Media Watch take note
Screen-captured from the Daily Telegraph’s website earlier today, this absolutely foul headline and graphic:
Of course, this relates to the highly publicised case of the woman who is suing her gynaecologist for impregnating her with twins. The case is on the nose, if you ask me and thousands of others, but it has nothing to do with the woman in question being in a committed same-sex relationship and everything to do with the tensions involved with engaging a capitalistic model for managing the reproduction of human life.
However, clearly the establishment has decided that the focus of the case is actually homosexuality, and hence we get ridiculous graphics and gross, sexually suggestive headlines like this one; and then we get Guy Barnett irrelevantly calling for a moratorium on IVF for womens without mans. Another excuse for homosexual vilification and grandstanding. And so it goes.
Mark wrote:
I don’t see anything prima facie wrong with this case: if the doctor contractually undertook to implant a single embryo and could have done so and instead implanted two, he is liable; if he did all he could to prevent the eventuality, and the contract was worded properly so as to indemnify him for unavoidable accidents, then he is not. I don’t like the ‘capitalistic’ness of this either, but the problem is with our society, not this lawsuit. It seems to me like there’s simply vilification of IVF here for not being proper reproduction. Obviously, with ‘normal’ reproduction there’s no possibility of suing anyone when you have twins, but that’s because there’s no possibility of controlling that process in most cases. Where there is such a possibility, and the mother’s wishes are disregarded, that’s rape, or at least some similarly egregious act for which I don’t have a name (non-consensually implanting a gestating lifeform in my body? it’s serious – although I don’t know enough to say whether that’s happened in this case).
Post new comment