Two things happened in the past several days which give an insight into people's attitude towards children these days.
First, Sir Elton John said it would be "heartbreaking" when the boy born to him and his homosexual partner David Furnish, using the services of an American surrogate mother, discovered he had no mummy. But he wanted him to have a brother or sister to go to school with him and to play with him.
Bill Muehlenberg wrote:
Am I the only one absolutely staggered by all this? He has a flash of insight and honesty, realising that he is messing with his own child big time by denying him his right to have a biological mother (and father), and yet he says he wants to do it all over again!
Is this the height of selfishness or what? Is this the height of stupidity or what? Is this the height of arrogance and callousness or what? I repeat: Elton is a big fat selfish greedy pig. No question about it. So is every single adult boofhead who thinks he or she has a right to deliberately bring children into the world robbed of their own mother and father.
I do not resile from this statement for a moment. I am sick and tired of seeing poor defenseless and helpless children being treated as mere commodities or fashion statements for completely selfish adults who think they can buck biology, spurn morality, and defy logic.
Shame on Elton, and shame on all these other selfish social engineers who do not give a rap about the well-being of children and simply want to satisfy their own greedy wants. They are deliberately creating a new stolen generation - cavalierly denying children the two most important people they will ever need.
But we live in an age which is contemptuous of children and their basic human rights. All the attention is on the selfish whims and wants of immature adults who think the world owes them everything - including their own designer children.
Second, Peter Saunders reported that the number of babies created by IVF and subsequently aborted because of Down's syndrome is increasing - because, he says, society is increasingly taking the view that it is better if children with this condition are not born at all.
His piece was prompted by a report in the Daily Mail. He notes readers' comments on the report at MailOnline - frighteningly indicative, he says, of growing intolerance of disability in our society.
(For the uninitiated, people visiting MailOnline can vote "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" in favour or otherwise of readers' comments.)
The most popular comment on the report, with 540 "thumbs up," read:
It is not selfish to prevent a lifetime of pain, misery and social rejection. Not to mention the psychological damage those with Down's Syndrome experience. It must be a very tough decision for the mothers so the added pressure and guilt-tripping does not help.
The comment with the most (246) "thumbs down" said:
These women are the result of the 'me me me' consumerist society - where nobody apparently should be forced to get outside of their comfort zone - in case it makes them 'feel bad.' It's an utterly disgraceful stat - and eugenics is not too harsh a word to use.
The idea that only God can give life and only God has the right to take it seems quite to have gone out of fashion. The general idea seems to be "I'll choose what I do, and whatever I decide to think about it is fine."
I think the most praiseworthy of the comments was one which said
My son has Down's Syndrome and Bladder Entrophy. We never knew until he was born as I refused screening for Down's. I was 21 and it made no difference to me. I also lost his twin at 5 weeks. If that's not the survival of the fittest, I don't know what is!!! I have been asked before that if I could, would I change him? The answer is no. My son is the light of my life and I would choose to have him again a million times over.
Talking about abortion, I saw a slogan on a poster on a pro-life website that said
Life is the right of every child. Not a special privilege for the fortunate, the planned, and the perfect.
