This is the sort of "argument" usually advanced for abortion. "But what if she were raped? What if she were destitute and could not feed the ones she has? You anti-choicers are just cold-hearted!"
The moral thing to do is the right thing to do, not the thing that is easiest or feels best. None of us has a right to a child, much less to as many children as we can pay somebody else to incubate for us. Children, however, do have rights--among them the right to be born to their two married biological parents. Failing to honor that right has been a recipe for disaster.
“The moral thing to do is the right thing to do, not the thing that is easiest or feels best. None of us has a right to a child, much less to as many children as we can pay somebody else to incubate for us. Children, however, do have rights—among them the right to be born to their two married biological parents. Failing to honor that right has been a recipe for disaster. “
I do agree that children have a right to have two married male/female parents (a mother and a father) just because they deserve it. But infertile people do not deserve infertility and to deny them the use of modern technology is archaic and mean. Yes, modern reproductive medicine can be used for evil (producing children for homosexuals so that the child never can experience being raised by a mother AND a father), but so can a gun be used for evil. I just don’t understand how people can say it is ok to use modern medicine (organ transplants, etc.), but not reproductive technology. As I said in my previous post, most people who have that mind-set have never experienced infertility.