Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection is just that - a theory. It is not a code to live by, nor is it universally accepted as being necessarily correct either.
Sounds like she certainly has an axe to grind with the IVF "lobby"...she makes them sound like some kind of evil organisation. The trouble with limiting access to medicare funded IVF or not allowing women over a certain age to access it is that where do you draw the line? It is not fair, or equitable, to allow some people to use it and not others. And the trouble with her 'faulty gene pool' argument is that it is not just babies conceived through IVF or other fertility treatments that can have problems - there are many naturally conceived babies born every year that are premature, or have some sort of birth defect or disability, or simply require extra medical attention in their first few days/weeks/months of life. Is she suggesting we favour babies naturally conceived over those conceived with IVF? That's ridiculous of course, but it shows the flawed logic of her argument. How much further should we take it? Aborting all foetuses, naturally conceived or IVF, that show a disability or medical defect, simply because it is going to cost the government money to look after them when they are born? Completely disregarding the wishes of the parents? Of course not. How nice for her that she can "sympathise" with parents who have difficulties conceiving. Obviously she has not been in that situation herself, or even knows anyone who has, otherwise she wouldn't have written such an insenstive and poorly though out article.
ETA: like I said before I edited my post, I would not bother writing to her. She will be expecting it and it will not change her vile opinion. She doesn't deserve the attention that she no doubt is expecting due to her very calculated and "controversial" article.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks