I’d heard the Daily Reveille was going down hill, but I’d dismissed the accusations until the Reveille printed an article that said I should never have been born.
Sure it was an opinion article, but even opinion articles should at least be accurate.
I am referring to Andrew Shockey’s article on in-vitro fertilization.
I am a test tube baby. Both my younger brother and sister were also conceived in-vitro.
According to Mr. Shockey, my parents were wrong to have had us because they could have passed on their genetic infertility.
I don’t think he was right about the risk of infertile children being a reason not to reproduce, but even if you accept that as true, his arguments are still flawed.
I have no greater risk of inheriting infertility than a naturally conceived child.  
Neither of my parents are infertile. We were conceived in-vitro because my mother’s tubes were damaged after she had them tied when she was a 22-year-old mother of two.
His second inaccuracy was in tying his moral theories into Darwinism.
According to him, a Darwinian should not reproduce if he or she risks passing on a genetic disorder.
Despite his denials, that is only a belief in Social Darwinism.
True Darwinism has absolutely nothing to do with the word “should.” It deals only with has, does and could.
If you can reproduce, then you have every Darwinian Right to reproduce.
The moment you enter “should” into the equation, you switch to Social Darwinism.
Maybe my parents were wrong to conceive unnaturally. I don’t think so, but I can see some validity in a couple of the  arguments against it.
Mr. Shockey, however, used none of these arguments. His arguments were fallacious and his conclusions, frankly, rude.
I hope to see better-quality articles in the future.
Crystal Scouten
elementary education sophomore
—
Contact The Daily Reveille’s opinion staff at [email protected]