Philosophy of The Big Society

David Cameron gets to be God!

Monday, 20 April 2009

The right to choose to have children or not and nature doing what it does

This is prompted by New Republic asking people to sign a petition against those who wish to make (and want the power to do so) decisions for disabled groups.

Having experienced motherhood (and found myself mostly lacking) those people could argue that disabled people aren't in any position to decide what is in their own best interests but since when has life been that black and white (I doubt 2 people with the same disability have the same life experiences/personal qualities or aspirations)? And since when have people without disabilities been shining examples of parenthood?

I always find it quite bizarre that the pseudo scientists (who underneath it all seem to have their own agendas) think that nature can be so controlled anyway. For example, prior to falling pregnant I was in fact using appropriate birth control (as advised by family planning clinic). The combinations should have been around 99.5% safe. So that makes me the .5%!

I guess the genetic engineers, manipulated by those with agendas, could attempt to create a section of society that is unable to produce children but that pretty much goes against all the laws of nature (and I think nature will find a way). I remember reading something about 'fat rats' or was it mice? Anyway, the scientists had eradicated the fat gene..or so they thought..but several generations down the line fat animals appeared again.

The argument, I suppose, is around people's understanding of what having a child means and the individual's/couple's capacity to provide it with the healthiest/balanced life possible..but again you have to then look at those who aren't disabled and , on balance, there doesn't seem to be any balance. Certainly not proof that disabled people are any less capable of providing a loving and caring home. Be that, and hopefully with, a set of dynamics that could be deemed unconventional but works for them.

Variety is not only the spice of life but it means that people can and should be able to make responsible choices (I would like to hope that there is unbiased support there, should they need it, to do so). If they then make responsible choices...well that is another story but it doesn't matter how hard the scientists try and create is unachievable and I am glad about that.

A cloned society is not a real society.


  1. Curiously enough I recently learnt from my course that Winston Churchill was all for compulsory sterilzation of 'mentally handicaps'. That to me is somewhat at odds with the bloke who suffered depression. Ok I know that mentally handicapped in those days referred to what we now call Learning Disabled, but it makes you wonder how far he would've gone doesn't it ? I mean why stop at LD ? So for me I interpret his ideas as not that far removed from Adolf Hitler and his Aryan Race !

  2. What with his views on eugenics and his contribution, in parliament, to the force feeding of suffragettes...not forgetting his total belief in the British Empire and that it should continue along the lines it had been going... he isn't top of my list of pro human libbers.

    I was talking about him a while back and said "At best, he was a man of his times". That was as complimentary as I could get.