SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A court battle between a divorced couple over the future of their frozen embryos began Monday with an attorney for the former husband accusing the woman of using the dispute to get money.
Dr. Mimi Lee, 46, a pianist and part-time anesthesiologist, married Stephen Findley, a wealthy executive, five years ago. Shortly before the wedding, Lee learned she had breast cancer.
Unsure whether the disease would make it impossible for her to have children, the couple went to a fertility center, where Lee's eggs and Findley's sperm created five embryos, now frozen.
Findley filed for divorce two years ago and wants the embryos destroyed. Lee, now infertile, wants to implant the embryos into a surrogate and have a baby. Without the embryos, she will never have a child who shares her genes.
If the embryos are implanted and carry to term, the ex-husband becomes a father without consent. If the embryos are destroyed, the ex-wife is denied the deep need to procreate. The embryos themselves have issues either way. Modern biomedical ethics are complex.
Original Submission
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:41AM
As the resident reactionary, I entirely disagree with you. Most advanced countries, East and West, are suffering a birth rate crisis that will see native population declines over the foreseeable future. The decline in people will cause economic decline. This is why our political masters are replacing the existing population with "migrants" or "refugees", to the permanent detriment to the long term security and national culture. What is effectively happening is a slow genocide, not unlike the one the natives of North America experienced. Or compare the birth rates of France and Germany over the last two hundred years to see the security implications.
And this is all because people have been choosing new cars and bigger homes over having an extra child or two. So the truly selfish are those conspicuously consuming as much as they can for the purposes of leisure and social standing. Your cars will rust, your backyard pool will crack, your parties will end, but if you have children you will always have something to be rightfully proud of.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:51AM
There is no decline in population. Yes birthrates, but those are more taken up by immigrants. It is people of European ethnicity that are dropping in number and being replaced by everyone else. Someday diversity might mean hiring a white guy. Then again, no country outside the western world even gives a second thought to equality, so that might never happen.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Thursday July 16 2015, @09:18AM
Then again, no country outside the western world even gives a second thought to equality, so that might never happen.
That's not true. India, for instance, has "scheduled tribes" and "scheduled castes" where they have affirmative action to try to make up for arbitrary families being shut out of all but the "dirtiest" jobs for thousands of years because the state religion said so. They get preferences in college admissions and stuff. People still discriminate against the "lower castes" in India, but, from what I read, it's starting to disappear in urban areas at least. Culturally ingrained, religion-based familial discrimination is nasty stuff; it'll probably take them quite a while to eradicate it completely.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by cubancigar11 on Thursday July 16 2015, @01:17PM
It is the opposite. After the introduction of affirmative action, caste based discrimination has been found to increase. While the general educated populace at the time of independence (~70 years ago) used to think that caste-ism will get eradicated eventually, current zeitgeist is that it exists everywhere. Thanks to affirmative action some very smart people are now doing caste politics instead of engineering or medicine.
Btw, SC/STs have not been oppressed for "thousands of years". They are in exactly the same situation where Europe was before industrialization. In fact, early colonizers of India held castes as a superior way to control society than aristocracy that was outright based on violence and physical power.
It is also well documented that caste was a fluid concept that invited its treatment according to how much power one held. For example, Guptas [wikipedia.org] were running a dynasty but now are a merchant class. Shrivastavas [wikipedia.org] were originally fighters from present day Afganistan but are now known for maintaining ledgers and generally being mathematicians.
Scheduled tribe is a different concept altogether. They were literally tribes which controlled large swathes of forest land before the Government of independent India tried to 'educate' and 'upbring' them because those lands held minerals and tribes were really tribal - death by arrows are still common - that couldn't be controlled like pest as the British did with gun.
The ugliest form of caste-ism, which is how it is shown in media, exists in Indian villages that are still largely agrarian. And I think it will only be solved by industrialization. A capitalist cannot afford to not hire someone due to his/her caste.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @05:00AM
Most advanced countries, East and West, are suffering a birth rate crisis that will see native population declines over the foreseeable future.
We need global population declines.
The decline in people will cause economic decline.
Well, too bad. Any system that relies on infinite growth or unsustainable population levels is flawed beyond belief. Yes, there will be some growing pains, but it's ultimately necessary. What else would you have us do? Maintain unsustainable population growth so that the mystical, magical, and all-important 'conomy can thrive? That seems a bit shortsighted.
What is effectively happening is a slow genocide, not unlike the one the natives of North America experienced.
How the hell is that genocide?
Or compare the birth rates of France and Germany over the last two hundred years to see the security implications.
Not seeing it. Are you by chance referring to the terrorist bogeyman? Because I'm not a sucker, so I don't buy into the notion that it's as big of a problem as lots of fearmongers claim, especially in first world countries.
And this is all because people have been choosing new cars and bigger homes over having an extra child or two.
Excessive waste is also a problem. We shouldn't replace the excessive waste with more children, however.
but if you have children you will always have something to be rightfully proud of.
Not everyone wants children, so speak for yourself.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by linuxrocks123 on Thursday July 16 2015, @09:09AM
And this is all because people have been choosing new cars and bigger homes over having an extra child or two. So the truly selfish are those conspicuously consuming as much as they can for the purposes of leisure and social standing. Your cars will rust, your backyard pool will crack, your parties will end, but if you have children you will always have something to be rightfully proud of.
My life will end. After that, I'll have nothing to be proud of except the impact I had on the world while alive. Part of that impact is living a good life for myself, which I could never do with a whiny, needy, mentally immature human dragging me down for two decades. Another part is helping other people. Helping a child grow up is certainly one way to have an impact on the world, but there are less pedestrian ways, too, such as taking seriously a career where you have the potential to help others through your work. And having a child is more of a crap shoot because the child might be defective somehow and be a net negative for the world. It's really rolling the dice.
If western countries think having children is so important, they should subsidize it. But I think we have enough people around. We really don't need that many.