Mong Supporters in a Tizzy

#1
Scandal among the Downs Set..

Seems that a company in the US is ready to market a cheap [ well $ 700 per pop ] Mong Spotter Kit for preggers.. Thing is, its non-invasive and can spot problems with the DNA earlier and without the side effect of possibly causing a miscarriage which the current test , amniocentesis , does...

Natural outcome is obvious.. women take the test, discover they're carrying a kid with the Syndrome and abort..result no kids born with Downs ever again... progress for science and the ' health ' of society, yes?

some pickyness, though, as the test, like amnio, does score some 'false positives',as they call it, so potentially healthy babies may be 'mis-labelled' and ' lost', but the chance of ' negative outcomes, sneaking through is small.. So..soon, no more kids with , at least, this particular chomosome damage.

Families with Downs kids [ well, really, the Society/Charity..whole 'sub-culture' that has sprung up over the years] are up in arms over the possibility; saying Downs kids are valuable, contributing members of society, 'we' shouldn't be playing God, spectre of Eugenics..etc etc...

big debates now over whether they have a point, or it is self-preservation tactic as this test, when refined, will eliminate the 'condition' [ well, almost as women told they are carrying could still decide for various reasons not to ' terminate their pregnancy '] and, thus the need for such a Support Group/Public Funded Org..etc.etc...



Wonder if there would be such an outcry over any other condition/disease being 'caught' and ' treated' early/prevented from surfacing into the gene pool?

this the tip of the iceberg for other similar orgs to start squawking?
 
#3
I thought this was going to be another Chelsea thread.
 
#5
Fecking no way. I got shares in ice cream
 
#6
Any chance of a link, Rocketeer?

MsG
 
#8
Mongs do contribute to society, should you ever be charged with raping one they're fcuked at giving evidence in court.
 
#9
vvaannmmaann said:
Who will be the first to say "They are playing God"?
In the original post, do keep up!!! :D :wink:
 
B

BambiBasher

Guest
#10
Who else would collect all the supermarket trolleys? It would be a terrible blow to our diverse society (I've only once seen a minibus-full of mongs freaking out on Sunny Delight, and found it amusing, and would like to see it again), but if it wasn't for mongs, where would gay Jehovah's Witnesses go for a shag?

Bad idea all round.
 
#11
Rocketeer said:
'we' shouldn't be playing God, spectre of Eugenics..etc etc...
I get very irritated by the way that "Eugenics" is used as a general purpose term to summon up the bogeyman of Nazi or Swedish atrocities and to imply that we should simply "let nature take its course". "Eugenics" simply refers to any action which impacts on the type of children being born - in itself this doesn't have to be a bad thing. "Eugenics" (like anything else) only becomes problematic when autonomy (either of the parent or the future autonomy of the child) becomes compromised.

Rocketeer said:
Wonder if there would be such an outcry over any other condition/disease being 'caught' and ' treated' early/prevented from surfacing into the gene pool?
Unfortunately there IS an outcry almost every time a new test for a genetic disorder comes out: recently with the test for the BRAC1 and BRAC2 genes (breast cancer), but historically with everything from Tay-Sachs' (a truly horrible degenerative disease, death by the age of four almost inevitable) and Lesch-Nyhan's, onwards.

Any test that will improve safety while allowing women to discover if their foetus is ill can surely only be a good thing, since no one is saying that women should then be forced to abort if a test for a given condition is positive.

Just to extend the discussion, I'm a fan of the "wrongful life" argument: if, for a child with a given condition, it would have been better for that child if it hadn't lived, then abortion should be permissable even after the standard term-limit. (Down's doesn't fall into that category, IMO.)
 
#12
women over a certain age are offered testing in this country but the test is available privately for anyone willing to pay. Thus the parents can have the option to abort or not. There was also talk of a test for genetic autism but that seems to have died down
 
#13
This argument has raged for years in the big D Deaf community, some saying it is even wrong to aid a child with little or no useful hearing let alone implant them with cochlea implantation. They argue for Deaf parents to have the right to have a Deaf child and for Deaf children of hearing parents to be taken from them and raised by a Deaf adoptive family so that they don't miss out on the 'culture' of being Deaf.
 
#14
Judging by some of the posting on Arrse recently, there seems to have been a rise in "false negatives"in the amniocentsis test in the past few decades :D
 
#15
wompingwillow said:
This argument has raged for years in the big D Deaf community, some saying it is even wrong to aid a child with little or no useful hearing let alone implant them with cochlea implantation. They argue for Deaf parents to have the right to have a Deaf child and for Deaf children of hearing parents to be taken from them and raised by a Deaf adoptive family so that they don't miss out on the 'culture' of being Deaf.
Willow - the absolute bomb on this issue for me came with the 2002 case of a deaf lesbian couple who deliberately sought a congenitally deaf sperm donor to maximise their chances of having a profoundly deaf child.

http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/28/5/283

I want to stamp my feet and say that the parents should not have been allowed to proceed. However, it could be argued that it is better for the child to exist and be deaf than not to exist at all (and after all, that particular child would not have existed with a different sperm donor), so possibly no real harm has been done to that particular child?
 
#16
_Artemis_ said:
[
Willow - the absolute bomb on this issue for me came with the 2002 case of a deaf lesbian couple who deliberately sought a congenitally deaf sperm donor to maximise their chances of having a profoundly deaf child.
Did they have to dress up as cadets so Semper could maintain an erection long enough?
 
#17
filthyphil said:
_Artemis_ said:
[
Willow - the absolute bomb on this issue for me came with the 2002 case of a deaf lesbian couple who deliberately sought a congenitally deaf sperm donor to maximise their chances of having a profoundly deaf child.
Did they have to dress up as cadets so Semper could maintain an erection long enough?
Pardon?
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#18
Random_Task said:
Have I read this wrong,but does that mean that a child that doesn't yet exist,has a right to exist?
Don't you oppress me! It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
 
#19
_Artemis_ said:
filthyphil said:
_Artemis_ said:
[
Willow - the absolute bomb on this issue for me came with the 2002 case of a deaf lesbian couple who deliberately sought a congenitally deaf sperm donor to maximise their chances of having a profoundly deaf child.
Did they have to dress up as cadets so Semper could maintain an erection long enough?
Pardon?
I SAID "DID THEY HAVE TO.......ahh, fcuk it.
 
#20
filthyphil said:
_Artemis_ said:
filthyphil said:
_Artemis_ said:
[
Willow - the absolute bomb on this issue for me came with the 2002 case of a deaf lesbian couple who deliberately sought a congenitally deaf sperm donor to maximise their chances of having a profoundly deaf child.
Did they have to dress up as cadets so Semper could maintain an erection long enough?
Pardon?
I SAID "DID THEY HAVE TO.......ahh, fcuk it.
You'll have to shout, I'm a little bit deaf.

Random_Task said:
_Artemis_ said:
I want to stamp my feet and say that the parents should not have been allowed to proceed. However, it could be argued that it is better for the child to exist and be deaf than not to exist at all (and after all, that particular child would not have existed with a different sperm donor), so possibly no real harm has been done to that particular child?
Have I read this wrong,but does that mean that a child that doesn't yet exist,has a right to exist?
Rights don't come into it (they massively over-complicate the issue). It's a way of thinking about whether the action of allowing a (usually disabled) foetus to come to term (or indeed, whether the action of allowing a child with a given condition to be conceived), wrongs or would wrong that child. It works on the assumption that who one is depends (significantly) on one's DNA (rejecting an over-emphasis on the "nurture" rather than "nature" argument).

So, if Anna is born with a genetic disorder (say congenital deafness), it doesn't make sense to say "it would have been better for Anna if she had been born without being deaf", because Anna could not have been born without being deaf. If a different set of gametes had joined (without the deafness carrier) then that particular child wouldn't have been born. It's therefore hard to say that Anna has been wronged by being born deaf, since it is surely better to exist (but be deaf) than not to exist at all.

(Similarly, imagine that Bill is born with something truly bloody horrific, like Tay-Sachs': we might want to say that Bill has been wronged by being born, since it would be better not to exist than to exist with Tay-Sachs'.)

Does that make it clearer?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Auld-Yin The NAAFI Bar 24
Stavanger The NAAFI Bar 102
Bacongrills The NAAFI Bar 171

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top