Who do the WHO Think They are to Redefine Infertility?
Single men who desire to reproduce, but are not presently even if they have the biological ability to do so will be classified as infertile now following a change of definition and new guidelines issued by the World Health Organisation (WHO).
The announcement, that will be jumped on on by campaigners of all varieties, will almost certainly lead to greater demands for single men to have access to IVF treatment by way of a ‘right’.
Previously, men had to be biologically unable to reproduce, but under the new definition that has been extended to include single men who have a desire for a family, but don’t currently have one.
Whilst the UK Government said it would have to take a look at the new rules before deciding whether to implement them here, the Telegraph reported that the new definition may well force law changes which would legalise commercial surrogacy.
Undermining the Family
The announcement by the WHO will add fuel to claims that government and international authorities are continually undermining the role of families in society. The new definition (if implemented in the UK) would give single people the same priority for IVF treatment as a couple in a committed relationship or marriage. In practice this means the WHO has said in the laying down of this new definition that the unknown nature of an egg donor and single parent situation should be normal, acceptable and indeed encouraged.
It adds further questions to the treatment of women given that commercial surrogacy would open up a new market in so-called ‘rent a womb’ cases, where existing cases have already landed both parties in court when the woman decides she wants to keep the baby as (surprise surprise) she feels it is part of her and has developed a love for the baby whilst it grew inside her.
The World Health Organisation, which can be justly criticised here for passing judgement on an issue that goes far further than its mandate of health because this is an issue of social policy, has been quite honest about what they hope the new definition will achieve. One of the people involved in it, Dr David Adamson said:
It puts a stake in the ground and says an individual’s got a right to reproduce whether or not they have a partner. It’s a big change.
Having children and a family is a privilege and honour, however the WHO wants it to be a right meaning that all people, even the most unsuitable in the most unsuitable of situations look set to be able to legally demand a family. It is the biggest and most obvious undermining of the family since the legalisation of gay adoption. The decision to redefine infertility is perhaps worse because it has been imposed by an international organisation rather than originating from our own legislator.
Reproduction in Love
The proper place for reproduction is within a loving marriage. Children are the result of an act of love between a man and a woman and this is a system designed by God. as confirmed on numerous occasions in the Bible. Therefore, to take action which seeks to bypass that, or claim a ‘right’ to a family through any other means has nothing to do with love and is a direct rejection of the order of God. It is putting our own desires above the will of God and so this is something that we as Christians must reject in the strongest possible way.
A Dangerous Precedent
I believe that life is a precious gift of God. I believe that life should only be created as a result of a deliberate act of love between a man and woman within a marriage. The Bible lays down clear standards for marriage, family and parenting and it is not for us to attempt to reorder the order of God.
In forming this new definition, the WHO is setting a dangerous precedent (and a very deliberate one) that could mean that in future the state will have to fund everyone’s want for a child regardless of their physical ability to reproduce and suitability to be a parent. We must uphold Biblical standards and we must therefore reject any moves to further undermine God’s design for family.
Yet again what we have here is an organisation meddling in something that isn’t even an existing problem and creating a problem out of nothing. Furthermore, yet again we have a complete lack of interest and care about Children themselves. We have a responsibility to ensure Children are brought into the world in a loving and caring environment and not created in a lab as a manufactured process designed to satisfy the selfish desires of an adult.
I am opposed to all forms of fertility treatment believing that if it is God’s will for a child to be conceived then it will happen in the correct way and at the right time. If more people were aware of the realities of procedures such as IVF where at least 3 viable lives are destroyed in each cycle of treatment and where there are all sorts of emotional impacts on the mother which are often not spoken of, then many more people who support life would be against it. However, because the horrid details are sanitised and the procedure dressed up as a mere ‘service’ to aid in the creation of life, most people are unaware that more life is actually destroyed than created by it. We should not attempt to second guess God by placing man made procedures in the way of His will being done. No one has a right to a child, a child is not a commodity, nor is it something that should be created to satisfy selfish desires of an adult.
