More sensationalist trolling again.

A man and a woman who decide between themselves that it would be better not to have a child due to the likelihood that the child would have something wrong with it is a private matter.

Invasion of the womb by strangers who have no business there is becoming a national obsession. The United States has a serious problem with fundamentalist thinking and this attitude of "the people's uterus" is a preposterous reflection of that narrow-minded affliction.

This is the 21st century. The global population stands at 6.5 billion. The climate is suffering the effects of global warming, a situation artificially initiated by overpopulation via the use of fossil fuels.

Sensible measures to control population are not out of order in this day and age. Europe has moved on, which is truly advanced thinking since it saw the ravages of WWII. So should we.

[edit on 5/11/2006 by Bibliophile]

Originally posted by thermopolis
More state approved death. Another reason to murder the unborn.

So? What's your point? The state (as in the people who live in the state) makes decisions all the time about who lives and who dies. Around 40,000 people a year are killed in automobile accidents in the U.S. every year. Real people, not just brainless embryos. What does the "state" do to stop this? Well, they pass laws and levy fines after the fact, but mostly it doesn't do a whole lot, because it's determined that 40,000 dead every year is an acceptible toll to pay for everybody else to drive cars the way they want.

Stop being such a baby, get your nose out of the Bible, and take a look at the real world for a change.

Originally posted by Bibliophile
he global population stands at 6.5 million.

I think you mean 6.5 billion

Serious though I agree with you bibliophile. Also this change of the rules in no way means that the parents of the child will definately terminate the pregnancy At least it allows them to come to terms with the fact that their child may be disabled or have a disorder of some kind rather than the shock of discovering it at birth or maybe years later. They may decide that still want the child.

I guess thermo you are an american christian fundie then? well you have absolutely no right to decide what the parents of a child 3000 miles away do this makes me so angry, the obsession of the far right believing they should dictate to the rest of the world how they should act.

you have a hell of a lot of more problems on your own doorstep to sort out before you tell anyone else how to act

Ok, thermopolis, I'm going to ask you a couple questions from your quote from the original source. I'll take them line by line.

Couples who carry the “susceptibility” genes will be able to use the test results to decide whether they want the embryo to be implanted. The move has led to criticism from disability and pro-life groups who fear that embryos will increasingly be selected according to “eugenic concepts of perfection”.

What's your point? We've been doing amniocentesis and karyotypes for years to determine an embryo's chances of having Down Syndrome, Klinefelter's, etc. and the mother has always had the option to abort. Why should an infant have to be born that would only lead a struggling life and never be independent? Obviously, some people born with disabilities are able to function on their own. For the most part, these people suffer from mild retardation, which can be picked up on karyotype. This is MUCH MUCH different than the major conditions the susceptibility genes are triggered for. Also, most disorders are multifactorial in genetics material. Doctors know this, and thus would advise the parents that one allele coding for a certain sydrome does not mean the child will absolutely have that disorder.

They point out that disabled people often enjoy full and rewarding lives.

Some do, sure. Most people who suffer from a major disorder, such as, again, Klinefelters, etc. will either die early in life or lead a life full of pain, dependence on parents or other caregivers, and will never be fully functional. Do we really want to bring a child into the world for the selfish purpose of simply having a child, despite the child's welfare? Motherhood is, afterall, the ultimate form of narcissism.

MFP

I can see both sides of this issue as having merit.

I can see why a potential parent would want to make sure that their child will not have any inherited genetic disorders that would impair life significantly or even lead to a significant chance of pre-mature death.

On the other hand, I can also see the potential of choosing variious attributes for purely vain and selfish reasons, like choosing a Boy over a Girl(or vise versa), choosing hair colour, eye colour, etc. Unilaterally without the childs consent.

It's a sticky issue indeed.

Originally posted by sardion2000
I can see both sides of this issue as having merit.

I can see why a potential parent would want to make sure that their child will not have any inherited genetic disorders that would impair life significantly or even lead to a significant chance of pre-mature death.

On the other hand, I can also see the potential of choosing variious attributes for purely vain and selfish reasons, like choosing a Boy over a Girl(or vise versa), choosing hair colour, eye colour, etc. Unilaterally without the childs consent.

It's a sticky issue indeed.

Wow, I am Humbled by your insight and true genius, at least one person "get's it".

How many children with disorders won't be born that could be cured in the future or find a cure? Man playing "God" again...........

So it's now murder to decide wether or not to get an embryo implanted, even before fertilization now? When does conception happen with you Fundy types anyway? The moment you even think of having a child?

Originally posted by thermopolis

How many children with disorders won't be born that could be cured in the future or find a cure? Man playing "God" again...........

More like man using his brain with the goal of improving quality of life. Of course, some prefer to abandon that particular organ.

How many children with disorders won't be born that could be cured in the future or find a cure? Man playing "God" again...........

So, using that logic thermopolis, I can go ahead and have unprotected sex with my boyfriend because, eh, there COULD be a cure for HIV sometime in the future.

MFP

Originally posted by thermopolis
How many children with disorders won't be born that could be cured in the future or find a cure? Man playing "God" again...........

The irony in your logic is so funny, it hurts....

So, we "play God" if we decide not to have a child who would be severly disabled.

So you keep the child in hope of man finding a cure for that disease.

Is that in itself not playing God, as following your logic, it would be God's will that the child was disabled in the first place?


EDIT: To add, we don't do "God" over here. A few might, but we ignore them and their silly ideas.

If you wish to preach and practice your outdated, misguided and to be honest, fake religion, then please do so in your own country, as we're not interested and to be honest, got over the whole God thing years ago...


[edit on 11/5/06 by stumason]