Talk about straining at gnats and swallowing camels. Britain is changing the rules regulating fertility treatment for the sake of the "common good," while ignoring completely the well-documented needs of children and the dignity of the person being created through advanced technologies.
The aim of the shake-up is to bring the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act into line with scientific advances and to make sure the law is "fit for purpose in the early 21st century". Caroline Flint, the health minister, claims in her foreword: "The over-arching aim is to pursue the common good through a system broadly acceptable to society."
The 21st century is the age of the lesbian, the hour of the designer baby, and the era of finding tissue donors, doncha know. It will not be the century in which all the statistics showing the dire consequences of the destruction of the family are acknowledged. No. Animals have rights. Homosexuals have rights. Sick children in need of kidneys have rights. The baby in the lab has none -- he is simply a consumer good. At least one man spoke forcefully against this:
Robert Whelan, the deputy director of Civitas, the institute for the study of civil society, criticised the plans to give single mothers the right to fertility treatment.
"It is grossly irresponsible to deliberately bring a child into the world in circumstances which will leave it at a disadvantage," he said.
"The people who engage in this sort of activity see children as an accessory and something they can have as a right. The fact that the child will suffer is secondary."
Interestingly, the vast majority of the population is against the deliberate creation of fatherless children. The children themselves would probably prefer to have a daddy, and Lord knows all the babies disposed of in the process won't be pleased that they're not protected by any guidelines whatsoever.
"Common good" sounds nice, but it's an empty phrase meaning nothing.