Apparently, "‘pre-conception’ testing for a small number of conditions is already done in some schools in Australia and Canada".
Are the parents of these students approached for their consent? Do they even know this is going on? Are they nuts to allow this?
If this treatment gains acceptance, what might the future bring?
First, we're offered an expensive kit, which helps to pay for R&D. And hey, we have the makings of a DNA database, which can be sold to - or co-opted by the State, at any time.
Second, it's offered on the NHS, thus guaranteeing the pharmaceuticals an income and free access to a steady stream of
Third, pre-conception testing becomes prevalent and thence, is deemed to be a "right", as the DNA-tweaked offspring are deemed to be superior (even though long-term studies into DNA manipulation will not have been done and hence, we'll be unaware of unintended consequences).
Fourth, screening/filtering becomes mandatory, for the sake of the cheeeldren (TM Leg-Iron). Those who reject such treatment are considered to be selfish, or child abusers. Possibly even anti-State, depending on what sort of government we have at the time.
Perhaps some will be denied the right to have children.
Who knows. This could be the start of the Brave New World.
.bmp){kind=small}
6 comments:
It is a think line between eugenics and some of the less savory aspects of human nature. One argument is that nobody would willingly have a seriously deformed child. As to the National DNA Database one would quail if the full ramifications were thought about.
Discouraging or even prohibiting people with “harmful” genes from having children makes little sense if the real aim is to eradicate serious diseases. A child who suffers from an illness of such severity that some consider it grounds to have justified preventing their conception in the first place, would be very unlikely to ever have offspring of his or her own. In other words that child wouldn’t ultimately pass on their genes (“harmful” or otherwise), anyway.
The whole business is disturbing, especially when you consider that not having blond hair and blue eyes is, as far as some people are concerned, an indication of the presence of “harmful” genes. Tinkering with nature in the hope of breeding something out of society is, regardless of how well intentioned, suggestive of master race mentality, with those who don’t fit the bill being seen as having no right to exist.
Most proponents of genetic screening fail to see that they’re just repeating the same arguments the Nazis came out with. Very distasteful.
We probably don't know the half of it, Joe.
It's very disturbing, Robert. They always sell it to the populace on some populist premise, or for 'security' reasons. They play to our emotions - mostly fear, vanity and greed.
Is it coincidence that history has virtually been written out of our schools curriculum?
Gove says he plans to reinstate it. I shall watch that space with interest - particularly to see if there are disparities with the Gove history books and those that we grew up with.
The trouble is it sounds so noble and people get taken in, that happens with so many other things that eventually become the accepted norm. To me it is all part and parcel of our 'servile minds'. We don't rebel, we don't question, we certainly do not look at the larger picture. We accept the whole grinding process that is eroding our freedom and values. It's not even laughable, it is scary.
Ain't it just, Fay!
Beware of government bearing gifts. As the esteemed Leg-Iron says, it's always for the sake of the cheeeeldren, for 'security'.
Pure doublespeak.
Perhaps we need to teach people how to spot these media aberrations, so that people can begin to read critically.
pre-conception’ testing for a small number of conditions is already done in some schools in Australia and Canada", yes we have it here. its voluntary and tests only for genetic disorders such as downs syndrome, muscular dystrophy, SMA, and a few others. my own son died from muscular dystrophy aged 10. such a test would not have prevented the disease and we would have still had him, but would have allowed treatment to start from day one, as long as its voluntary and the parents only have this option, i have no problem..
Post a Comment