nodehopper
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-02-07 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #46 |
| 48. yes, technically it is eugenics |
|
because eugenics, by definition, is any kind of intervention into human heredity. As someone pointed out above, eugenics has become, historically, a loaded term, because it was used by pseudo-scientists to route selection in a direction that had to do with things like race and class, rather than genetic illnesses. So, in the broad definition, everything is eugenics, including aborting anencephalitic babies.
But it seems to me that you are reacting to the meaning of eugenics that has become associated with social darwinism projects, where it was used to try and eliminate traits that are biologically meaningless (so, race is a biologically meaningless construct), or undesirable phenotypes. That is very different from choosing to abort fetuses that have severe genetic abnormalities.
|
| -LAT: Down syndrome screening advised for all pregnancies |
DeepModem Mom |
Dec-31-06 01:21 PM |
#0 |
 -
This should be made available to all pregnant women as a routine... |
Missy M |
Dec-31-06 01:26 PM |
#1 |
  -
I totally agree, butI I think they should perfect the technology to eliminate |
nodehopper |
Dec-31-06 02:28 PM |
#6 |
| -
Yup, my last pregnancy had a false positive and we had a decision to make. |
phylny |
Jan-01-07 08:04 AM |
#18 |
| -
I ended up not doing the testing |
nodehopper |
Jan-01-07 12:16 PM |
#21 |
| -
oh, and that is fantastic that your daughter was born healthy! |
nodehopper |
Jan-01-07 12:17 PM |
#22 |
| -
Hi! I read your post and..... |
quantessd |
Jan-02-07 12:24 AM |
#41 |
| -
Good idea, IF |
MrsMatt |
Dec-31-06 02:05 PM |
#2 |
| -
And if the test comes out a true positive? |
gula |
Dec-31-06 02:12 PM |
#3 |
| -
then parents can consider their options: to keep, abort, or give up for adoption |
nodehopper |
Dec-31-06 02:27 PM |
#5 |
| -
Something like 80% are now aborted. |
SmokingJacket |
Jan-01-07 01:11 PM |
#25 |
| -
I would argue that it *isn't* eugenics. |
quantessd |
Jan-01-07 02:07 PM |
#26 |
| -
Of course it's eugenics. It's encouraging the elimination of |
DemBones DemBones |
Jan-01-07 08:23 PM |
#36 |
| -
But now, you are making a leap. |
quantessd |
Jan-01-07 11:57 PM |
#40 |
| -
a lot of things are eugenics, technically |
nodehopper |
Jan-01-07 07:17 PM |
#34 |
| -
Well, some people who are known carriers of certain genetic diseases, such as those with the |
quantessd |
Jan-02-07 02:41 AM |
#42 |
| -
well |
nodehopper |
Jan-02-07 01:11 PM |
#45 |
| -
if it were your test result that would be your business, and your decision alone. |
bettyellen |
Dec-31-06 03:32 PM |
#8 |
| -
Yes, thank you! |
quantessd |
Dec-31-06 03:39 PM |
#9 |
| -
exactly.... |
piedmont |
Jan-01-07 02:41 AM |
#16 |
| -
It may be 'my' decision alone. But let us all be honest. It IS eugenics. |
cryingshame |
Jan-01-07 08:38 PM |
#38 |
| -
Perhaps you should research what 'eugenics' means. It does not necessarily apply when a couple |
lindisfarne |
Jan-02-07 05:49 AM |
#43 |
| -
Why play semantics in this case. On any level this is eugenics. Selecting a fetus |
cryingshame |
Jan-02-07 01:18 PM |
#46 |
| -
a woman can choose to abort for a slew of reasons, none being YOUR business at all |
bettyellen |
Jan-02-07 05:52 PM |
#47 |
| -
yes, technically it is eugenics |
nodehopper |
Jan-02-07 06:07 PM |
#48 |
| -
I would have been able to prepare myself |
MrsMatt |
Dec-31-06 03:46 PM |
#10 |
| -
I was not making any assumptions. |
gula |
Jan-01-07 08:12 AM |
#19 |
| -
Aborting at an early stage |
nodehopper |
Jan-01-07 12:23 PM |
#23 |
| -
Me neither. |
Dulcinea |
Jan-01-07 07:36 PM |
#35 |
| -
A lot of people want to be prepared, not just |
DemBones DemBones |
Jan-01-07 08:28 PM |
#37 |
| -
Perhaps soon, we can screen for IQ and that will present an interesting dilemma. |
jody |
Dec-31-06 02:13 PM |
#4 |
| -
I doubt that since so much has to do with nutrition and environment. |
pnwmom |
Dec-31-06 02:30 PM |
#7 |
| -
Many researchers believe that 70-80% of IQ is genetic. That may be proved or disproved as scientists |
jody |
Dec-31-06 04:06 PM |
#11 |
| -
The number I've seen is about 50%. |
pnwmom |
Dec-31-06 07:38 PM |
#12 |
| -
American Psychological Association says "for children (about .45) than for adults (about .75)" |
jody |
Dec-31-06 07:48 PM |
#13 |
| -
That's the tricky thing about percentages, though |
SoCalDem |
Jan-01-07 12:38 AM |
#14 |
| -
Hi SoCalDem |
pnwmom |
Jan-01-07 12:56 AM |
#15 |
| -
Most studies do suggest about 50%; but interestingly, some recent studies have compared the |
LeftishBrit |
Jan-01-07 07:31 AM |
#17 |
| -
I agree. That makes sense. |
pnwmom |
Jan-01-07 02:46 PM |
#28 |
| -
I'm glad it is more than just the blood test they are using for this. |
davsand |
Jan-01-07 09:24 AM |
#20 |
| -
I wonder how people with Down feel about this. |
SmokingJacket |
Jan-01-07 01:09 PM |
#24 |
| -
almost all of them have cognitive deficits |
pitohui |
Jan-01-07 02:31 PM |
#27 |
| -
Obviously it was better that she had never lived |
AngryAmish |
Jan-01-07 04:28 PM |
#31 |
| -
I doubt there's a family anywhere that does NOT pass on bad genes, |
DemBones DemBones |
Jan-01-07 08:44 PM |
#39 |
| -
I actually worked with this population a while back and |
CTyankee |
Jan-01-07 04:00 PM |
#30 |
| -
A relative works with the Down's Population -- |
momster |
Jan-01-07 04:53 PM |
#32 |
| -
A woman I worked with told the the same thing when she was pregnant. |
CTyankee |
Jan-01-07 06:55 PM |
#33 |
| -
I agree 100%, and speaking from experience, it can make a world of difference... |
ALiberalSailor |
Jan-01-07 04:00 PM |
#29 |
| -
My daughter is 5 mos. pregnant and chose NOT to have the testing. - |
lynne |
Jan-02-07 07:08 AM |
#44 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread