Like, WTF? A bill like that could lead to discrimination. Reason to suspect is not a strong enough argument. And frankly, just killing the embryo because it "might" be autistic is pretty brutal.
I would bet that no one involved with that bill has an autistic child. Or maybe they do, in which case I'm scared.
Who the hell decided this anyway?
The Government. And they were trying to give the MPs no choice about how to vote for this law. They had to vote for it, they said. A lot of MPs are now getting pretty angry over it, but mostly over other things in this new set of laws, like the bit where they can create new embryos which are half human, half animal, to do tests on them that they're not allowed to do on 'real people'.
I think the bit where they can just 'flush all the embryos with disabilities down the loo' hasn't had a very big write-up in the press yet. It should. I think they have no real scientific clue what they're doing with this, and whilst I'm sure someone is thinking "Hey, these babies would be horribly disabled and no quality of life", they have no way to know which ones will and which won't. A lot of people with disabilities go on to have a pretty good quality of life, in fact. Some of us view disability as simply a "difference". Society doesn't want people who are different? We're not good enough to be born?
Like I say, what does that tell us about their view of us?
I was going to post in detail on this but I feel it is a very touchy subject.
I'll just say there are some conditions out there with zero upsides. Not saying the Government has the right to choose this.
Yes, there are some, but they have no way to know which individuals will have those zero upsides from looking at the embryo DNA. All they can really do is say (for example) "likely to be on the autistic spectrum" and flush away all the future Einsteins along with anyone whose quality of life might turn out to be zero.
I don't have a much better solution, but this certainly isn't a solution, in my view. It's like eugenics.
Seems to me that it should be the parents choice to have this screening, or not. This seems unfair. Where do we go next? I know that there is a prenatal screening for Down Syndrome (which my husband and I chose not to have done). Will we soon not be "allowed" to keep a baby that a prenatal screening shows will have a disability? That scares me.
Seems to me that it should be the parents choice to have this screening, or not. This seems unfair. Where do we go next? I know that there is a prenatal screening for Down Syndrome (which my husband and I chose not to have done). Will we soon not be "allowed" to keep a baby that a prenatal screening shows will have a disability? That scares me.
I think it's only for couples having IVF and have to choose from all the embryos to decide which ones get implanted in the womb, not for couples who have babies any other way. I think you're safe.
Featherways, where did you find out about this? Is there a news article I can see or something?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/po...559306.ece
This is one link. Go to the bottom of it and see the heading "designer babies" for some info on the disabilities bit of this new proposed law.
"Designer babies
It will become legal for doctors to screen out embryos which have disabilities and implant only those free of disease"
I'm afraid I don't have time right now to wade through all this stuff and find the part we're discussing in this thread, but anyway, here's a link to the House of Commons website on the Bill.
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2007...ology.html
Sometimes it's better to get info from the source, than from the media, but the media reports might help pinpoint which parts of this are relevant here.
Cardinal Keith O'Brien, supported by Roman Catholic bishops has denounced the destruction of human life implicit in the Bill. The main focus has been on animal/human hybrids - which is nicely sensational for the press, but that is not the only aspect the RC church are unhappy about, obviously. He has also urged RC MPs to vote with their consciences on this matter or quit. My Sunday newspaper estimates that "as many as 12 government ministers ...are poised to quit office over the controversial Bill." Three they named are Ruth Kelly, Transport Secretary, Paul Murphy, Welsh Secretary and Des Browne, Defence Secretary and Secretary of State for Scotland. These are not unknown backbenchers, they are high-profile individuals in positions of power.
This Bill is not going to slip through unchallenged and unnoticed - be assured of that!
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?
Someone make a petition!
Maybe there are one already, the disability community is larger then the autism community - after all.
Doesn't look like there really is one at the moment. There's a big one asking for a 'free' vote for the government (so letting MPs choose how to vote, instead of the government telling its MPs they MUST vote FOR this law). See http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ for the main petition site. .
I've also just emailed the National Autistic Society to ask what they're going to be doing about this Bill. Will let you know if I ever get a response. I tried their press office, which might not be the right starting point but I bet they know who is.
Yes, I'd alert anyone you think may be relevant. I am too.
well honestly what about calling it facist instead?
O NOES!
<.<
am I the only one not getting my thong into a not?
Seriously the odds of this passing are slim to none. The MPs are not idiots, they will see the bill and go WTF? I mean seriously, ya'll are actiing like chicken little. The sky is not falling, not yet least. So everyone just cool it. The topic was "FAIL'D" when Nazi Germany was mentioned anyway.
FTR embryos die anyway in IVF, some get picked others don't that normally how it works. And if a supposed non-disabled embryo is picked, sometimes nature throws a curveball and in 9months you have a ASD baby. Who freakin' knows?
I am having a "House of the Scorpion" momenting....
Except they already are screening for disabilities. In a standard pregnancy, women are offered screenings for disabilities such as Downs Syndrome, and offered an abortion if their baby shows signs of this. What they're doing is now offering a law that gives the IVF parent no choice at all. Your baby has a disability? Too bad, you don't get to keep it.
Will they pass this part of the law? Yes, I'm sure they will unless there is a lot more publicity and pressure on them - because all the focus is on the other things in the law, like the hybrid embryos they're going to make out of half-human and half-animal. So they get rid of that part of the bill instead, and the rest of it where all IVF embryos with disabilities get to die goes through as law.
It's how politics works. Get people to focus on something else, and they don't notice the rest of the "small print".
People with disabilities tend to cost more to look after, and tend to pay in less tax to the government. They don't want them.
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".
Is there a problem with this? Treatment costs money which could be used for other purposes. If a quadriplegic could be given full use of his limbs why should the government give him disability payments?
I think we may be understanding things differently. Who was going to give a quadriplegic full use of their limbs?