I'm glad none of us are embryos.
But I see your point. If they start zapping "autistic" embryos whether they are or not, maybe some NTs will verbally snipe at autistics or aspies (or hit them, molest them, maybe not shoot them, but not treat them right anyway)
Remind them that the Nazis said, point blank, that people with disabilities cost society such a big amount of money, it is better to kill them, and then ask them if that is what they meant with all these "disabled" embryo abortions.
Somewhere you can see all these Nazi propaganda movies on YouTube.... that was the one I needed to see for our cause.
Except that Callista said it straight, Aspies could work if it wasn't for the restraints applied to them by the NTs whom they are working for-- accommodations to light, noise..... damn expectations, especially in an occupation where people's feelings are a non-issue (especially research and computers).
Have fun and take a load off for a good cause. I am not responsible for choking on your morning coffee.
Peter Griffin comes to mind before he goes for the snip. Out pops Stewey who declares the world shall be his.
Right - the way to combat this is simple.
Alert the House of Lords.
The government doesn't control them, and when the sheer stupidity of this Act is shown to them, they'll vote it down - and send a message back to Gordon Brown and his cronies saying categorically that "this is discrimination on the basis of disability and we will never pass such a provision - even when limited to IVF".
And just to back it up, alert Buckingham Palace to this as well.
The House of Lords is a relatively powerless body in British Politics. They could do little to stop its passage. Perhaps they could delay it for awhile, but nothing more. And what makes you think that they would care if it's discriminatory?
Of course they have the power! If it doesn't pass the House of Lords it doesn't become law. That's the way the Westminster system works (we have a similar system in Australia at federal level and most of the states for the Americans in here). And even if they did for some stupid reason it still has to be signed off by the Queen for it to become law.
Conservative, is that to say Germany opposes biotechnology?
I know Uli Derickson, a stewardess on a hijacked flight, refused to sort out passports of Jews, using the Holocaust as an excuse. In the thinly-disguised Delta Force movie dramatization, the terrorists praised her for her courage.
I can see problems ahead for families who do go ahead with children with disabilities. Suppose the government says "Well, you chose it - you can pay for all the treatment, all the medical care, all the respite care, all the special education etc". It is in danger of creating even more of an "underclass" than we have now. At the top, there would presumably be the rich people who can engineer the perfect designer baby - intelligent, beautiful/handsome, fast, strong. And every one of them effectively a 'clone'. Gee, is this the society they really think they want? And if so, how does it differ from eugenics?
Welcome to Germany, 1939.
here, have a free train ticket!
/poor, oh so poor, taste.
No not poor taste at all, Pika. In fact I think you just might have hit the nail on the head. Calling this bill a Nazi bill just might turn a few heads and kill the thing. It's Ayreon race thinking without a doubt.
Clique? I don't understand, Erk - unless you meant to say cliche.
Same thing, John. And those who are old enough in the UK certainly would know that.
But why do we have to have Godwin's law?
Yes, and what about the recent genocides in Rwanda, The Balkans, and many other places? The fact that these were allowed to occur shows that little has been learned from the lessons of history. I also find out about new genocides every year - for instance the massacre of the Armenians in the early 20th century, when over half the population of Armenians was exterminated.
Whoever this Godwin character is, he ought to be hanging his head in shame.
Ah, that's okay. I thought it meant one wasn't allowed to make a Nazi analogy. Someone has conned me in the past as to what it meant.
But why do we have to have Godwin's law?
Godwin's law simply states that as a discussion grows longer, the probability of someone making a Nazi analogy approaches 1. It is often misinterpreted as saying that the disscussion ends if someone makes a Nazi analogy, but that isn't really the case at all.
Godwin's Law is not to be invoked when the comparison is valid, as it is when comparing a different genocide to the Holocaust, but when it is a spurious comparison, i.e. calling the people security guards at your school Nazis because they won't let you run in the halls and you feel that that particular rule is excessive. The reason for the existence of Godwin's Law is that too many people just throw out a Nazi analogy and instantly transform the dialog of the debate. By comparing the opposition's position to that of the Nazis', a person makes their side look like the "good" side and their opponent's the "bad" side. It's a cheap and underhanded tactic that while quite effective, is generally frowned upon. A spurious comparison to the Nazis also cheapens the atrocities committed by the Nazis.
Basically, don't make comparisons to the Nazis lightly. It would be preferable to just use words like "genocide" or "eugenics" or "fascism" instead of referring to the actions of the Nazis. If you must make the comparison, then make sure there is actually genocide involved. If there's not, making the comparison will just make you look stupid and put you at a disadvantage.
Well, I don't know about anyone else but when I make comparisons to the Nazis in an argument, I do so advisedly. Invoking Godwin's law in these cases annoys the heck out of me.