Re: Prenatal tests for autism 'close'

[Guest guest]

Interesting interview. Eugenics was mentioned and I noticed that the one who seemed to be in support of this said that it would be a "family decision" at their request, not national policy. Well, already screenings are available for a few things and a growing number of people are voluntarily using them.

I can see the tests being introduced this way, but with heavy pressure based on budget shortfalls in national health care systems. As I've posted on here before, there have already been test cases in the US where people have been denied health care and offered suicide pills instead based solely on cost. These cases were adults.

this is on the bbc website, I hope the pod cast works outside the UK.New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines.

[Guest guest]

, this is a good candidate for getting permission for redistribution via

MIC.

, I have no problem here in the US using my iMac with the Safari browser.

>

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7815000/7815162.stm

>

> this is on the bbc website, I hope the pod cast works outside the UK.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Prenatal tests for autism 'close'

This is what the intro says:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7815000/7815162.stm

" A leading academic has warned that the prospect of a prenatal test

for autism is drawing closer. In an article to be published on the

BBC Health website Professor Simon Baron-Cohen, of the Autism

Research Centre, says a test could be up and running within five

years, so a debate is needed now about its merits and drawbacks.

Professor Joy Delhanty, professor of human genetics at University

College London, says when you screen for anything there is always a

risk that you lose some unique characteristics. "

No debate is needed. It's value is in allowing parents to put

planning in place for autistic children. It's demerits include

allowing parents to abort autistic children before they are born.

If a parent can't raise an autistic child, then they are unfit

parents.

'Nuff said.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" , this is a good candidate for getting permission for

redistribution via MIC. "

Ideas from you and others are always welcome.

I'll let Raven address your comment with me adding in advance that we

have already touched on this subject many times in our podcasts. The

next one we will issue will hit on it quite a bit in fact.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" Interesting interview. Eugenics was mentioned and I noticed that the

one who seemed to be in support of this said that it would be a " family

decision " at their request, not national policy. Well, already

screenings are available for a few things and a growing number of people

are voluntarily using them. "

Because we live in a FREE society where morals tend to be entirely

arbitrary and randomly and conveniently applied and unapplied, we can

expect that this genetic test will come into wide, abundant, and

accepted usage.

It came about this fast primarily because lazy autistics -like the

lazier ones in this forum for example- did nothing to prevent

organizations like Autism Speaks from funding the development of genetic

tests. Because autistics did not take time to show other people that

they are dignified people worthy of respect, people have already decided

that autistics represent the " junk DNA " of the human genome and deserve

to be eliminated from the race. You see, by doing nothing, autistics

have given strength to Hitler's racial purity and ethnic cleansing

arguments.

People do not link mentally ill people and think they should be killed

off.

People think autistics are mentally ill people.

Ergo people think mentally ill people should be killed off.

Better to kill them in the womb than after they are born.

Out of sight. Out of mind.

When I say arbitrary application of morals, what I mean is that people

have a tendency to engage in any sort of depraved behavior they want and

say they have a " right " to it, although oddly enough, somehow most

people have a conscience which says " Not in front of the children "

whether there is a law against exposing minors to what they are doing or

not.

So people know what is right and wrong but choose to do wrong and then

make it " moral " by fighting for their " right " to do it.

People will surely fight for their " right " to have this genetic test for

autism available.

There are " GOOD " things that will happen though if such a test is passed

and used to abort autistic fetuses.

1) Contrary to what people in civilized societies believe, pregnancies

are an extremely dangerous thing. Every time a mother has one, there is

a potential for infection, sickness, personal injury and death,

especially during birth.

2) Contrary to what people in civilized societies believe, abortions are

an extremely dangerous thing. Every time a person gets an abortion, it

increases the risk of infection, sickness, personal injury, death...and

most of all, infertility, particularluy during abortions.

Thus people who believe they can " throw the baby out with the bath

water " are more prone to rendering themseleves susceptible to infection,

sickness, personal injury, death, and infertility. Therefore, the eye

for an eye thing takes place more often with those who elect to abort

and then try to get pregnant again with a " good baby " then with those

who give birth to whatever baby is inside of them.

Still, the mentality of people who want personal freedoms and the right

to choose is abundant primarily because statisticly speaking, the

immoral and " heavily reproductive " segment of the population is the one

most inclined to proliferate, so despite their natural inclination to

put themselves at risk of death, they will always represent the

statistical majority.

It's a Catch 22 for them. These lesser people know they are incapable of

taking care of special needs kids, and so they have an in-built desire

to kill their special needs children off and make " good " ones that are

easier to take care of.

Those from educated families are more likely to use birth control and

reproduce when they are more financially assured of being able to care

for their babies. But these people are the most disrespected by the

majority of the population. Their self-discipline and self-control is

the most scorned, and their educations laughed at. (How many times have

we heard that teaching abstinance is unrealistic?) My sister and I were

taught abstinence, given sex education, etc., and it helped us make good

decisions. She's a 35 (or is it 36) year old virgin. I don't know why

other people cannot resist temptations. Certainly it takes effort, but

it can be done.

Maybe they are just weak.

No, that's a flabby statement. They ARE weak.

Oops! Can't say that. That's politically incorrect.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" , this is a good candidate for getting permission for

redistribution via MIC. "

One additional note on this: Lot's of people write Raven and I telling

us what MIC should and shouldn't do. If people put that much effort

into doing what they think should be done, a lot more would actually

get done.

Nevertheless, we carefully consider every bit of correspondance that is

sent to us.

Administrator