Musings of a Teenager

First, an apology, I wrote this last week but completely failed to upload it to this blog. Sorry again, anyway, here it is:

Once again I have lived up to my reputation for picking highly contentious issues to deal with in this blog. I had better explain that by fertility treatment I am refering to various methods of allowing infertile couples to have a baby using scientific method. Certain methods involve a third, or even fourth and fifth parties in the pregnancy.
For ease I have only dealt with In-Vitro Fertilisation or IVF. This is because the arguments from method to method vary so wildly.
In the below I have stayed well away from religious reasons for and against fertility treatment. You could, for example, claim that God is the creator and by using fertility treatment we are playing God which is wrong. These sort of arguments lead to large and complex debates so I have stayed with scientific and moral principles only.

Fertility Treatment is RIGHT:
1. Everyone should be able to have a child (if they want).
Infertility is a highly distressing experience for those that it involves. For many people one of their most heartfelt ambitions is to have a child so being unable to concieve naturally can be highly upsetting. It also means that for those who have their reproductive organs removed (for cancer, etc) they can still have the chance to a child.
2. Screening for possible illnesses.
This is particularly useful for families where there is a history of life threatening diseases. When eggs are produced outside the womb they are much easier to screen to see whether or not they ahve a chance of developing a particular condition.
3. The ability to save one child by having another.
Sometimes a child can be born with certain conditions that can only be rectified by having a blood transfusion or similar operation. Unfortunately, the immunological match has to be so similar that only a sibling will do. Screening prior to implantation in the womb can lead to a second child which has the ability to act as a cure for the first.

Fertility Treatment is WRONG:
1. It can lead to dangerous multiple pregnancies.
In IVF it is against common sense to implant only one embryo as the chance of each embryo taking hold and developing is so slight. This means that normally multiple embryos are implanted into the womb. This is fine if only one starts growing. But if several start growing various factors come into play. The more babies a woman carries the more chance there is of complications for her and her children possibly leading to certain disabilities, conditions and even death.
2. What if multiple embryos develop?
This is a stage further back from the above. With IVF you take several eggs from the woman and sperm from the man and mix them before implanting some of the resulting embryos into the womb. But what do you do with the spare embryos? Do you throw them away? This is hard because certain philosophies believe that from conception onwards that is a 'life' and it shouldn't be taken away. Do you implant them all? That, as stated above, can lead to increased risks for mother and child(ren). This is an intricate moral dilemna, and one which is hard to resolve.
3. The childs sense of self.
What will the child think about himself. If one of the parents is infertile you might involve the eggs or sperm of a person outside the partnership. Under current English law the child would not have the right to find out who their biological father or mother was. This could lead to identity problems later on, confusing the child and making them depressed.

My Opinion:
So, what do I think? I am personally all in favour of fertility treatment. A lot of the arguments against it are religious and don't really impact on my overall view much. The remaining 'pros' then far outweigh the remaining 'cons'. I feel that people should be able to have a child if they want one and that the ability to prevent or cure diseases is a remarkable and highly comendable one. I think the child's sense of self is the strongest argument against but normally does not come into play through IVF. This is why I am in favour of IVF but not so sure of my position towards, for example, AID or Surrogate Motherhood. As for the dangers of multiple pregnancies? They exist in any pregnancy and the chances are relatively slim so I would be happy to take the risk. As for getting rid of embryos I wouldn't feel much guilt as I don't believe it is a 'person' yet. But that is for next time...

So, I've been writing this blog, properly, for over a month now and I feel that it is surely time that I told you all a little about myself.
I'm Robert, I'm 14 and I love in the West Midlands. I go a grammar school and am in Year 10. I am in maths and quiz teams at school. I help out in the library and am taking part in a young co-operatives scheme. Outside of school I enjoy tennis, table-tennis and badminton as well as walking. I like reading, my favourite author being Terry Pratchett. I lead an active online life running multiple, unsuccessful, websites and have a good knowledge of HTML, CSS, etc. I have too many projects on the go at the moment to name. These include, lovely thing irony, game making, computer programming, a Discworld fan fiction and the family tree.

Religious Views:
I was born a Christian to a Catholic father and Protestant mother. I was baptised a Catholic. Neither of them are very religious and neither am I. Following a discussion on this blog into my views I became an atheist. For further information read my series 'The Existence of God'.

Political Leanings:
I am a left-winger. More than that I am not sure. I was a communist for a time and felt that in pratice it could work. I now have mellowed a bit in opinion. I approve more of Labour but disagree with the war in Iraq, etc, being a pacifist. I currently lean towards the Lib Dems but feel that they have lost their way slightly. Besides, they are a bit too central. I am definitely against Tories. I found it highly interesting that as soon as there were rumours in the press of a general election they came out with all their policies. Brilliant! And yes, I admit that I am one of those who picked upon Cameron cycling to work. He still had several cars trailing him and a helicopter overhead but he cycled to work! Rubbish. To save my own neck I am not going to talk about the BNP and Monster Raving Loony Parties.

So that is a brief, and badly written, introduction to me.

What can one expect on this blog in the future?
- Religious and Psycological debate
- Recreational mathematics
- Historical discussion
- Political analysis

So, should they exist? It's a topic of little deabate in British politics at the moment. It's a political minefield. As your schooling affects the rest of your life, it is understandable that politicians don't want to make the wrong decision.
Let me get straight to the point. Your viewpoint on this subject varies according to your own education. If you went to a grammar school then you are in favour of them. If you went to a comprehensive, when perhaps, you should have gone to a grammar school, then you are against them. Because you are only 11 when you chose your school you are normally not fully mature enough to make your own decision. You greatly rely on your parents. If your parents have one view on a subject so greatly influencing your life at that point, then you will pick it up too.
So, what do I believe? I believe they are a good thing. And guess what, I go to one. They offer those of above average intelligence a chance to excel. The opportunity that they need to get the best out of themselves. They attract the best teachers, have the longest histories and get, for the most part, the best exam results. I don't think that the 11+ works however. People can be easily tutored through. If you are ill on the day of an exam then that could mean the whole of your life is completely different. I don't agree with exams. I also don't agree with private schools. Why should people be educated differently, just because they had rich parents. Why should they then go on to disagree with grammar schools? 'I had a brilliant education, but if you don't have money then you can't either, regardless of your ability.' It just doesn't make sense. It feels almost hypocritical and highly selfish.
So, I've now used that word three times, what do I believe should become of the education system. I think that areas that have grammar schools should get no more, and those that don't have them, should get them. This way everyone has equal opportunities. They should not rely on one test, but on a few. And on teacher assessments, etc. Some for of National Apptitude Tests or something. You can also use these for applications to NAGTY. The system for this doesn't make sense at the moment. The top 5% of one school could all be in the top 10% in the country. But in another school they might only be in the top 25%. You shouldn't have the cream of the crop of each school. But the cream of the crop of the whole country. Surely that makes more sense!
I know this is a ramble, and I apologise for it, but I want to get over two key points. Grammar schools are good. The system for NAGTY applications is not.

War. It is a slightly, he says, controversial topic. Possibly it would be better to phrase as 'highly controversial'. It is also topical. And, as you can imagine, it came up on the journey to Swinnerton Army Training Camp where my school's Combined Cadet Force (CCF) were going to undertake a day of ground training. The person sitting next to me on the coach could not understand my stance on war. I, you see, am a pacifist. I am not religious, as you will see in my previous blog entries, but I still have strong moral standpoints. The problem on the journey was that the person I was speaking to was highly patriotic. He is a fervent monarchist, he strongly believes in British values. Anyway, I diverge, I was talking about being a pacifist. I stood by this when the person in question asked me about hypothetical cases involving dictators threating the world. Would I answer the call to arms? I stood by my beliefs when he talked about a theoretical invasion of British soil. Would I answer the call to arms? The answer, as I told him, is no. I would not answer the call to arms.
Being so strongly patriotic he could not understand this. It made no sense to him. You can see why. I had joined the CCF. Surely this meant I wasn't a pacifist. The answer, you see, is no. A couple of years ago the scout troop I was in folded and I didn't feel like I fitted into the new group created after several troops merged. I wanted to use CCf as an occasion to take up similar opportunities, to learn similar skills. But my main reason was flying. In the RAF section, of which I am a member, we get to fly. So, the first time I had ever flown was when I was 13. I went up in a two-seater Tutor airplane with a pilot with over 1000 hours experience. And I got to take control of the plane. I have been gliding twice since that first powered flight, and both times I have been given control. It is a marvelous feeling. Now you see why I joined the CCF.
So, why am I a pacifist? My answer is fairly straightforward; I could never kill. I could never bring myself to pull that trigger. I could never end a persons life. The guilt would be horrible. That person would have a mother who would mourn his passing greatly. He would have a past, and most upsettingly, a future. I could never take that away. Not even if my country was threatened. War is never right. It is never right to kill some mother's child. It is never right to kill full stop. Murder was deserving of capital punishment, so why in war does it become permissible. It is all because of dealings at the top. People get scared by other people, shuffle figures around, and people die. It is not right. I hate it. This is why I could never become a politician. I can speak in public. I now how to structure an argument. I can debate like anyone. There are several reminiscings I could permit myself at this point but I shall restrain. But I could never become a politician. Just because of this. I may well yet become one, but we shall see. On that matter it makes you think doesn't it. The people who are happy to lead are the ones who are happy to send people to their deaths. There's a thought for the day.
To conclude. I am a pacifist. I could never kill. War is never justifiable. And I will stand by that belief until the end of time.