That's both flimsy and a perversion of my logic, which is a direct rebuttal of the logic of the article itself.

The article gives an example of a woman who tried 7 times to have children and failed because she is genetically defective in terms of her ability to have children.

The government, however, has made special allowances to a 1990 law prohibiting egg and embryonic re-engineering so that this woman can.

The Prime Minister's stated rationale: "We're not playing god here, we're just making sure that two parents who want a healthy baby can have one."

So clearly - the state is paying for people who can't have children to be able to have them - under the pretense that doing so is beneficial to society.

To be able to select this procedure, the prospective mother must already know about her condition. If she knows about her condition, she should be educated to abstain from having children instead of receiving public funds to have her defective DNA altered to facilitate the process of reproduction.

But the alternative isn't necessarily no children, but unhealthy children who also carry the genetic condition.

In any case reproduction being covered by the government is a separate issue, but I don't see why it shouldn't be.