What will we tell these production-line children?

By George Pitcher

 Have your say      Read comments

As the prospect of "saviour siblings" was waved through the House of Commons on Monday night, I wondered whether we might have paid more attention to this issue had it commanded a debate in its own right, rather than riding on the coat-tails of stem-cell research, admixed embryos and the like.   Every life is born to have its own purpose I was reminded of the story of a boy who bailed out his sister some years ago. It might have been apocryphal, but it hardly matters in the way that such stories speak the truth to power. The six-year-old shared the same rare blood group as his younger sister, who was dangerously ill. They urgently needed a transfusion and his mother asked him whether he would give his blood to help his sister live. The boy thought solemnly for a moment and said that, yes, he would like to do that. The nurses duly took the measure from him. Then, as he lay palely on the trolley, the boy tentatively asked his mother: "How long will it take me to die now?" It's not so much the throat-lumping pragmatism and innocent candour of which the very young can be capable that I want to raise. It's our adult response to the realisation that the child thought he was being asked to give all his blood to save his sister. advertisement Unless I'm being unduly mawkish, I suggest we want to scoop him up, tell him that we would never ask something like that of him, because he's unique and loved and just as precious as anyone else. And we're very sorry we didn't explain that properly. The reason this story comes to mind is that one implication of the defeat of the amendment, by 179 votes, to ban the production of saviour siblings is that we could be poised to make this kind of mistake on an industrial scale. Let me be clear: I'm not about to look a couple with two healthy children in the eye and tell them they should have neither, because one was bred to save the other. Nor would I deny a parent with a desperately ill child the prospect of a cure through the birth of another child. But the passage of such liberating legislation is not without its consequences and we should be aware of them. My concern is that Parliament has taken insufficient regard of the chasm between the production of hybrid stem cells, the raw material of life which will be kept alive for no more than 14 days, and the production of fully formed human beings for the purpose of harvesting their tissue. At one level, there is the profound effect on their self-worth that this new generation of little donors will have to bear. To put it vulgarly, if Leo grows up to resent that his mother conceived him because she was too embarrassed to carry her "equipment" with her to Balmoral, how much more embarrassing might it be to be brought into the world to be a piece of equipment. Beyond that, there are philosophical principles here that go to the heart of our civilisation - and to the heart of anyone who would fall to their knees in front of that small boy to tell him that he would not be harvested for his sibling. The doctrine of Imago Dei emerged from the Greek patriarchs. They didn't have to worry about embryology, but they did establish that humans were made in the image of God, which spoke of superiority to the rest of creation, the quality of an immortal soul and the gift of reason. Above all, the idea was identified with free will; that every life is sacred and unique, a principle that has shone down the ages. It follows that such lives have their own purpose. We are, for the first time, enshrining in law the principle that babies can be born for someone else's purpose. We don't have to accept the existence of God in this equation. We just need to question whether science should do something, just because it can. And, while we celebrate the wonders that medical science can perform in advancing the human lot, we should be conscious of what we're losing, too.

 Have your say    

What a tool, what a complete and utter tool. Stupid article which goes to show that a few choice placed words can whip religious fruit loops into a feeding frenzy. Don't be so ridiculous as to think that a second child born to a loving parent could ever be discarded or harmed by that parent in any way. end of story.
Posted by Chris Rowley on May 22, 2008 6:12 AM
Report this comment

Let's be honest, this entire legislation is essentially about convenience. The convenience to the woman of not having an inconvenient child, without the inconvenience of having to worry about contraception. The convenience of having lots of tissue to experiment on, without the inconvenience of having to justify the morality of one's actions. The convenience of having siblings who will donate their bone marrow etc without needing to be asked. For MPs, the convenience of not having to re-open the issue of abortion, and of giving way to the electorally useful zeitgeist.

Posted by jaytt on May 22, 2008 12:11 AM
Report this comment

"Just another thought on Ms. Blair's memoirs. What was a good Roman Catholic girl doing using 'contraceptive equipment'?"

Lol! Mick, in all of this debate that's quite a good point. What was she doing?
Posted by Greg on May 21, 2008 9:07 PM
Report this comment

Okay Charles I think I understand what you are saying. Charles ... you must remember that words on the internet can be ambiguous ... that's why we have these things :o)
Posted by Greg on May 21, 2008 8:52 PM
Report this comment

Charles ... I stood up for you, and I don't understand your response.

Anyway everyone ... let's play nicely shall me.

:o/ <-- not sure what is going on
Posted by Greg on May 21, 2008 8:50 PM
Report this comment

To Greg on May 21, 2008 7:48 PM

I am not a fundie, if I were, I would tell you you're going to hell.


Posted by Charles Crosby on May 21, 2008 8:44 PM
Report this comment

To andrew cramb on May 21, 2008 7:19 PM

"It is not a question of me "intervening" between you and Mike Mines."

To me it was, and of course birds of a feather always flock together.

"Your answer seems to be that you have had emails of support. An incredibly self-important, selfish stance."

My answer is clear, I help people with the Good news of salvation and rescue them from the clutches of the men of religion. These men of religion, like you, are very self-righteous. So think of it in terms of me rescuing them from people just like you.

There again what you seem or presume in your arrogance, is an irrelevance.


Posted by Charles Crosby on May 21, 2008 8:43 PM
Report this comment

And by the way, however misguided some of you may think Charles Crosby is ... give the guy a break!

At least he stands for something other than expediency. And his analogy with Huxley's Brave New World is spot on.

It is a brave new world, full of people who don't give a damn about common sense. A brave new world full of people who mock tradition, and laugh in the face of God.

But no, let's laugh at the fundy ...
Posted by Greg on May 21, 2008 7:48 PM
Report this comment

Hi George, thanks for you civil and reasoned argument, balancing up all the complexities and making a passioned defence of the sanctity of human life.

Of course, the board will fill with nasty liberal types who don't appreciate your gentle debate ...

But hey, who gives a stuff about them?
Posted by Greg on May 21, 2008 7:23 PM
Report this comment

Charles Crosby 5:49

It is not a question of me "intervening" between you and Mike Mines.

But, I am happy to be tarred by the same brush as Mike.

This is a fairly and lightly moderated website.

So everyone is entitled to their own opinion , even you.

But, you still haven't answered my question.

Have you, in your personal life, ever helped another person ?

Your answer seems to be that you have had emails of support. An incredibly self-important, selfish stance.

Charles, helping other people is different from helping yourself.


Posted by andrew cramb on May 21, 2008 7:19 PM
Report this comment

Stupid, irrelevant argument.

The question is not whether parents have another child to try and save a previous one - they would try and do that anyway with or without IVF. The question is which makes the previous child more likely to live.

You appear to prefer the entirely avoidable evil that is leaving that child's survival to blind chance rather than making it certain. Quite how you can justify this evil with self-righteousness is beyond me.

Thousands of children are born every day for no better reason than failed or non-existent contraception. Quite how it is somehow worse to be born of loving parents who want their second child to be certain to save their first than it is to know your existence is due to a missed pill or forgotten condom is also beyond me.

For once MPs did the right thing and I rejoice.
Posted by Phil on May 21, 2008 6:39 PM
Report this comment

Posted by Charles Crosby on May 21, 2008 5:56 PM
Charles, the key word here is "sibling". If my daughter born after my son had been able to help him then it would have been done, if she had been conceived for the purpose do you really think she would have been disposed of like a piece of meat. The problem lies within yourself, you think we are all born in sin and are basically evil. That is patent nonsense.

Posted by mike mines on May 21, 2008 6:23 PM
Report this comment

To mike mines on May 21, 2008 5:15 PM

You didn't say religion, you said God.
Posted by Charles Crosby on May 21, 2008 5:56 PM
Report this comment

To andrew cramb on May 21, 2008 5:11 PM

You intervened in the discussion between me and Mr Mines over the issue of production line babies. That is what I am discussing here with Mr Mines.

You are supporting him and so by default are in his camp, so I will tar you with same brush.

Perhaps you should have read the earlier posts before you got involved but then your eyesight has caused problems before has it not.

You also accused me of untruthful things so I will defend myself as necessary.

I will also remind you of the title of this thread - "What will we tell these production-line children?" I find this whole idea abhorrent, whether it benefits sick people or not.

We do not have the right to use human life in this way.

As for helping others, yes I do receive e-mails from people who are helped by my articles, but of course they are concerned about matters Spiritual i.e. things eternal, not things temporal that will end when they die at the end of this very short insignificant life.

Now therein lies another problem, for Mr Mines and yourself are only interested in this insignificant little life.

All is vanity.


Posted by Charles Crosby on May 21, 2008 5:49 PM
Report this comment

Posted by Charles Crosby on May 21, 2008 4:28 PM
Come now Charles, have you not always said as far back as I have been reading your posts, that religion has nothing to do with God. How does my religion, or lack of one have any bearing on the question at all.

Posted by mike mines on May 21, 2008 5:15 PM
Report this comment

Charles Crosby 4:51

I never mentioned "production line babies" in any of my posts.

But, if you think that people like me and Mike Mines ( I don't speak for him as he has his own voice) are selfish, can you please give me an example of what you have ever done , on a direct personal level, to help another human being ?

I don't mean preaching God, I mean on a practical level.


Posted by andrew cramb on May 21, 2008 5:11 PM
Report this comment

To andrew cramb on May 21, 2008 4:34 PM

"You have hit the nail on the head."

No he hasn't, all he has done is put his needs above everyone else's.

"It is the sheer lack of humanity of people like Crosby which amazes me."

Humanity has got nothing to do with it.

"There is no love in his posts, only hate , but that is his problem."

I am loving production line babies, the ones that you and Mr Mines couldn't give a toss about, because all you think about is yourselves.

"No doubt it is another of my afflictions."

No, not at all, Mr Cramb all your afflictions are Spiritual in essence and makeup. As I said, plain for all to see.


Posted by Charles Crosby on May 21, 2008 4:51 PM
Report this comment

Because of the vatican I have been born as a product of rape and a still existing abortionforbidding law, without any help or protection, raped my whole childhood through - and NOW have to face the same old propaganda again!!!
It has nothing to do with reality - and leave me in peace with the alleged wishes of your alleged god.
I ENVY EACH wanted child - even a girl who was born instead of a male wanted heir I once knew is better off than I.
Posted by prochoice on May 21, 2008 4:42 PM
Report this comment

Mike Mines 4:09

Mike,

You have hit the nail on the head.

It is the sheer lack of humanity of people like Crosby which amazes me.

There is no love in his posts, only hate , but that is his problem.

I have many friends of many religions and none. But, they have a common humanity which I hope I share.

Just to send Crosby crawling up the wall, I may mention that my wife is black African muslim !

How do like that Charles ?

No doubt it is another of my afflictions !

Keep on posting, Mike !
Posted by andrew cramb on May 21, 2008 4:34 PM
Report this comment

To mike mines on May 21, 2008 4:09 PM

"Charles Crosby et al are one of reasons I turned my back on a God, it seemed to lack humanity which has just been demonstrated by one of his representatives here on Earth."

It is also apparent that you are stranger to the Truth Mr Mines so I would question whether you were ever a Christian in the first place.

I also notice that you have ignored completely the issues I raised and I am still waiting for your answers, or are the lives of production line babies of no consequence to you provided they are serving the needs of others at the expense of their own lives?



Posted by Charles Crosby on May 21, 2008 4:28 PM
Report this comment

To Simon on May 21, 2008 3:57 PM

If you Google 'legalistic cults' Simon you will find ample evidence and information on what defines them, especially if you keep the topic of blood transfusions, as mentioned by Mr Mines, in mind.

Until I know what your agenda is I will keep my definition to myself.

Posted by Charles Crosby on May 21, 2008 4:13 PM
Report this comment

Posted by andrew cramb on May 21, 2008 3:30 PM
Thanks Andrew, it was many years ago although it's always remembered as if yesterday. Charles Crosby et al are one of reasons I turned my back on a God, it seemed to lack humanity which has just been demonstrated by one of his representatives here on Earth.

Posted by mike mines on May 21, 2008 4:09 PM
Report this comment

To Simon on May 21, 2008 3:41 PM

"Please tell me, when you look in a mirror, what do you see?"

Someone who was born to two parents who brought me up to the best of their ability and didn't bring me into the world for the benefit of paedophiles and the users of body parts.

Now you tell me what you see when you look in the mirror, for I am guessing that it's someone even more self-righteous than wretched Mr Cramb - if that's possible of course!!


Posted by Charles Crosby on May 21, 2008 4:06 PM
Report this comment

Charles Crosby 3:42

What is a "legalistic cult " ?

Please define.
Posted by Simon on May 21, 2008 3:57 PM
Report this comment

Charles Crosby 3:37

"Looks like we can add self-righteousness to Mr. Cramb's afflictions ".

Happy to share that affliction with you, Mr. Crosby. So long as that is the only one !
Posted by andrew cramb on May 21, 2008 3:54 PM
Report this comment

To mike mines on May 21, 2008 3:07 PM

God leaves me to choose. I am free under grace to make my own decisions.

Do not confuse me with men of religion and/or legalistic cults.


Posted by Charles Crosby on May 21, 2008 3:42 PM
Report this comment

Charles Crosby 10:13

Please tell me, when you look in a mirror, what do you see ?
Posted by Simon on May 21, 2008 3:41 PM
Report this comment

To andrew cramb on May 21, 2008 3:00 PM

Looks like we can add self-righteousness to Mr Cramb's afflictions.
Posted by Charles Crosby on May 21, 2008 3:37 PM
Report this comment

Mike Mines 12:03

Dear Mike,

My deepest sympathy to you and your family on the loss of a child.

I have never suffered such a personal loss , so I can only imagine what it feels like.

Best wishes,

Andrew


Posted by andrew cramb on May 21, 2008 3:30 PM
Report this comment

Posted by Charles Crosby on May 21, 2008 2:13 PM
What is your opinion on the use of blood transfusion may I ask. Does your God allow it?
Posted by mike mines on May 21, 2008 3:07 PM
Report this comment

Charles Crosby 2:13


Wish I had some of your nice Christian charity.
Posted by andrew cramb on May 21, 2008 3:00 PM
Report this comment

To mike mines on May 21, 2008 12:03 PM

So it's OK for human production lines to be set up for paedophiles, body parts and other evil practises, is it Mr Mines? Tell me, which life is more valuable and more precious?

What measure are you using and what price are you going to set so that you and yours experience minimum suffering in this life?

When man sets himself up as God, these are the problems he creates.

Posted by Charles Crosby on May 21, 2008 2:13 PM
Report this comment

Thank goodness for people like Mr Pitcher, reminding us all the time that we're only a stone's throw from being barbarians, and that we need to be extremely careful in these matters. The sanctity of life is a corner stone of our civilisation.
Posted by Mark Bale on May 21, 2008 1:30 PM
Report this comment

Thank God there are still people like George Pitcher who question the utilitarian approach to human life. Indeed while no doubt many genuinely feel that some recent and current laws improve the human lot, one suspects that for some it conveniently rationalises that which society once held inadmissible.
Let us hope younger generations will not live to regret this Gadarene rush ...
I am a scientist and I have grave doubts about our ethical and moral direction.
Posted by Ritter on May 21, 2008 12:28 PM
Report this comment

What happens when the kid marries his sister inadvertently (as she shares the same sperm as he does)? What happens when they get teased at school because they don't have a dad? Kids need to feel normal. If they don't, then they end up like me - in a nuthouse, rocking to and fro sucking their thumbs with heads full of unanswered questions :))
Posted by Craig Bonamic on May 21, 2008 12:03 PM
Report this comment

I have been in the position of losing a child to a long term wasting disease. If there had been any chance of saving him and Charles Crosby et al tried to argue against then it would have been a busy day at the hospital mortuary.

Posted by mike mines on May 21, 2008 12:03 PM
Report this comment

We tell them "You saved you're brother/sister": your purpose in life was to save a life.

Not a bad way to start out as a hero. Don't let religious posturing get in the way of science and evolution.

All these issues aside, from whatever side of thye moral fence you stand, the most refreshing thing about this bill was that it was Free Vote.

WHY CAN'T THIS BE THE CASE ALL THE TIME?

GET RID OF THE WHIP SYSTEM FULL STOP. It's stinks of party politics and is the scourge of representative democracy. I'm sure a private members bill could be raised

Posted by Graeme on May 21, 2008 12:00 PM
Report this comment

Just another thought on Ms. Blair's memoirs. What was a good Roman Catholic girl doing using 'contraceptive equipment'? I thought the only thing her faith (and now her husband's) approved of was a calendar, which shouldn't give any royal footmen cause for comment.
Posted by MICK FARRER on May 21, 2008 11:49 AM
Report this comment

PRODUCTION LINE BABIES BEWARE !

ALL BOYS : DAVID BECKHAM

ALL GIRLS : HIS CLEVER AND BEAUTIFUL WIFE , QUEEN VICTORIA THE SECOND .

PERSONALLY I WOULD LIKE 2 DAUGHTERS :

PARIS HILTON DOLL
HOLLY WILLOUGHBY DOLL

I COULD PLAY WITH THEM INSTEAD OF MY GRAND THEFT AUTO IV.

IN FACT I WOULD EVEN PREFER THEM TO MY GUINEA PIG.


Posted by MAN ON WATERLOO BRIDGE on May 21, 2008 11:49 AM
Report this comment

Children have always been born with
purpose in mind. To carry on the
family business, look after the
parents in old age or simply as a
mark of social standing. Even
(shudder) as religious duty.

Posted by rr on May 21, 2008 11:26 AM
Report this comment

Programmes like ' Who do you think you are?' and 'Tracing your Ancestors' will be near nigh impossible.
Posted by swatantra on May 21, 2008 11:06 AM
Report this comment

This practice should be condemned. It’s absolutely scandalous that we’re messing around with humans in this manner. You should know by now that doctors and scientists use humans as guinea-pigs to further their reputations and really don’t give a damn about saving lives.
What a sad world we live in.

Posted by Frank Muller on May 21, 2008 10:34 AM
Report this comment

I'm most interested in what the law will have to say when, as is inevitable at some stage, a child says "No" to having their tissues taken? Will they then be subjected to judicial assault to force them to yield their tissues for their sibling? And what will be their position in the household if not?


Posted by David Phillips on May 21, 2008 10:17 AM
Report this comment

The whole bill is despicable. As a nation we have sacrificed any notion of the sanctity of life. We are already practising eugenics by screening out 'abnormal' foetuses and putting pressure on mothers to terminate them. I hate to use knee jerk language, but I can't help thinking the Nazis would have approved.

When the Act is passed same sex couples will be able to demand IVF at taxpayer's expense with no requirement for there to be a man in the child's life. They may then order up another genetically screened child to act as a saviour sibling and choose to terminate any pregnancy as late as 24 weeks. A hellish prospect.

I do hope Gordon Brown doesn't mention his moral compass again.

Posted by Drake Lovel on May 21, 2008 10:13 AM
Report this comment

Re: Simon on May 21, 2008 9:18 AM

"George Pitcher . You may be made in the "image of God ", but I most definitely am not."

What kind of life form can Simon be I wonder? Even if there are such things as aliens in outer space they, too, would be part of God's creation.

Posted by Charles Crosby on May 21, 2008 10:13 AM
Report this comment

I'm glad I read George Pitcher's
article on so-called "Savior Babies"
and had a chance to respond with
a commentary. This is not Rocket
Science. A child suffers from a rare
disease, which is often, genetic in
origin. It requires only tissues or genotypes from a young yet-to-be-born
sibling to save his life. Scientists
and medical doctors have reviewed
other options and determined this is the only solution. These experts spent decades of their lives in
labs--day and night--to study these medical procedures; and earned degrees of specialization on
these fields of study. Then, parents primarily responsible for the welfare of the born child and the one yet to be born, decided to heed the doctors' advice, and were willing to have another child, if that's what it takes. Two worthy lives intead of losing one precious life with no replacement.

This is a common-sense decision.
This is not abortion debated under
Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor's
Oct. 28 article: "Why we are fighting to lower abortion limit,"
where I posted a commentary,
(4:26 AM) and in Charles Moore's
Oct. 27 article on the same issue:
"Like a slave, is unborn child not a
brother?" with my commentary posted
at 9:08 A.M.

It doesn't have much to do with
stem-cell (embryo) controversy
discussed in Alasdair Palmer's Mar. 9
article: "Embryology is a beacon of
hope," where I posted a commentary
(7:51 AM). The point here is that
these are passionate debatable issues; even though the side of
science, human civilization and
medical progress prevailed.

But, the Savior Sibling issue is not
even debatable. It shouldn't have made it to the legislature. But, this is the essence of semocracy. Let's all sides and opinions be heard. And, let it be decided through debates and votes. If it becomes a law, so be it. Because, any way it's evaluated, some lawmakers represent constituencies
with some fundamentalist, passionate
sensibilities. That is what drives
some of these religious debates and
legislative aspirations. The key
issue in the "Savior Sibling" bill
is blood or tissue donation of a rare
type. In most cases, bone marrow is
all that is needed, but only through
a young--very young or younger
sibling donor--from the same parent
to provide the closest, genetic
configuration. Nothing drives this
decision other than scientific
breakthrough, hereditary mechanism
and genetic determination. No laws
are broken--legal, mundane, spiritual
or divine. No life was lost in order
to create another. No unethical
procedures are employed. No surrogate
parents are used, even that's the
case, it wouldn't work here.

Here, the only people that should
have been listened to are the medical
experts; nott lawmakers--majority of
who have no scientific or medical
background as I highilghted in
one of my past "Stem-Cell Research" commentaries. But, in the end, that
is what drives some of these needless, passionate, legislative
debates: Ignorance, fundamentalism
and blind-mechanistic faith which
make counter-productive impositions
on progressive, scientific, medical
knowledge and applications.

Which begs the question: Where were
all these fundamentalist faith
healers during the Bubonic Plague
that ravaged Europe in the Middle
Ages, or Polio, Cholera, Tuberculosis
and many other epidemic sthat decimated humankind? We've taken
their almost-disappearance for
granted, because the world doesn't
feel the ravages any more.
But, it took the amazing wonders of
science and medicaal breakthroughs
for the accomplishments. Innovations
like innoculation and vaccination
accelerated eradication.

What did fundamentalists do? In the
Middle Ages, they promoted
self-flagellation--flogging oneself
oneself as a sign of atonement and
repentance for sinning and bringing
forth disease and epidemic. Because,
sectarian doctrines envision disease as divine retribution. Wrong.
Igonikon Jack, USA
Posted by Igonikon Jack on May 21, 2008 10:12 AM
Report this comment

What will we tell these production-line children?

We tell them that the 'Common Purpose' graduates in our government and the EU need their worker and soldier ants.
Who else is going to pay for their gold-plated pensions and fight their dirty wars in the future?
Posted by Lickyalips on May 21, 2008 9:43 AM
Report this comment

I have one serious issue with this article, and it is this -

"the production of fully formed human beings for the purpose of harvesting their tissue"

They are not. If, of course, the vetting functions properly (and journalists, as is their duty, would jump on it if they weren't in even one case), then it is not "production", it is

"modification".

As for God, there are 2 fundamental objections - firstly, the conceit of people who think that they can tell me God's mind is disgusting, and secondly, why should listen to the morality of an invisible friend who sanctions murder, rape, genocide and the co-ordinated mass rape of enslaved women to boost the population? I have read the Bible and, I assure you, no doubt of obsequious "reading in the light of modern life" will wash with me. It is to the credit of religious people that they behave in a human manner, despite their God's exhortations that they studiously "re-interpret".
Posted by RIchard Manns on May 21, 2008 9:42 AM
Report this comment

Perhaps we will see the full horror of this idea develop when someone twigs that you could abort the 'saviour sibling' quite late and recover more than just cord blood from the foetus for the task in hand concerning an existing unwell child.

Plan B might be deliberately anencephalic babies for organ harvesting - this is the law enabling the laboratory of Frankenstein - regardless of the good intentions with which it has been enacted.

It is surely only a matter of time before one of these saviour siblings turns on its parents at maturity and focuses ugly feelings about how and why it was brought into the world - seeing itself as worth less than the child it saved before them.
Posted by simon coulter on May 21, 2008 9:34 AM
Report this comment

On the contrary both children - the sick child and his/her saviour sibling will be grateful each to the other knowing that they owe their existence to their sibling.
Posted by StBob on May 21, 2008 9:34 AM
Report this comment

There are moral issues here that go beyond he religious.

A child who has been created specifically to "help" an older sibling has no choice in the matter.
Suppose he or she doesn't want to help or, in later life, becomes resentful of having had part of itself used in this way.

The donor child is just as much a person with rights and the recipient.
I am sure most people would be only too glad to help a sibling but it must be their choice, not that of the parents.
Posted by AndrewG on May 21, 2008 9:19 AM
Report this comment

George Pitcher . You may be made in the "image of God ", but I most definitely am not.

To accuse me of that is arrogant and offensive. Typical religious bigot.
Posted by Simon on May 21, 2008 9:18 AM
Report this comment

The Greek Patriarchs "didn't have to worry about embryology " because they were too ignorant and superstitious to know anything about it ! Just like so many religious people today.

Thank goodness for medical science !
Posted by Bondi on May 21, 2008 9:15 AM
Report this comment

Here is a full quote, that should demolish all of Pitcher's straw-men, not to say entirely and deliberately deceptive so-called arguments:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
Posted by G. Tingey on May 21, 2008 9:11 AM
Report this comment

All children are born for someone else's purpose. The child has no choice in the matter. It is a totally selfish act on the part of the parents.
Posted by Gloria on May 21, 2008 9:10 AM
Report this comment

"Saviour children" are WANTED children, just as the parents WANT to keep the one they already have.

Next, humans are not "made in the image of God".
We evolved from other humanoids and apes, and don't you forget it.
Furthermore, there is no creation whatsoever, there is something much more marvellous, the complexity and wonder of mulifarious life, encapsulated in the famous phrase: "endless forms most beautiful".
Furthermore, also re-quoting the original author; "there is a grandeur in this view of life" that is far more interesting than rabbiting on about invisible friends, with no information-content, as Pitcher is doing.
Oh, the author of my qotes?
Charles Darwin.
Posted by G. Tingey on May 21, 2008 9:05 AM
Report this comment

The first line of treatment would be cord blood. This would not effect the baby at all. IN fact we should be storing cord blood in case it is useful to that child or another child later. Chidren with an ill child in the family are affected by it daily. They can also be very proud of being helpful. Is everyone complaining on a bone marrow donor register?
Posted by Caroline on May 21, 2008 8:59 AM
Report this comment

I will not enter the debate on morality in this matter.
I will say that 150 years ago we had very high rates of women dying in childbirth.
We had Cholera, Tuberculosis, Smallpox, Diphtheria and a mass of diseases which we do not have today.
Medical advances have helped improve the quality of life immeasurably over the last 100 years.
Posted by Minnie Ovens on May 21, 2008 8:56 AM
Report this comment

Kay Tie, the Law states you have to tell a child that he/she is adopted. Friends of mine were told to start telling their daughter as a 3 year old that she was "chosen" to be their baby as they couldn't have a child of their own. Amanda, by the age of 5, firmly believed she had been bought in a "baby shop" and only belonged in the family in the same way the dog did, by being purchased. It has taken 3 years to make her understand that she is well loved, and she is their child. Now the SW has told them Amanda's mother has left a letter asking for contact. Legally their daughter will be given this information when she is 18. They would have preferred to wait until she was old enough to understand about infertility and adoption before burdening her with the knowledge she was not their biological child. The SW and the Adoption Agency were adamant that she must be brought up knowing she was adopted. This leaves adopted children feeling that they are worthless because their mother gave them away like an unwanted kitten.
I was not told I was adopted until I was 12, when I asked why my brother and sister looked nothing like me, our parents, or each other. My mother then explained to the 3 of us about adoption. I never felt the urge to find my biological mother. I already had 2 parents. I think that she would have preferred not to tell any of us. My Birth Certificate did not mention the adoption. I would rather that I had not been told. Up to then I was happy being part of a close knit family. The parents of a child are the people who wiped noses and bottoms, and sat up all night when thay were sick.
Now the Govt. wants children born after AI by Donor, to be given details about the previously anonymous donor. Very wrong. The mother of the child is it's mother. The father should be the one she chooses to name with his agreement, as he will be the one raising and financially supporting the child, not the Donor.
The Govt. is interfering too much in the Private lives of families. Incidentally, we only found out my mother and aunt were adopted after their deaths. They never knew and my grandmother never mentioned it. They grew up secure in the knowledge that their parents loved them... and that should be enough for any child.
Posted by Beryl on May 21, 2008 8:55 AM
Report this comment

Enough proselytising already! Like a lot of people, I don't accept your imaginary friend as a good way to make decisions about issues as important as this.

"It might have been apocryphal, but it hardly matters in the way that such stories speak the truth to power."

No, it does matter. If it's a false story, it has nothing much to say about this issue.
Posted by James on May 21, 2008 8:40 AM
Report this comment

As I understand it, the parents are desperate to help an existing child and the mother, in particular, is willing to give birth to another child to provide this help. having been spared by nature from having ever to go through it myself, I gather giving birth is not an entirely pleasant experience and this particular concept requires dedication and commitment from the parents. That makes it considerably more appealing than the provision of IVF treatment to women who have no interest in their child enjoying a balanced upbringing.
Posted by H on May 21, 2008 8:33 AM
Report this comment

I think the last very last clause of the article is key. What we lose is our ignorance.
Let us suppose that God exists. What (s)he created is a fabulous system and all we are doing is discovering how (s)he made it work; what (s)he made possible. We're just following in God's footsteps and rolling back the magesteria of the religiose from where it should not be.
Posted by Castalian on May 21, 2008 8:23 AM
Report this comment

Our society is being butchered on the basis of bluff scientific progress. How many people know, or care, that the only significfant progress on stem cell research has been on adult harvested cells? Few i imagine. It's also worth mentioning that this progress has also been in the face of limited funding compared to embryonic stem cell research which in itself has yielded nothing to date except vague claims of a brighter future.

We are being governed by vain, egotiscal, ignorant people who don't want to know or understand the truth behind the science they are legislating on and instead make decisions based on their liberal instincts which they percieve as the modern way to behave.

Then we discuss all that has gone wrong in British society today and suppose that neither are linked.



Posted by Kirk Sessions on May 21, 2008 8:16 AM
Report this comment

All babies are essentially "born for someone else's purpose" - usually the personal happiness of their parents who sentence them to life on that pretext.

I don't think anyone should kid themselves anyone was born for a good reason. People produce their progeny to make themselves happy when there's a reason at all; most "moral" aspects of human reproduction don't bear close scrutiny.
Posted by Alex on May 21, 2008 8:11 AM
Report this comment

havn't we got enough unmarried mothers?,most of whom are state benefit dependant!
Posted by robert morgan on May 21, 2008 8:08 AM
Report this comment

To Gary on May 21, 2008 7:28 AM

"I think that the concept of 'free will' answers all your questions....."

That's if we had free will in the first place of course.
Posted by Charles Crosby on May 21, 2008 8:06 AM
Report this comment

"What will we tell these production-line children?"

We were warned in Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" but we went right on ahead anyway, being the vain, evil arrogant sons of the Devil that we are!!

Prov 16:25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.



Posted by Charles Crosby on May 21, 2008 7:41 AM
Report this comment

You're talking to the hand, George. They just don't want to know. In the space of 50 years, the liberals have totally taken over our society.
Posted by MagicAldo on May 21, 2008 7:33 AM
Report this comment

I think that the concept of 'free will' answers all your questions.....


Posted by Gary on May 21, 2008 7:28 AM
Report this comment

these laws and amendments in parliment are for the poor people of the uk. if you have enough money you can go abroad to many countries that are lax in these matters and have any treatment or proceduer for a fee.abortion on demand is common in some e.u. countries . as regards telling a child it was born to help a sibling . silence is the best way
as often the disabled child dies early. as mine did sometimes nature is cruel and cannot be beaten.
Posted by londoner432 on May 21, 2008 7:21 AM
Report this comment

"We are, for the first time, enshrining in law the principle that babies can be born for someone else's purpose."

Not for the first time, actually. Slavery was legal in parts of the British Empire as late as 1833.


Posted by Michael Petek on May 21, 2008 6:34 AM
Report this comment

"What do we tell these production line children?"

Well, George. I can't say I'm entirely sure, but I reckon time will tell.

What we're bound to have in the future is a far greater life expectancy, and your kind of emotive nonsense will probably be redundant by then anyway.

Why don't we just wait and find out, eh?

I think a more pertinent question is "what do you tell a five year old that's dying of leukaemia?"
Posted by Jack Lee on May 21, 2008 5:38 AM
Report this comment

Honestly, since when have people had children for any purpose other than their own? Since when have people had children for the good of the children????
Posted by Bu on U on May 21, 2008 2:38 AM
Report this comment

What is it that we tell our little "Imago Dei" right now, the ones who grow up in the streets without any purpose, conceived the old-fashioned by thoughtless parents who couldn't be bothered to use a condom and definitely can't tear themselves away from the TV long enough to scoop them up and explain anything? I'm sure that will work just fine...
Posted by Edward Hill on May 21, 2008 1:49 AM
Report this comment

"The doctrine of Imago Dei emerged from the Greek patriarchs."

No, the Hebrew ones.
Posted by Dan Baynes on May 21, 2008 1:39 AM
Report this comment

You, and Parliament, shouldn't be worrying about
what parents tell their kids. Next you'll be
worrying about telling a kid that his father raped
his mother, or that the kid was adopted, or that
he was conceived to hold his parents' marriage
together.

It's life, and the messy details of private lives are
not for politicians to interfere in with their laws
to "send a message" and their too-often
unintended consequences.
Posted by Kay Tie on May 21, 2008 1:23 AM
Report this comment

Please remember that the submission of any material to telegraph.co.uk is governed by our Terms and Conditions (clause 5 in particular) and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Your name: *

Your email address: * (We won't publish this.)

Your site's URL: (If you have one.)

Please click the post button only once - your comment will not be published immediately.

* = Required information

BUSINESS Market turmoil Follow the world's worst financial crisis since the 1930s.

TRAVEL Sign language This week's selection of curious signs and bizarre translations.

CULTURE Billy on Broadway Billy Elliot has opened in New York to rave reviews.

FILM American mom Down-to-earth star Julianne Moore talks to David Gritten.