WTF??? The baby is unable to consent to ANY of the procedures being performed on him, including every blood draw, every medication put into him, every X-ray/CT/MRI, etc. Babies can't consent, period. It's up the adults to make assumptions about what he'll be glad later on that they did. Who knows, maybe he'd prefer to die of cancer before his first birthday? That's about as likely as he is to not want to have the OPTION of producing his own biological offspring when he grows up. It's not like they're forcing him to reproduce -- they're just doing the best thing available under current technology to ensure that he can do so IF AND WHEN HE CHOOSES. There is no downside to this procedure -- it's not like it leaves the kid with deformed genitals or lacking any testosterone-production capacity that he would otherwise have had:
Ginsberg added that taking biopsies from the testicles, which contain the sperm stem cells, does not cause any harm to the infants.
Frankly, I think this probably ought to be mandatory for boys and girls undergoing fertility-destroying medical treatments. The basic concept (cryopreservation and subsequent reimplantation of a portion of gonadal tissue) has already been successfully applied with young women. It's a lot more rational to raise the ethical issue that a child can't consent to undergoing fertility-destroying treatment *without* reasonable measures being taken to preserve fertility.
I agree with you.