EMBRYO TESTING

[Guest guest]

They don't seem to understand that genetics is a chain reaction. People are gullible and will do the testing only to find out later that the environment is what causes the diseases to fluorish. Genes are mutated from the environment and enzymatic turmoil. Whatever the mother was exposed to that altered her genetics will be passed on but, genes are always mutating. It's another scam. People will buy anything these days. Who really knows about their own ancestors anymore? Wasn't it important at one time? VISIGOTH@... wrote: New embryo test to screen for 6,000 diseases Ian Sample in PragueMonday June 19, 2006The Guardian British fertility specialists have developed a powerful new way to test embryos for inherited diseases, offering hundreds of couples their first realistic chance of having healthy children. The procedure has been hailed as a big advance, boosting the number of diseases clinics can test for from about 200 to nearly 6,000. It will allow doctors to test for the first time a vast array of inherited diseases for which the specific genetic mutation is not known, such as Duchenne's muscular dystrophy (DMD) and some forms of cystic fibrosis. Using the technique, doctors can examine every embryo created for a couple through IVF, and determine whether

each is healthy and unaffected, a carrier of the disease, or destined to develop the full-blown medical condition. Such detailed knowledge of the genetic make-up of embryos will lead to a radical shift in the way couples at risk of passing on certain diseases are treated. Some inherited conditions, known as x-linked diseases, are only passed on to boys, but because the mutations that cause the diseases are unknown, clinics can only screen them out by discarding every male embryo created, even if only half are affected. The new test will allow doctors to see which male embryos are free of the disease-causing mutation, so fewer embryos will be wasted. In some cases, the test will allow doctors the controversial option of asking couples to choose the sex of the embryos that are

transplanted. "This is a big, big change in what we are going to be able to do. It changes everything," said Professor Braude of King's College London, who was involved in the research. Specialists at Guy's hospital in London have already used the technique to "cherry pick" healthy embryos for seven women at risk of passing on inherited diseases. Five of the women are pregnant and past the first trimester. Two of the women had embryos screened for DMD, an x-linked disease which causes crippling muscle wastage. About 100 boys are born with DMD in Britain every day and their average life expectancy is 17 years. Two more women were at risk of passing on cystic fibrosis. While 70% of CF is caused by a well-known genetic mutation that can easily be picked up by screening, the women were among the 30% who carry an unknown mutation that causes the disease. The fifth woman had embryos tested for an unusual condition called hydatidiform mole, in which a

fertilised egg grows into a tumour. The work is due to be revealed at the annual meeting in Prague of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. The technique, called preimplantation genetic haplotyping, was pioneered by Ali al-Hellani, a Saudi Arabian fertility specialist in 2004, but has been developed further by Pamela Renwick at Guy's hospital genetics centre and Prof Braude, who runs a fertility centre at Kings College, London. To test for an inherited disease, doctors remove one of eight cells from a three-day-old embryo and extract the tiny amount of DNA from the cell. They then use a technique called multiple displacement amplification to replicate the DNA overnight until there is enough to analyse. Next they take blood samples from family members, including at least one person affected by the disease. By comparing DNA strands of affected and unaffected family members, it is possible to identify the region of a chromosome that is

responsible for the disease. The doctors are then able to test embryos to see which have inherited that chromosome and which are disease-free. The treatment costs £4,100. The Guy's team have applied to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for licences to test for other genetic diseases, such as fragile X- syndrome which affects one in 4,000 boys and myotonic dystrophy, which affects upwards of one in 8,000. Stuart Lavery, a fertility expert at Hammersmith hospital, London, said the research would give many couples the first chance of having healthy children. "The idea of a universal tool that can be applied regardless of what the mutation is means many more patients will have access to this," he said. Case study: Ball, 37, is married to , 38. They live in Daventry, Northamptonshire Ball was 13 when her brother Vaun died of Duchenne's muscular dystrophy, an inherited muscle-wasting disease that affects boys.

He was 18. was brought up knowing she might be a carrier of the disease and when she and her husband started trying for children she considered having a prenatal test to find out the sex of her baby. The plan was to have an abortion if the test revealed she was carrying a boy. But when became pregnant, she decided against the test. "I just couldn't bring myself to have an abortion knowing there was a child growing inside me," she said. The couple worked on the basis that by the laws of genetic inheritance, there was a 75% chance the child would be healthy. But was born five and half years ago and has Duchenne's. "Unfortunately we were in the 25%. is a wonderful little boy, he is very intelligent, cheeky and I wouldn't swap him for anyone. But I do blame myself sometimes for passing on this terrible disease," she said. "There is nothing worse than knowing you are going to watch your own child die." became pregnant

again some years later, and decided to have the test, even though she knew that again, she would not have an abortion if the baby was male. A scan revealed there was a 95% chance the baby was a girl. After a traumatic pregnancy, gave birth to Helena, who is now one. She has not yet been tested to see if she carries the genetic mutation that causes Duchenne's, but her parents have decided to allow her to decide whether to have the test herself when she is 16. believes that the PGH test, which could diagnose Duchenne's from one cell taken from a three-day-old IVF embryo before it has been implanted, is easier to consider than a test that could lead to an abortion. "At this point, you're talking about cells, not a foetus that looks like a human being that you're carrying inside yourself. It's never going to be an easy decision, but it is different," she said.

Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1¢/min with Messenger with Voice.

[Guest guest]

What a brilliant way to destroy the human race! How do we know that

some of the diseases, augmentations, and mutations that people come

down with (such as AS) are not prototypical evolutionary steps?

" The plan was to have an abortion if the test revealed she was

carrying a boy. "

Well, on the plus side, the less genetic material this woman, who has

no respect for human life, passes on, the better.

" But when became pregnant, she decided against the test. " I

just couldn't bring myself to have an abortion knowing there was a

child growing inside me, " she said. The couple worked on the basis

that by the laws of genetic inheritance, there was a 75% chance the

child would be healthy. But was born five and half years ago

and has Duchenne's. "

And so what? This kid may now have a positive influence on others and

the world before he dies. But...

" Unfortunately we were in the 25%. is a wonderful little boy,

he is very intelligent, cheeky and I wouldn't swap him for anyone.

But I do blame myself sometimes for passing on this terrible

disease, " she said. " There is nothing worse than knowing you are

going to watch your own child die. "

What a selfish bunch of BS.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

Barnum said there was a sucker born every minute. If these folks want

to spend roughly $5,000.00 on a test that may result in the

destruction of their own offspring, let them.

Every time a woman gets pregnant it is like playing the lottery. You

could do the test, weed out " defective " embryos, and allow the good

one to be carried to term, only to have the umbilical chord wrap

around the baby's next in utero causing permanent and severe brain

damage to the child once it is born.

The parents who would choose this test also seem to be operating on

the erroneous assumption that that their child will be free of severe

diseases once born.

Perhaps this sort of test is designed for parents who are incapable

of taking care of children with special needs. For weak parents

without parenting skills, for example. Or for parents with poor

financial resources who cannot pay for proper medical care. Or for

greedy parents who want the status of having " a kid " but don't want

to spend much money raising it.

Hard to say.

But let these people do what they want. If there is a God, they will

all be held accountable anyway. In , it says:

Jer 1:4 The Lord gave me a message. He said,

Jer 1:5 " I knew you before I formed you in your mother's womb.

Before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as my

spokesman to the world. "

So God says HE forms people. Ergo, if you destroy what God created

you are going against His will and will surely be held accountable

for it.

Tom

Administrator

They don't seem to understand that genetics is a chain reaction.

People are gullible and will do the testing only to find out later

that the environment is what causes the diseases to fluorish. Genes

are mutated from the environment and enzymatic turmoil. Whatever the

mother was exposed to that altered her genetics will be passed on

but, genes are always mutating. It's another scam. People will buy

anything these days. Who really knows about their own ancestors

anymore? Wasn't it important at one time?

[Guest guest]

Barnum said there was a sucker born every minute. If these folks want

to spend roughly $5,000.00 on a test that may result in the

destruction of their own offspring, let them.

Every time a woman gets pregnant it is like playing the lottery. You

could do the test, weed out " defective " embryos, and allow the good

one to be carried to term, only to have the umbilical chord wrap

around the baby's next in utero causing permanent and severe brain

damage to the child once it is born.

The parents who would choose this test also seem to be operating on

the erroneous assumption that that their child will be free of severe

diseases once born.

Perhaps this sort of test is designed for parents who are incapable

of taking care of children with special needs. For weak parents

without parenting skills, for example. Or for parents with poor

financial resources who cannot pay for proper medical care. Or for

greedy parents who want the status of having " a kid " but don't want

to spend much money raising it.

Hard to say.

But let these people do what they want. If there is a God, they will

all be held accountable anyway. In , it says:

Jer 1:4 The Lord gave me a message. He said,

Jer 1:5 " I knew you before I formed you in your mother's womb.

Before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as my

spokesman to the world. "

So God says HE forms people. Ergo, if you destroy what God created

you are going against His will and will surely be held accountable

for it.

Tom

Administrator

They don't seem to understand that genetics is a chain reaction.

People are gullible and will do the testing only to find out later

that the environment is what causes the diseases to fluorish. Genes

are mutated from the environment and enzymatic turmoil. Whatever the

mother was exposed to that altered her genetics will be passed on

but, genes are always mutating. It's another scam. People will buy

anything these days. Who really knows about their own ancestors

anymore? Wasn't it important at one time?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/19/2006 1:11:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

What a brilliant way to destroy the human race! How do we know that some of the diseases, augmentations, and mutations that people come down with (such as AS) are not prototypical evolutionary steps?

It isn't just an evolutionary question. We have a danger in plant agriculture now because so much corn and other crops are based on only a few genetic strains. If a particularly suited virus or other disease causing organism were to crop up, we could have something like the Irish Potatoe Famine. Such a disease would likely spread so rapidly, there would be little if anything that could be done to stop it. That same applies to livestock to a degree, though it has not yet progressed that far, though with the advances in cloning and the likelihood of farm animals being mass cloned, it could set up far more rapidly there.

Part of the combination of genes is to cause some variability in the genome and particularly the immune system. Indeed, studies have shown that in some fashion, our very faces display much information about our particular immune system to potential mates. Somehow this allows us to pick a partner with significantly different systems to produce offspring with the broadest spectrum immune system.

Now, the more a fetus in screened, meaning for more and more things, eventually this will get weeded down too. Eventually, people will become more homogenized, just like the plants and animals. That will leave us more vulnerable to diseases that could take advantage of that lack of variability. Diseases do that well enough already as is proven by the occasional plague that crops up. Take away immune diversity and complexity and you are only helping it along.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/19/2006 1:11:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

What a brilliant way to destroy the human race! How do we know that some of the diseases, augmentations, and mutations that people come down with (such as AS) are not prototypical evolutionary steps?

It isn't just an evolutionary question. We have a danger in plant agriculture now because so much corn and other crops are based on only a few genetic strains. If a particularly suited virus or other disease causing organism were to crop up, we could have something like the Irish Potatoe Famine. Such a disease would likely spread so rapidly, there would be little if anything that could be done to stop it. That same applies to livestock to a degree, though it has not yet progressed that far, though with the advances in cloning and the likelihood of farm animals being mass cloned, it could set up far more rapidly there.

Part of the combination of genes is to cause some variability in the genome and particularly the immune system. Indeed, studies have shown that in some fashion, our very faces display much information about our particular immune system to potential mates. Somehow this allows us to pick a partner with significantly different systems to produce offspring with the broadest spectrum immune system.

Now, the more a fetus in screened, meaning for more and more things, eventually this will get weeded down too. Eventually, people will become more homogenized, just like the plants and animals. That will leave us more vulnerable to diseases that could take advantage of that lack of variability. Diseases do that well enough already as is proven by the occasional plague that crops up. Take away immune diversity and complexity and you are only helping it along.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/19/2006 2:18:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, ravenmagic2003@... writes:

And who decides what is 'healthy' and what is not? Will they then legislate what 'unwanted' and 'unhealthy' genes are against the law thereby demanding abortion of fetuses with these genes?

First off, my apologizes to Tom. I didn't intend this to turn into in a debate on abortion.

That said, I will proceed to talk about it from a eugenic standpoint.

Already people are having abortions based on ultrasounds showing the child has deformity, even relatively easily correctable ones like cleft palate and club foot. Some even travel to other countries, from more regulated states to easier ones, to have this done. I'm glad ultrasound wasn't around when I was being carried. My father clearly stated that if there was anything wrong with me, I would have been put up for adoption straight away. With ultrasound, I might have been aborted. Fortunately, there was nothing obviously wrong with me.

I think we are only having this problem because one, the parents are selfish and have an unrealistic expectation for their baby, and two, because medical science in on the cusp of many great things.

First off, no parent "wants" a child to be disabled, well aside from certain hardcore disabled troublemakers I have read about (some have gone so far as to get pregnant by men best suited to produce a disabled child, the cases I have read invovled deaf people). Many physical deformities can be fixed and a growing number of non central nervous system problems can also be repaired. The parents though often live in a world of prefection. Everything is just so, from their designer homes, manicured lawns to their spotless workplace. They don't realize that life really isn't perfect, that imperfection is the norm. Rather than have that intrude on their lives, it is so much easier to get rid of the problem before it is born.

Medical science is also on the cusp of great things. Soon, it could be possible to fix even cystic fibrosis and many other genetic disorders that are life threatening. Once that happens, this line of debate will get very interesting. It will go from being on disguised as not wanting to saddle a child with problems for the rest of their lives, to one of the economics of abortion vs. curing a human being of disease. Expect the euthenasia crowd to be following that argument VERY closely.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/19/2006 2:18:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, ravenmagic2003@... writes:

And who decides what is 'healthy' and what is not? Will they then legislate what 'unwanted' and 'unhealthy' genes are against the law thereby demanding abortion of fetuses with these genes?

First off, my apologizes to Tom. I didn't intend this to turn into in a debate on abortion.

That said, I will proceed to talk about it from a eugenic standpoint.

Already people are having abortions based on ultrasounds showing the child has deformity, even relatively easily correctable ones like cleft palate and club foot. Some even travel to other countries, from more regulated states to easier ones, to have this done. I'm glad ultrasound wasn't around when I was being carried. My father clearly stated that if there was anything wrong with me, I would have been put up for adoption straight away. With ultrasound, I might have been aborted. Fortunately, there was nothing obviously wrong with me.

I think we are only having this problem because one, the parents are selfish and have an unrealistic expectation for their baby, and two, because medical science in on the cusp of many great things.

First off, no parent "wants" a child to be disabled, well aside from certain hardcore disabled troublemakers I have read about (some have gone so far as to get pregnant by men best suited to produce a disabled child, the cases I have read invovled deaf people). Many physical deformities can be fixed and a growing number of non central nervous system problems can also be repaired. The parents though often live in a world of prefection. Everything is just so, from their designer homes, manicured lawns to their spotless workplace. They don't realize that life really isn't perfect, that imperfection is the norm. Rather than have that intrude on their lives, it is so much easier to get rid of the problem before it is born.

Medical science is also on the cusp of great things. Soon, it could be possible to fix even cystic fibrosis and many other genetic disorders that are life threatening. Once that happens, this line of debate will get very interesting. It will go from being on disguised as not wanting to saddle a child with problems for the rest of their lives, to one of the economics of abortion vs. curing a human being of disease. Expect the euthenasia crowd to be following that argument VERY closely.

[Guest guest]

I think the solution here is very simple. Prenatal genetic testing of the parents as well as an examination of their family histories.

If the family has genetic irregularities, the prospective parents can be told the probablities that a child may have a given condition or be a carrier for it, as well as the probability that some other difficulty may arise.

At this point, the parents will have three options:

1) Have the child and run the risks.

2) Be sterilized by a reversible procedure (in case they marry someone else later and have a more favorable prediction) and adopt.

3) Forgo children altogether.

I know people in all three categories. One couple had a screening and they were told it would be best not to have children. They did, two of them. The first is incredibly skinny but otherwise healthy and the second was born without legs. They accepted responsibilty for that and were both later had sterilization procedures on themselves.

Another was told they should not have kids, she got her tubes tied (since the problem lay in her family) and they adopted.

Another couple just decided not to bother with kids at all, though I don't know if they were sterilized and I'm not about to ask (the others were quite frank about it, once they got to know you).

This way abortion doesn't even enter the picture.

Anyone could get lucky and have perfect kids just as anyone could roll snake eyes. Its like Tom said: pregnancy is a crap shoot.

[Guest guest]

The article stated: " Stuart Lavery, a fertility expert at

Hammersmith hospital, London, said the research would give many

couples the first chance of having healthy children. "

And who decides what is 'healthy' and what is not? Will they then

legislate what 'unwanted' and 'unhealthy' genes are against the law

thereby demanding abortion of fetuses with these genes?

The article stated: " was brought up knowing she might be a

carrier of the disease and when she and her husband started

trying for children she considered having a prenatal test to find

out the sex of her baby. The plan was to have an abortion if the

test revealed she was carrying a boy. "

She knew there was a chance she would pass on the disease. She

still decided to get pregnant. By virtue of that decision, she

accepted the risks involved. If she wanted children but did not

want to be responsible for passing on the disease, they could have

adopted thereby removing the responsibility for this from their

shoulders. However, they could have just as easily had a child with

other disabilities and not known it until later.

The fact is, abortion is not a procedure to undo a poor decision, if

one wants to call having a child a poor decision.

A better decision would be to make responsible choices the couple

can live with and not to consider abortion an option.

The article states: " is a wonderful little boy, he is very

intelligent, cheeky and I wouldn't swap him for anyone. But I do

blame myself sometimes for passing on this terrible disease, " she

said. " There is nothing worse than knowing you are going to watch

your own child die. "

And what if her child had Duchenne's? Would she have treated him as

a lesser child? Would she have been dissatisfied that she did not

have a 'perfect' child? What *IS* a perfect child anyway? How

insulting of her to say he was a 'valid' child because he was in the

25% that does not have Duchenne's.

The articles states: " became pregnant again some years later,

and decided to have the test, even though she knew that again, she

would not have an abortion if the baby was male. A scan revealed

there was a 95% chance the baby was a girl. After a traumatic

pregnancy, gave birth to Helena, who is now one. She has not

yet been tested to see if she carries the genetic mutation that

causes Duchenne's, but her parents have decided to allow her to

decide whether to have the test herself when she is 16. "

How magnanimous of them. So until she is 16, this child will wonder

if she is defective according to society. And at 16, she can find

out for herself if she is relegated to the group of 'lesser' persons

by virtue of having the gene to pass on or if she will feel

validated because she does not. This is so insulting all the way

around.

The article states: " At this point, you're talking about cells, not

a foetus that looks like a human being that you're carrying inside

yourself. It's never going to be an easy decision, but it is

different, " she said. "

I hate these 'easy' fixes that people default to on a regular

basis. Religion aside, how is an abortion a reasonable way to deal

with something that could be resolved with much thought and

consideration instead.

From a purely non-emotional, non-judgmental standpoint, abortion is

unbelievably hard on the body. Miscarriages -- which are

spontaneous abortions caused by the body -- can do a great deal of

harm and can, in some instances, be fatal. How is THAT a better

alternative than using your brain to arrive at the best decision

BEFORE becoming pregnant?

The whole tone of this article has really upset me. I best calm

down before I step up on that soapbox I carry with me sometimes.

Raven

[Guest guest]

The article states: " At this point, you're talking about cells, not

a foetus that looks like a human being that you're carrying inside

yourself. It's never going to be an easy decision, but it is

different, " she said. "

Raven said:

" I hate these 'easy' fixes that people default to on a regular

basis. Religion aside, how is an abortion a reasonable way to deal

with something that could be resolved with much thought and

consideration instead. "

I say:

Look at the way the article's sentance is structured. Basically it

says that " Hey, it doesn't look like a fetus, therefore it is not as

offensive to off it. "

This makes it easier for people to make difficult moral choices.

Abortion rights activists constantly protest against pro-lifers who

carry around pictures of aborted babies in garbage cans, but hey,

that's what abortion is. If you don't want your baby, throw it out.

But when you lessen the impact of what is actually happening, it's

actually easier for people to do immoral things. If you take a cat

and kill it, people call the police and the SPCA, but if you step on

an ant, no one bats an eyelash.

But I've got news for everyone. Whether you destroy a few embryonic

cells or kill a baby you just gave birth to, they are both made of

cells and they are both human life. So the destruction of both are

equally immoral.

We can say that an embryo could not survive on its own outside the

womb so it is not life, but a full-term baby cannot survive outside

the womb either. Why is one life and the other is not? Killing either

of them is murder.

But you will never get people who are bent on killing their children

to see that point. What they are looking for is excuses to kill their

children and not feel guilty about it. They are cold-blooded

calculated killers. Nothing more.

And those who would genetically select their children are either

vain, or too incompetent to deal with kids with special needs.

" From a purely non-emotional, non-judgmental standpoint, abortion is

unbelievably hard on the body. Miscarriages -- which are

spontaneous abortions caused by the body -- can do a great deal of

harm and can, in some instances, be fatal. How is THAT a better

alternative than using your brain to arrive at the best decision

BEFORE becoming pregnant? "

It's not better. But we live in a world where people want what they

want when they want it, so they are willing to risk or sacrifice

anything, including their own offspring to do it.

I know of a case where a woman was rendered sterile because of a

botched abortion. She wailed and wailed that she would never have

kids again. I could not say what was on my mind to her because we

live in a " politically correct " society, but if I could have said

what was on my mind, I would have said, " It's probably for the best.

People who are too stupid to understand the consequences of their

actions are too dumb to be having children. "

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

Just a reminder...

The topic of abortion is a banned topic here, and we seem to have

transgressed this rule somewhat.

Abortion as it pertains to eugenics IS allowed. So let's all (including

me) try to adhere to the topic when addressing this issue.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

>

> " Every time a woman gets pregnant it is like playing the lottery. You

> could do the test, weed out " defective " embryos, and allow the good

> one to be carried to term, only to have the umbilical chord wrap

> around the baby's next in utero causing permanent and severe brain

> damage to the child once it is born. "

So true! I see so many parents who expect a perfect baby--it's not even

just positive thinking, it's an expectation. I was watching part of a

reality show on tv last night where a couple made the decision to try

to have a baby. They told the rest of the family that there was going

to be a baby around the house soon. How did they know that? They just

expected it. They have no idea what could happen.

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> " Every time a woman gets pregnant it is like playing the lottery. You

> could do the test, weed out " defective " embryos, and allow the good

> one to be carried to term, only to have the umbilical chord wrap

> around the baby's next in utero causing permanent and severe brain

> damage to the child once it is born. "

So true! I see so many parents who expect a perfect baby--it's not even

just positive thinking, it's an expectation. I was watching part of a

reality show on tv last night where a couple made the decision to try

to have a baby. They told the rest of the family that there was going

to be a baby around the house soon. How did they know that? They just

expected it. They have no idea what could happen.

>

>

[Guest guest]

My reason for being so upset by this topic is because who decides what

is a desirable gene and what is an undesirable gene? Already the

majority of people view those with AS as lesser persons and so how

scary is it to think that AS might be one of those undesirable genes

that leads to an abortion by those who could care less about the fact

that they are speaking about a child?

Raven

>

> Just a reminder...

>

> The topic of abortion is a banned topic here, and we seem to have

> transgressed this rule somewhat.

>

> Abortion as it pertains to eugenics IS allowed. So let's all

(including

> me) try to adhere to the topic when addressing this issue.

>

> Tom

> Administrator

>

[Guest guest]

I have a solution to the problem which is fair and equitable for

all...

1) Ban abortion.

Still, I don't think it's right for any kid to be saddled with a

parent who would prefer to kill them before they are born and hate

them while they are alive The solution:

2) Put the children up for adoption.

The only problem is that you will have orphanages chock full of kids

with no one to adopt them. Yet...there is a further solution...

3) Offer parents one " mistake " or one " option to reject " only, and

after the second " mistake, " or " rejection " sterilize them (both the

mother and the father).

That way the orphanages will not be overstocked, and those sterilized

parents who later want kids can adopt one if they need to.

Considering there are 1.5 million abortions in the US each year, and

many of these pregnant moms are second, third, and fourth timers baby

killers, it means the killers will get sterilized quickly, and the

orphanages will only be chock full for the short term.

It's a great way to prevent people who enjoy killing their babies

from reproducing, and it is a great way to once again place value on

children whether they are " flawed " children or not.

Plus, it helps with birth control, which is what those who would

abort their babies wanted all along.

Tom

Administrator

My reason for being so upset by this topic is because who decides what

is a desirable gene and what is an undesirable gene? Already the

majority of people view those with AS as lesser persons and so how

scary is it to think that AS might be one of those undesirable genes

that leads to an abortion by those who could care less about the fact

that they are speaking about a child?

Raven

[Guest guest]

I have a solution to the problem which is fair and equitable for

all...

1) Ban abortion.

Still, I don't think it's right for any kid to be saddled with a

parent who would prefer to kill them before they are born and hate

them while they are alive The solution:

2) Put the children up for adoption.

The only problem is that you will have orphanages chock full of kids

with no one to adopt them. Yet...there is a further solution...

3) Offer parents one " mistake " or one " option to reject " only, and

after the second " mistake, " or " rejection " sterilize them (both the

mother and the father).

That way the orphanages will not be overstocked, and those sterilized

parents who later want kids can adopt one if they need to.

Considering there are 1.5 million abortions in the US each year, and

many of these pregnant moms are second, third, and fourth timers baby

killers, it means the killers will get sterilized quickly, and the

orphanages will only be chock full for the short term.

It's a great way to prevent people who enjoy killing their babies

from reproducing, and it is a great way to once again place value on

children whether they are " flawed " children or not.

Plus, it helps with birth control, which is what those who would

abort their babies wanted all along.

Tom

Administrator

My reason for being so upset by this topic is because who decides what

is a desirable gene and what is an undesirable gene? Already the

majority of people view those with AS as lesser persons and so how

scary is it to think that AS might be one of those undesirable genes

that leads to an abortion by those who could care less about the fact

that they are speaking about a child?

Raven

[Guest guest]

Actually, while I think it's wrong to abort because of autism or

another genetic difference, I think that aborting because of a

clearly terminal disease, like Tay-sachs or something similar, is a

reasonable decision. Abortion in and of itself is not unethical,

only eugenics.

-Ari

>

> What a brilliant way to destroy the human race! How do we know

that

> some of the diseases, augmentations, and mutations that people

come

> down with (such as AS) are not prototypical evolutionary steps?

>

> " The plan was to have an abortion if the test revealed she was

> carrying a boy. "

>

> Well, on the plus side, the less genetic material this woman, who

has

> no respect for human life, passes on, the better.

>

> " But when became pregnant, she decided against the test. " I

> just couldn't bring myself to have an abortion knowing there was a

> child growing inside me, " she said. The couple worked on the basis

> that by the laws of genetic inheritance, there was a 75% chance

the

> child would be healthy. But was born five and half years

ago

> and has Duchenne's. "

>

> And so what? This kid may now have a positive influence on others

and

> the world before he dies. But...

>

> " Unfortunately we were in the 25%. is a wonderful little

boy,

> he is very intelligent, cheeky and I wouldn't swap him for anyone.

> But I do blame myself sometimes for passing on this terrible

> disease, " she said. " There is nothing worse than knowing you are

> going to watch your own child die. "

>

> What a selfish bunch of BS.

>

> Tom

> Administrator

>

[Guest guest]

The risk there is that you abort a baby the day before the cure is

developed.

I personally would not like to take such chances with something so

important as a human life.

The first eugenics order Hitler signed when he took power was to have

all metally incapacitated and physically repulsive people housed in

institutions " put to sleep. "

This was done mostly in preparation for the war effort. (The funding

had to come from somewhere.) As the plan was conceived, three doctors

would carefully examine the patient and if the patient was rendered too

badly off or too gross to live, s/he would be euthanized. Later on it

was just a rubber stamp process.

We can easily say that much of the programs we are developing today had

their origins in Nazi science and medical practices. Even in the late

thirties and early forties, the Nazis were embarking on genetic science

for the purpose of genetic preselection, which they hoped would be

cheaper than euthanasia, though their science was more primitive than

what we have today.

I am sure that if mankind " progresses " the way it is progressing,

people will be saying Seig Hiel Hitler before long.

Just an opinion. But you have to admit that the people who fought to

liberate Europe from this sort of thing are dying off, and so are the

survivors of the death camps. Without them to remind us of what murder

really is, there is little way anyone these days is going to think of

it for themselves.

Tom

Administrator

Re: Embryo Testing

Actually, while I think it's wrong to abort because of autism or

another genetic difference, I think that aborting because of a

clearly terminal disease, like Tay-sachs or something similar, is a

reasonable decision. Abortion in and of itself is not unethical,

only eugenics.

-Ari

[Guest guest]

A person would know if they have the gene of this sort that could

possibly be passed to a child. Would it not be more ethical -- not to

mention wiser -- to adopt and not have one's own child?

Raven

>

> Actually, while I think it's wrong to abort because of autism or

> another genetic difference, I think that aborting because of a

> clearly terminal disease, like Tay-sachs or something similar, is a

> reasonable decision. Abortion in and of itself is not unethical,

> only eugenics.

>

> -Ari

[Guest guest]

A person would know if they have the gene of this sort that could

possibly be passed to a child. Would it not be more ethical -- not to

mention wiser -- to adopt and not have one's own child?

Raven

>

> Actually, while I think it's wrong to abort because of autism or

> another genetic difference, I think that aborting because of a

> clearly terminal disease, like Tay-sachs or something similar, is a

> reasonable decision. Abortion in and of itself is not unethical,

> only eugenics.

>

> -Ari

[Guest guest]

environmental1st2003 wrote:

> Abortion rights activists constantly protest against pro-lifers who

> carry around pictures of aborted babies in garbage cans, but hey,

> that's what abortion is. If you don't want your baby, throw it out.

>

I thought you said the topic of abortion was prohibited on this list. If

this was a court of lave a judge would tell you that you have opened the

barn door wide and you no longer have any right to tell anyone on this

list they can not post their thoughts on abortion. I see a free for all

coming up. No holds barred a brawl to end all brawls and Tom is in the

middle.

Ace.

[Guest guest]

Read my post Ace. I was talking about it in the context of Aspie

eugenics. That IS permitted under board rules. It says so on the home

page.

Also, you were involved in a brawl with Nick while I was away, if I

recall correctly. So maybe we should both watch out going forward, eh?

Tom

Administrator

> Abortion rights activists constantly protest against pro-lifers who

> carry around pictures of aborted babies in garbage cans, but hey,

> that's what abortion is. If you don't want your baby, throw it out.

>

I thought you said the topic of abortion was prohibited on this list. If

this was a court of lave a judge would tell you that you have opened the

barn door wide and you no longer have any right to tell anyone on this

list they can not post their thoughts on abortion. I see a free for all

coming up. No holds barred a brawl to end all brawls and Tom is in the

middle.

Ace.

[Guest guest]

environmental1st2003 wrote:

>

>

> Read my post Ace.

I did, that's what I'm objecting to.

>

> Also, you were involved in a brawl with Nick while I was away, if I

> recall correctly. So maybe we should both watch out going forward, eh?

What brawl? I'm not aware of any brawl happening.

Ace

[Guest guest]

Ace wrote: " I thought you said the topic of abortion was prohibited

on this list. If this was a court of lave a judge would tell you

that you have opened the barn door wide and you no longer have any

right to tell anyone on this list they can not post their thoughts

on abortion. I see a free for all coming up. No holds barred a brawl

to end all brawls and Tom is in the middle. "

Actually, Ace, a court of law would uphold Tom's position because on

the HOME page it states clearly (regarding disallowed topics):

C) Abortion. Exceptions: Aspie Eugenics.

And seeing that members have posted to the subject of how these

tests will impact on fetuses who have the gene for AS, it is an

allowed subject with the confined of the subject as determined on

the front page.

Now the fact that you are seeing a free-for-all coming up implies

that you are an agitator and as such, threatening the smooth manner

in which the forum is meant to operate. Are you trying to let us

know in your own inimitable way that you intend to cause trouble?

Raven