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?
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 did a bioethics class this year at uni and there were a couple of German girls on the course. They said that Germany is extremely conservative on these matters, precisely because of their history. Scientists there who complain that they are lagging behind in terms of biotechnical advances are basically told either to concentrate on some other field os study, or go elsewhere.
I did a bioethics class this year at uni and there were a couple of German girls on the course. They said that Germany is extremely conservative on these matters, precisely because of their history. Scientists there who complain that they are lagging behind in terms of biotechnical advances are basically told either to concentrate on some other field os study, or go elsewhere.
can you honestly blame them?
Nope, not at all! My only wish is that other countries would also learn those same lessons, not only in terms of biotechnology, but also the way we treat people in society as a whole. Hitler's rise to power and subsequent abhorent events were made possible by a society which for years had been encouraged to think of those who didn't fit in or match the ideal Aryan stereotype, as being in some way less than human. I think that's what happening now in the UK, particularly when you think about tabloid and political sound-bite comments on immigrants and people seeking asylum. Grrrr.....rant warning....rant warning....
You get the idea! 
Conservative, is that to say Germany opposes biotechnology?
Yes, one of the German girls was in my group when we were discussing issues around IVF, pre-implantation diagnosis etc. In terms of the general public Germany offers fewer and more limited fertility treatments and scientists are more limited in terms of what research they are permitted to carry out. Those who can afford it tend to obtain fertility treatment elsewhere in Europe, and scientists who wish to conduct research which is not permitted also can chose to go elsewhere.
I don't know the details, but it was an interesting insight into how and why such treatments and research vary across the world.
well honestly what about calling it facist instead?
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.
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.
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?
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?
Presumably costs for germline genetic engineering will fall and citizens will demand the resources so their children can he nenhanced as well. Presumablt there are trade-offs between different various cognitive finctions and personality traits. Given that parents want different things for their children some variablity is likely to occur.
I had an argument with a former friend about
abortion of autistic/aspergers people being compassionate.
Its important to realize that NT's will never know what its like with Aspergers. Calling them bigots doesent help the situation, informing them in a respectful manner can help things.
"NT's will never know what its like with Aspergers"
where have I heard that before......
I have no clue, but people need to be educated on Autism and Aspergers. Education on anything is much more effective when done rationally, and not calling people bigots, ignorant, etc as all that is going to accomplish is more hatred.
There are always people making peoples life hell - and there always will be. If its not because your aspie its because your fat, your skinny, your short, your tall, your gay, your a christian, your a wiccan. My point is - they will always be there even if your not an aspie.
Maybe, but that doesn't mean that anybody from a marginalised group should have to sit back and take shite from other people. In fact, nobody should have to be marginalised and not be able to defend themselves.
I'm not saying sit back and take it, but flaming them back instead of educating them on the truth is going to accomplish fuckall.
Actually Rosco did nothing to help me and by allowing him to send abusive letters would have caused me even more work. In my opinion I had to clearly state the facts about Rosco on my website to distance myself from his hatred.