Someday

Yesterday I was thinking that someday boutique scientists or “doctors” will be able to clone living infants who never age, who never grow out of the whatever adorable developmental stage the buyer specifies.  These little ones will have hair, eyes, and skin chosen from catalogues.  But the buyers will grow weary of changing diapers, providing comfort at midnight, mixing formula.  Predictably, they will abandon, abuse, and neglect these babies.

Talking heads will debate the matter of the children’s humanity as the same facilities who grew them begin to provide disposal services.  Many of the children will meet darker ends that echo the more horrible race memories enshrined in those fairy tales that come down to us from the now forgotten Indo-European homeland when two or three varieties of human clashed secondary to nameless disaster that motivated the earliest people-group’s migrations.  Religious or moral hobbyists will likewise debate the matter of these infants’ souls, and other debased society fools will pretend to follow the arguments of the talkers, but won’t really care one way or the other how the thing falls out.  Maybe a few of the infants will grow past their DNA programmed dead ends, may or may not grow past all of them neatly and at once, or may ‘asymmetrically’ and catastrophically grow.  Then the debate will center upon whether to treat them or even to provide palliative care.

People with souls will quietly or stridently take upon themselves the care and feeding of these little ones who will never be able to care for themselves.  And God will judge, will act or refrain from acting.  Whatever course God takes will not be understood, or will be misinterpreted or misidentified by debased humanity.

These were some of the thoughts that troubled me Saturday.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Someday

  1. But the buyers will grow weary of changing diapers, providing comfort at midnight, mixing formula. Predictably, they will abandon, abuse, and neglect these babies.

    I’m not saying this won’t happen, but these parents will have spent a large amount of money on a child so would likely have given the decision a great deal of thought. Don’t you think neglect will be less likely with these parents than those who, say, are only parents because they were too drunk or careless to use contraceptives at some time in the past?

    • That’s a good question, but police and state-sponsored investigators of child abuse and neglect know all too well that those who have children because they have planned for them and spent money scientifically acquiring them through fertility “treatments” pretty frequently abuse, neglect, and sometimes kill their offspring. A Nashville adoption agency maybe two or three years back facilitated the adoptive placement of a Chinese baby girl with an upper middle class suburban family at what was undoubtedly great expense to that family, and the child’s adoptive mother beat her to death because the toddler did not seem to bond with her or did not respond to the adoptive mother in a way that met that woman’s needs.

      My point in saying this is that when people make a purchase the object of which is intended to meet their own needs, and it no longer doe so, they are pretty likely to become frustrated and vent frustration upon that purchase, or to discard or neglect the purchase while seeking satisfaction of those needs elsewhere.

      I think people are simply not rational enough to perform cost benefit analyses vis-a-vis something that would arguably be the most emotionally motivated perceived needs meeting purchase possible. This would be true even of the grossly indulgent parent who would buy such an infant for his/her natural child who would then outgrow the delights of caring for a “real” baby.

      • police and state-sponsored investigators of child abuse and neglect know all too well that those who have children because they have planned for them and spent money scientifically acquiring them through fertility “treatments” pretty frequently abuse, neglect, and sometimes kill their offspring

        This still seems to go against common sense to me. Do you have some sources? I’m having a hard time believing it.

        I think people are simply not rational enough to perform cost benefit analyses vis-a-vis something that would arguably be the most emotionally motivated perceived needs meeting purchase possible.

        Children are, even without the aid of assisted reproduction, already quite expensive, not to mention the physical toll the birth of a child takes on the parents (the mother in particular). Are you arguing that no person is able to rationally decide to have a child?

      • It does seem to go against common sense. I worked for a while in that field. It is hard to believe. I should have said “have been known to” in the place of “frequently.”

        That’s not what I’m arguing at all (I do however think all motivations are mixed – I don’t think pure altruistic or rational are humanly possible). What I mean is that the rational decision to reproduce or, to carry on the idea of my original post, buy a living human infant pet, does not of itself preclude sudden, acute irrationality when the infant fails to meet the needs of his/her parent or buyer.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s