The Guardian sets out its moral stance:
But the public is right to believe that it should be restricted to these cases of "compelling medical reasons".
…
Babies should be welcomed into the world because of who they are, not because of their gender.
Quite. Now, is there any other subject we can think of, something other than infertility treatment, where the Guardian takes the opposite view?
In
My idea of a compelling Medical reason is that the parents want a boy or a girl enough to pay for the treatment themselves.
I think in cases where sex selection is used to screen out certain gender-specific disabiities, then yes, this should be available on the NHS.
For a ‘social’ reason, nope! Pay for it yourself if you can afford it, or take Nature’s gamble….
Not really an issue you think people should be getting angry about is it?
Which inevitably means thousands will…
JuliaM,
I’d prefer it, if nothing was available via Beurocratic Healthcare Rationing.
Or to put it another way I’d like to opt out of paying for and receiving NHS treatment.
Me too, me too….
But I suspect I’m not likely to see it in my lifetime!
If mother nature has given us the ability to choose the sex of our children, and the parents can afford it why shouldn’t we allow it? What is The Guardian afraid might happen?
simon,
Perhaps http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088083/
🙂
Leave a Reply