So here I show a bit of my age. I would like to know where the ideals of civil discourse have gone. In the years before the Civil War if a senator saw an opposing senator on the street, he would chase the other down and beat him with his walking stick. Yet duels were outlawed.
Since then, much has changed. For a while we lived in an age where political opposites could discuss and still remain friends. Now, it would seem, we are trending back to old-fashioned politics. Not with our political leaders though mud-slinging and carpet-bagging are alive and well.
No, I am speaking of the current trend of screaming battles in place of civilized debate. Of people so impassioned by one, that’s right, ONE ideal that they will start throwing punches when someone opposes them in the street. I am speaking of citizens acting no better than talking cavemen when confronted with a different opinion. Like beating the crap out of me is going to change my mind. As we have all seen in shows like LOST and 24, torture doesn’t work.
A recent argument on a chat board brought to my attention the current trend of using chat boards as a place to publicly humiliate (count the number of times I use trend and humiliate in this blog) someone you don’t agree with. This isn’t even someone you know personally, just a faceless, anonymous person who disagrees with something you hold dear. As much as the next person, I agree that everyone has the right to express their opinion but there are rules of etiquette. And etiquette says you attack the idea, not the person. But, time and again I see people take off the gloves because a remark about an idea struck a nerve. And because the person who said it may be impervious to assaults on ideas they hold dear, the opposition goes for the jugular and attacks the person. This is unacceptable. As is the quiet condoning of such ruthless actions by persons supposedly in charge of seeing the board remains in the bounds of civil conduct. The idea of worldwide communication is to foster ideas and interaction and not be a breeding ground for more animosity.
So if a chat board claims to be all-ages and fair, then, by Gaia they should stick to it instead of favoring certain parties and shunning others due to their political ideals. This is a fraud laying claim to friendship and equal rights then shoving down those that differ slightly in opinion. And it is wrong.
So the bottom line is the Internet which gives the protected veil of anonymity has given rise to monsters and tyrants. Rules of good conduct are ignored left and right and, unless you have your own blog (insert maniacal laughter here) or chat board, you find yourself at the mercy of people who punish you for disagreeing with their political alignment or with their minions. And in the end you are left feeling that communicating with others is just not worth it. Better off watching a DVD or playing a video game. At least then you know who the enemies are.
I’ve been reading the news again. I know I shouldn’t, it just pisses me off, but I’m a slow learner. One of the featured stories on yahoo talked about a fertility clinic in Barcelona that was adopting out unused frozen embryos as opposed to using them for stem cell research.
Upon reading this, a question popped into my head. Are the genetic parents asked for their consent? I say genetic since, in this case, biologic parent is a matter of conjecture considering the adoptive mother is the one giving birth and there is some evidence of maternal interference during the gestational period. In short, the woman carrying the fetus can affect it.
Some may argue they gave their consent when they didn’t want the rest of their embryos. I say that depends on the contract they signed. The story makes it sound like the genetic parents may have thought that the embryos were going to be used for research and instead are being used to knock up strangers. At the very least this may be a breech of contract. I mean if the contract stated “use for stem cell research or whatever” then that is a pretty wide playing field. If it said only for research, well then these doctors are trying to play football on a raquetball court.
And before all the pro-lifers start jumping down my throat, let me state my case. If I donate blood to the Red Cross, then I expect it to be used as advertised: for the blood supply or for research. If I found out it was being used to feed vampires, I would be upset to say the least.
Now if I have gone through a lot of trouble to get pregnant including frozen embryos and I sign a paper saying once I am through these embryos will be used for research or destroyed, I am going to kill the doctor that caused my down the street neighbor to get pregnant with my genetics. If there is going to be another carbon copy of me running around I deserve to at least be consulted.
So imagine it, twenty years down the road, two kids from different families meet, fall in love, get married, and BAM! have a baby with three eyes. We’re not talking sperm bank here with only a 50% match. We’re not talking about a daddy with loose pants. We’re talking 100% match siblings that don’t know it.
If the genetic parents know and consent, I say great. Then at least if they know the family name of who got their embryos they can steer their children away from a potential disaster. Nature has no built-in warning system. Close relatives not being allowed to marry is a cultural taboo (and a good one – without it the gene pool would be a wading pool.) And face it, daytime TV would be really boring with a warning system.
The issue here isn’t whether or not to save the embryos. The issue is stealing, or rather, misappropriation. The genetic parent has a right to know and a right in the decision- making. If I find out one of my genetic children is living in an abusive household, I should have the legal recourse to recover him or her especially if the embryo was given away without my expressed consent.
By that same token, if I have someone else’s genetic child and they lose theirs, should they have the right to claim mine? In our country, the genetic parent is usually given preference over the adoptive one especially if consent to adopt was never given. The article reads as though the clinic is circumventing the genetic parent under the guise of the embryos being turned over for research. Well, what is involved in adopting an embryo instead of a child? Is it the same or are there leniencies? The genetic parents didn’t abandon the embryos but made a responsible decision to turn them over for research as opposed to being destroyed. Without consultation, wouldn’t this be a case of black market babies, just in test tube form?
Of course it’s probably just a case of bad reporting and it’s after midnight. My mind can latch onto all sorts of science fiction possibilities at this hour.