I had a really interesting conversation last night with two old friends of mine (one who is pursuing architecture at the University of Melbourne, and the other who is a Commerce student at Monash - who has started and runs his own (successful) business, at the tender age of 20). A few things really interested me.

We touched upon the subject of the IVF (Intero Uterine Fertilisation) programme: whereby people who are infertile or are having massive complications 'getting pregnant', are able to have children. It is not a cheap programme, but it exists in most countries all over the world.

The point of debate was this - if you are not able to have children through natural means (I'm sure I don't need to describe what those 'natural means' are, but they sure as hell is FUN!) - should you be having children at all? Is it "God's plan" that you don't have kids, or is there some genetic defect in your genotype that is determining that you don't have children so as not to pass along this defect? Or should you just accept the fact that you are "not meant" to have children.

There is lobbying in Australia now for women who are single and lesbian couples to have access to the IVF programme, getting the sperm from anonymous donors. Is this right? I PERSONALLY believe a child needs a mother AND a father. NOT a mother, a mother, and a 'father figure'. A MOTHER AND A FATHER. I don't think single/lesbian women should be allowed access to this technology. What happens if two people - fathered by the same 'anonymous donor' - meet up, fall in love, and then have children together?

Genetic meltdown.

Thoughts? Care to tear me apart?