Reason does not approach this issue in this manner. What comes first is not the “right” of an individual or a couple to have a child. There is no such “right." What exists is a freedom to marry; in which “marriage” means a relationship wherein the begetting of children is possible. It also includes the relation of grown children to their aging parents. This “possibility” of new life includes the raising of children in a stable home with their own identified father and mother from whose relation alone the child originated. Reasoning begins with the child and its needs; not with individuals and their “wants." It works backward to the parents and their relationship, a relationship that includes romance and their friendship as part of the atmosphere that makes the life of children better.
Let us leave the issue of selling human ova and sperm as if it were just another commodity. Recent information about what happens to aborted fetuses being used to provide material for cosmetic, medical, or other usages brings up the same issue from another angle. Since 1980, the world has seen some one billion, three hundred million abortions. That is an astounding figure. Under the pressure of what are called “human rights," the law has largely failed to consider what goes on here. Today, no scientific evidence is left of the argument that what happens in conception is not the killing of a real human being. Abortion “clinics” sell or donate aborted fetuses. They are used for commercial or other “humanitarian” purposes. In logic, it is impossible to deny that what is being used is the body of an actual human being. That fact that what is sold is human is what makes its exchange valuable.
Thus, we have at one end the selling of ova and sperm along with the issue of the disposition of those infants killed in abortion. As they have no “rights," they can be sold for one reason or another. Meanwhile, Justice Ginsburg, of the Supreme Court, argues that we should kill children of the poor as we cannot or will not take care of them. In Britain we hear also that there are too many elderly citizens who have no purpose. We have proposals for “euthanasia vans” that go around getting rid of useless old people who are cluttering up our cities. All of these lives were once thought to be worthy of the protection of the law and the concern of the polity. Johann Schellnhuber of the Potsdam Institute proposes that we reduce the world population to less than a billion.
What is the meaning of all these interrelated “ideas” from selling ova and human fetuses to reducing world population by six billion by getting rid of the poor and the elderly? It signifies a radical shift in the center of our thinking from the worth of each human person to the presumed viability of the planet. What counts now are not individual persons. They are the problem. What counts is what the planet is able to “sustain." And those who remain on it are an elite who have engineered the planet in such a way that it is only fit for their survival. The purpose of man’s existence is not eternal life, but keeping the planet viable for as long as possible. No individual persons have any transcendent meaning. “Humanity” includes only those who fit into the categories judged to be fit for a planet holding steady at around a billion individuals fortunate enough not to be eliminated because they were too young, too poor, too old, or too incompetent to be judged worthy of survival.