Skip to content

Just because we can…

February 8, 2012

doesn’t mean we should.  (This blog post may be rather controversial.) I read an interesting article today in one of my favorite magazines, Discover, The Sperm Crisis:  a tough nut to crack.  This quote stuck out to me:

 “enabling infertile men to procreate perpetuates infertility genes, digging us in even deeper.”

I think it would be even truer to say that enabling infertile couples to procreate perpetuates infertility genes.  This in turn causes problems for their children, grandchildren, etc.  and the whole human race.  I’m not sure a couple’s focus ought to be solely on passing on their genes (yes I know the romantic urge of “but I want a jr of my honey running around”) but what is best for their child in the long run.  There are plenty of children in this world that need a family to raise them.  We do not have a shortage of children in this world but a shortage of common sense I think.

Yeah I can hear some of you now…”sure you have a child, you can say this”.  Keep in mind that he happened after 11 years of no birth control.  We had given up two years before and had passed on doing IVF.  We were just going to be childless and I was fine with that (though is possible we may have talked adoption at some point).  We passed up IVF because of the expense.  Not out of morals.  It wasn’t something that had occurred to me at that time. (Money is also the reason why we chose not to have another child.  It is all about practicalities, as cold as that can be.)

I now think that money would be better spent on adoptions than on infertility measures.  I also think that adopting should not be limited by age (as I have heard that this is why many Americans adopt overseas) or sex but by temperament…but that might be a separate rant.  I think adopting is better for the health of the human race that to keep perpetuating infertility genes into our race until some sci-fi horror story comes true, where children are only reproduced in labs.  Parental love is not limited by one’s genes.  Just as it is possible to dislike your own child, it is possible to love a child who is not genetically yours.

6 Comments leave one →
  1. February 8, 2012 1:18 PM

    This logic can be extended to a whole slew of issues, but I’ll refrain from stirring the pot further. Thanks for putting it out there though!


  2. February 8, 2012 1:39 PM

    I agree, but I feel about this the way I do about abortion. Just because *I* think it’s wrong, doesn’t mean I can decide that for anyone else. I know that’s not what you’re saying here, but that’s the correlation your post brought to mind.


    • February 8, 2012 2:00 PM

      That is a good point. But then the only thing I’m grand pooba of is this blog so nobody needs to pay my opinion any mind but I do think it is something that people ought to be made aware of…


  3. February 13, 2012 1:49 AM

    Back when I was a Software Engineer and making money, we decided to spend a year or so trying for a child. I didn’t expect much to happen; I too had been told I was infertile. We had talked about it several times, and I had told the Spouse I wasn’t interested in fertility treatments. While I had insurance that would cover the treatments, I did not want to go through the hormonal and emotional roller coaster that the treatment entailed. And, we figured we could always adopt.

    I’m pretty sure an extremely intense post-Dragonfest ritual shook things loose enough for me to conceive. One kiddo was enough for us, too — time and energy were bigger considerations then, but when our fortunes drastically changed I was grateful to have only one child to support. The pregnancy had been rough, she was born critically ill — I simply could not imagine going through all of that again. Hubby got a vasectomy when our daughter was 6 months old. I have lots of people who call me “Mom,” but only one biological child. (I’ve helped raise a few others…but that is an entirely different story.)

    I’m a big fan of Sherri Tepper, who has written several books with feminist leanings. She was the guest of honor at MileHiCon one year. She also had been President of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains. When she had to miss the con, she sent her speech to be read for her. The program director knew I had been an escort for Planned Parenthood, so asked me to read her speech. I was thrilled to do so.

    In her speech she posited that Zero Population Growth (ZPG) was not enough. Instead, the entire world needed to strive for Negative Population Growth (NPG). Each couple should have one or no children. Each person did not need to replace themselves; we should reduce the Earth’s population instead. I found I pretty well agreed with everything she said.

    Since then, the Earth has passed the 6 billion and the 7 billion mark. We don’t need more people. We need to be ensuring that the ones already here have enough food, shelter, and water, and we need to be reducing our population to one the Earth can handle better. She is pretty badly overtaxed at this point — and we have politicians who wish to banish birth control so we can contribute further to the swelling population and overpopulate the US as well as some of the less prosperous countries. That won’t add to food scarcity and poverty at all, no sir!

    Heh. I think you pushed a button. Sorry for the rant. tl;dr: I agree with you, for some of the same reasons and some different ones, too.


    • February 13, 2012 9:12 AM

      I had not looked at it that way, but it is a good point. No worries about the rant. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: