Sunday, February 23, 2014


Stuff has an opinion piece from  Michelle Duff on human fertility.

She is suggesting a form of payment to donors of eggs and sperm to circumvent what she sees as a problem with NZ citizens going offshore to fulfill a demand for "fertility treatment"

I support science and research into understanding fertility issues that confront couples unable to successfully achieve a viable pregnancy with one significant proviso, natural barriers to successful fertilisation are sometimes just nature doing its thing.

While completely embracing Darwin's evolutionary theory over 60 years of involvement in animal breeding including dogs, horses, sheep and beef cattle, plus an abiding interest in genetics generally I have an inbuilt rejection of  much of the work around the circumventing of natures prevention of a viable pregnancy by subterfuge.

Nature often precludes a live birth, sometimes apparently capriciously, but often as an evolutionary  mechanism for removal of faulty genetic outcomes that fit with the theory Charles Darwin published in the middle of the 19th century in the "origin of the species", later referred to as 'survival of the fittest'.

I know people who for the very best of reasons and desires embark on the expensive path of fertility treatment, using sperm donor, egg donor, surrogacy, test tube technology among other interventions to circumvent natures possible safeguard in 'natural selection'.
This against a backdrop of so many children who could benefit greatly in finding a life enhanced by the now largely prohibited practice of adoption.

If one holds to Darwin's theory, as I do, is civilisation not at risk of eventually reaching a status where natural joining of a spermatozoa and a fertile egg in a womb to create life becoming a rarity and intervention becoming  the sole means of procreation. Mengele would be fascinated.

This view is not in any way shape or form advocating for eugenics however congenital problems can be seen as a sufficiently significant evolutionary problem without employing clinical interventions to overcome natures way of prevention and solution.

Procreation is a powerful driver in the human psyche but adoption, offers a substitution that in years gone by offered a solution to the desire to have and raise a family, until the social sciences found and created barriers to such a remedy.

I guess I am saying , "be careful what you wish for", those same people who research ways to initiate life with intervention well may have an alternate view on ending it with a different intervention, both can have a very high cost, monetary and moral but only at the creation side will the possible negatives  be a genetic issue.


David said...

I think not, my sister and brother with their respective spouses have been through IVF and have 3 beautiful healthy well adjusted kids. My brother is a doctor married to a surgeon and my sister owns a software company and is married to a lawyer. They dote on the kids who are excelling and suffer n o medical issues at all, not even glasses.
I think you should be able to pay for Eggs as you should be able to pay for a new kidney.

Edward the Confessor said...

"you should be able to pay for a new kidney."

Hell yeah. We should be harvesting poor people's organs in return for charity, right Angry Tory?

Anonymous said...

Hell yeah. We should be harvesting poor people's organs

Of course

in return for charity, right Angry Tory?

Nope. Just harvest' em.

Psycho Milt said...

In principle we shouldn't provide mechanisms for people who are patently poor breeding stock to reproduce regardless, but in practice that would involve some kind of bureacracy to decide who constitutes poor breeding stock and let's absolutely not go there...

I don't think it's that big a deal in evolutionary terms. In a herd of several hundred animals on a farm, it would be a fast track to shitty breeding stock, but across a herd of 7 billion humans any intervention we come up with is likely to be trivial.

Psycho Milt said...

Edward the Confessor: Angry Tory, aka Sinner (or somtimes anonymous) is a performance art project and his comments should be read in that light.

Watcher said...

This is a Gravedigger post and he hasn't deleted the Anon posts.

Cindy Dy said...

You made some good points there. I did a search on the matter and found the majority of people will consent with your blog.


andrea chiu said...

I do believe that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What does it really means to us? It only explains that true beauty is not in our physical aspects but in our inner aspects. In short, attitude or character because what you have shown is what people think of you. Beauty comes out naturally. Visit my site #triciajoy for some terrific offer that I am sure you can't refuse. Thanks for sharing such a wonderful article. Have a good day!