(a) be conceived as naturally as possible – i.e. without resorting to grossly over invasive fertility “treatments” because despite all the so-called medical “advances” simple, old fashioned natural conception coupled with responsible parenthood, healthy life style AND screening of potential parents BEFORE conception are still the best methods to maximise the probability that a child will enjoy long term physical, mental and emotional health.

and

(b) be brought up in an adequately safe, loving, healthy and emotionally balanced environment by SUITABLE adults and not just ANY adult who wants to flaunt the fact that he/she “has children”

Tell me all those of you who promote highly invasive fertility “treatments”, just how many couples do you know that begot a healthy child (who suffered from no long term health or behaviour problems) even though they resorted to highly invasive fertility “treatments”?

Or is it totally OK these days to have a child with “special needs” because the state provides so much free help at over taxed tax payers’ expense and/or because there are so many NGOs and private companies masquerading as non-profit organisations whose declared mission is to help those with special needs and their families and/or because handicapped children in Malta were labelled “angels” around 40 years ago?

This is precisely the kind of situation that increases resentment against those with expensive “special needs” as well as the parents and paramedics selfish enough to beget them in the first place.
It does not take rocket science reasoning to realize that although certain congenital handicaps just cannot be explained many congenital handicaps can – and indeed should – be prevented.
We should be educating our children to take parenthood seriously and strive to avoid having a child with “special needs” as was the norm among responsible families in Malta till about 30 years ago. To-day we are expected not to even dare to bring up the subject for fear of offending somebody and/or because it is considered by some to be politically incorrect and/or because somebody might imply negative eugenic connotations.

This is not desperation to have a child, but determination and no couple will take this lightly. I wonder how many of us who have been conceived naturally came with love. I reckon that 70% of children conceived this way came by mistake. I know of so many couples who “mechanically” sleep with each other for the sake of conceiving a child, when they would have stopped loving each other but do so for the sake of having a child. On the other hand I know of one couple who were infertile and sought IVF, had their child, and it brings me joy to see them so much in love after many years of marriage.

If science is there, then why shouldn’t it be available to give these couples that little push? Rather than living in desperation of not having had the child one would have so much wanted.

I agree with you, Daphne that other means such as sperm donor, known or unknown and surrogate motherhood are distasteful indeed.

Of course it can. Remember what Melchett said: “As private parts to the gods are we; they play with us for their sport.”

[Daphne – I imagine so, as fatalism runs contrary to the essential Christian doctrine of free will and responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions, or inaction. But then again, not necessarily so, as the idea of God or the gods ‘allowing’ things to happen is present in many different cultures in the present and through the ages. We also use mnalla and j’alla, which invokes God: the Spanish ojalá (que), and the Portuguese oxalá (que) are derived from the Muslim Arabic invocation pronounced ya Alla (oh God), which we retain intact in Maltese.]

[Daphne – Yes, they make me mad, too. As if terminal cancer or the death of a child can ever be ‘God’s will’.]

——————————————————————————–

Dear NaturalNews readers,

It’s a sad day for the future of the human race: A gang of self-congratulatory “God complex” doctors has announced they’ve created the world’s first “breast cancer gene-free baby” by throwing away fetuses until they found one without the BRCA1 gene. The level of medical madness and outright scientific quackery in this whole thing is beyond belief (the BRCA1 gene, for starters, doesn’t “cause” cancer in the first place).
But this playing God with viable fetuses does accomplish one thing: The unleashing of a new era of eugenics upon the human race, where humans are now going to be considered sub-class citizens based entirely on their genetic profile. (Time to watch the film GATTACA once again…)
Read my rebuttal to this outrageous medical development here:
http://www.naturalnews.com/025291.html
I think these sort of experiments make many people condemn things like stem cells research.