[Mrs. Don-o]

I never disputed that there were legitimate reasons for an over-40 woman to want a baby. Of course that's true. And if such a woman and/or her husband need therapeutic intervention to actually heal their infertility --- to help their lovemaking to result in a baby ---- than I'll all gung-ho for it. Healing sex is a good use for science.

My larger point, though, is that sexual love is the only way to make a baby which truly honors his status a person and gift, and not as product and property. In the wake of the Roe vs Wade (1973) and Davis vs Davis decisions (the frozen embryo case, 1989) the law has already blown the status of "person" to smithereens.

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/dem/dem_07frozenembryos.html

Artifical reproduction makes this breakdown of human status inevitable by making the child a product, an object, in fact and in law. But we must not accept it. If we do, within our lifetimes we will see a day when the law cannot distinguish a human being from an animal, a machine, or a Cabbage Patch doll.

.

.

P.S. It's Mrs. Don-o.

[TNdandelion]

And I say that's BS. If you are a married couple who CANNOT conceive through normal means (F.tubes are blocked, et al) then your suggestion that their child is not equal (you used the term product) because their conception doesn't meet your romantic standards is crap.

If you want to argue the misuse of and unethical use of reproductive technology, I'm probably right there with you but don't call those children "products." That's not what they are.