two murders?

Terrin says:

12:27pm | 15/01/11

I do believe you are referring to a state law (can’t remember which state), in which a man was charged with manslaughter after causing an accident which resulted in the miscarriage of a baby at 8 months. As the baby, if delivered in a hospital, and not from severe stress/trauma to the mother, would have survived, it was classed as manslaughter. The law refers only to a foetus/baby that is lost at an age when if delivered properly would have a very good chance at survival. I do believe it is from just after 7 months onward. Under that law, a person who kills a pregnant woman who is in that stage of pregnancy, would be held responsible for two deaths under that law, as the baby could have survived if delivered. (Remember also, that premature babies have a higher rate of survival now than they did about 20 years ago, so that is taken into account more. And many women can deliver at 8 months and have a perfectly healthy baby) Though I have never heard of it being used as a murder verdict, I have heard of it being used as manslaughter, which was it’s precedent. And murder and manslaughter charges are different, so…

Colin says:

10:54pm | 11/01/11

Babe, apparently because the parents “Chose” to have the abortion it’s not sick. Didn’t you know “Choice” magically changes an evil into a virtue. You got to love “Progressives”. But of course the culling of unwanted humans is a normal part of the IVF process.

Colin says:

10:31pm | 11/01/11

Leigh these people with 3 children are on IVF because feminists and the Artificial Reproduction Industry have lobbied spinless politicians to turn IVF into a right. A polly has to have a bit of backbone to stand up to the, “it’s all about me” feminists and the “it’s all about the money” Artificial Reproduction Industry.

Bilby says:

03:55pm | 11/01/11

lynne - I think your showing your confirmation bias there and using it as a platform for abuse. This couple has copped plenty of condemnation and if word came out that the surrogate had aborted a healthy girl, dam right they’d be crucified. Of course I credit Elton with much more class, money, and power than this couple, and it would all happen quietly well away from the media.

Muz says:

01:34pm | 11/01/11

Hey, I thought a person’s medical history was private.  Who leaked this information and shouldn’t they be sued?

St. Michael says:

02:15pm | 11/01/11

@ Muz: Remember they were initially turned down on their silly IVF request and had to appeal to VCAT.  Medical histories are private, but court proceedings are public.  I’d guess a journo spotted the listing and sat in to listen to the case, at which point the history would have been disclosed.

Colin says:

10:21pm | 11/01/11

Daniel you seem confused. Abortion is always about killing a human life. Women give birth to humans because what is conceived is a human being.