Not Having Sex Partner for Children to be a “Disability?”

by Wesley J. Smith

The World Health Organization is close to declaring a new disability–not having a sex partner with whom one can have a child–even if not biologically infertile.

Seriously. From the Telegraph story:

Single men and women without medical issues will be classed as “infertile” if they do not have children but want to become a parent, the World Health Organisation is to announce.

In a move which dramatically changes the definition of infertility, the WHO will declare that it should no longer be regarded as simply a medical condition.

The authors of the new global standards said the revised definition gave every individual “the right to reproduce”.

Until now, the WHO’s definition of infertility – which it classes as a disability – has been the failure to achieve pregnancy after 12 months or more of regular unprotected sex.

But the new standard suggests that the inability to find a suitable sexual partner – or the lack of sexual relationships which could achieve conception – could be considered an equal disability. 

WHO already considers infertility to be a disability. That definition will now include social conditions as well as biological.

What is going on? A–perhaps “the”–primary purpose of society is increasingly viewed by our technocratic overseers as the guarantor against suffering.

Society’s role in preventing suffering plays out both both negatively and positively.

An example of the negative eliminating suffering would be euthanasia. Society assures the elimination of existing suffering by eliminating the sufferer.

Declaring people who can’t have children disabled–not because they are infertile but due to not having access to sex with a partner with whom conception will result–is an example of a positive right not to suffer, e.g. to be guaranteed assistance in achieving that for which one deeply yearns.  

Practically speaking what would this mean?

The World Health Organisation sets global health standards and its ruling is likely to place pressure on the NHS to change its policy on who can access IVF treatment. Legal experts said the new definition, which will be sent out to every health minister next year, may force a law change, allowing the introduction of commercial surrogacy.

California gays and lesbians are already guaranteed such access from group health insurance–based not in disability, but equal rights–requiring policies to pay for fertility treatments in the same manner as received by heterosexuals with demonstrated biological infertility.

And they wonder why healthcare costs can’t be controlled.

The Corner

The one and only.