Posted on 01/06/2006 7:19:14 PM PST by Coleus
GREAT BRITAIN, January 6, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) –Screening unborn babies for birth defects is poised to leap to a whole new level. Research by British scientists suggests it will soon be possible to screen human embryos for thousands of genetic disorders.
In most cases, current screening techniques are carried out on babies conceived through in vitro fertilization (IVF), before the child is implanted in the womb. In such cases, a child carrying a recognized genetic disorder is “discarded.”
The new procedure builds upon existing methods of testing babies, conceived in vitro, for disease before they are implanted in the womb. These advances in genetic screening are limited to children conceived through IVF techniques.
A study issued by the U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) shows improved estimates of birth defect frequencies in the U.S. population. The study has provided more accurate estimates of the rates of 18 major birth defects.
While the study states that the purpose of improving estimate accuracy is to help prevent birth defects, in fact pre-natal screening for disorders usually results in death by abortion for the children who are identified with the potential to develop a particular disease. In the U.S. 90% of all children with Down’s syndrome are aborted. In Canada the number is 85%.
While present testing methods have been able to identify close to 150 disorders, there are about 6,000 disorders caused by single-gene mutations that could potentially be identified with new technology. Currently, scientists can only test for known variations of genetic mutations, such as cystic fibrosis, and then only if the particular strain has been previously identified.
Having a genetic potential for a certain disease in no way means certain development of the disorder. Many people in full health carry in their genes potential for disease that never develops.
Research has shown that IVF babies have a dramatically increased likelihood of carrying birth defects. Recent studies from the United States, Finland and Australia, to name a few, show as high as 40% incidence of genetic disorders in IVF babies.
In October 2005, Health Canada spokesman Bill Maga said the department plans to introduce genetic screening to IVF clinics in May 2006.
The New Eugenics: Latest Advance in Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis Extolled
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jan/04012910.html
Genetic Screening of Embryos to be “Regulated” by Health Canada
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/oct/05100504.html
42% of IVF Ova Carry Genetic Abnormalities New Studies Show
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/oct/05101905.html
Modern day Sodom ping
I think they should be checked for any unnaturally strong attraction to tempered glass containers.
Yet another reason for people to adopt.
Yes, it's so refreshing to see a child born without limbs, or congenital heart defects. Down's syndrome is a blessing for both the child and the parent who now spends the rest of their life caring for the child. Healthy, WANTED babies are the bane of our existance. < /sarcasm off>
If you could KNOW your child would have 20/20 vision, be very intelligent, have all fingers and toes, and have a predisposition to lead a long and healthy life .... would you turn it down? I wouldn't.
If I could have my genes modified to not have a propensity to be nearsighted, that would allow me to tan, have stronger teeth, and have a metabolism that was not prone to storing more fat than desired ... I'd jump at that.
If you don't want this, that is your right. Far be it from me to force you to join in on the miricles of modern science. By the same token; you have no 'right' to prevent me from seeking the same.
""Yes, it's so refreshing to see a child born without limbs, or congenital heart defects. Down's syndrome is a blessing for both the child and the parent who now spends the rest of their life caring for the child. Healthy, WANTED babies are the bane of our existance.""
You are way off. I'm going to let others flame you. No one said healthy wanted babies are a bad thing. You are an idiot.
I disagree with your general stance on this issue, but this specifically. Our eventual progeny may one day live in a set of circumstances where "over-efficient" fat storage, deemed undesirable in our current state of affluence, would be an immense survival benefit. A diverse pool of genes is good for all species. Human suffering is horrible, but I don't think this is the best way to go about alleviating it.
You are a perfect example of the me generation. So lazy and selfish they they would kill the most defenseless and innocent form of life just so they don't have to be bothered with taking care of someone who requires more.
Is this going to be the nuclear power of the 21st century - yet another technology that Asians will adopt, and flourish with, and use to take still more of our jobs?
You are confused. Go back and read the posts.
This was ment for you
One day you will be weak and defenseless, Your next of kin might have the same attitude as you
You are a perfect example of the me generation. So lazy and selfish they they would kill the most defenseless and innocent form of life just so they don't have to be bothered with taking care of someone who requires more.
Dear Hodar,
Did you read the article?
The article criticizes the use of genetic screening combined with IVF, because unborn children who come up with genetic defects will be killed, not healed.
The article isn't talking about technology to screen for genetic defects and then provide therapy, but rather to deal death to those who aren't "perfect."
sitetest
PING!!
Possibly due to the drugs used to stimulate ovulation. I remember an article a year or two back in Discover magazine, that said eggs do the final chromosome division better (which occurs after fertilization - learnt something new there) if they have properly matured over several cycles, not just one.
So forcing the eggs could be bad news. Also bad news for women with lessened fertility - if they do conceive, their babies are at heightened risk for miscarriage or defect.
You spittled forth, "If I could have my genes modified..." Sadly, you offer tripe for gold; this article is about genetic screening in order to 'find the defective' already conceived humans and then terminate them at their embryo age. If we tested your genes and found a propensity to parent 'defective embryos' should we terminate you, to stop the 'mess' at the source? You apparently see nothing amiss in such tactics of selection that result in killing beings at their earliest age of life already begun. Figures, having read a few of your past offerings ...
Moral Absolutes Ping.
Lots of links, (thanks, Coleus!) on the thread. Anyone who looks into IVF with an unbiased attitude and any respect for life, will understand that it is gravely immoral and wrong.
Why do people want children? For the happiness and wellbeing of the child, or because it feeds some want or need of the parent?
Sometimes I hear people say something like this:
"Oh, I'd like a child or two someday. I'd enjoy having children."
Ha. Sometimes they're enjoyable, sometimes they're a royal pain, and sometimes they break your heart. "Enjoying" them is not a good reason to have them. If there weren't so many abortions there'd be plenty of infants to adopt, so the parents who have a hard time conceiving would have children to raise who needed loving parents. Problem solved without resorting to Frankenscience.
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
In college I once had a discussion with a fellow student whose life's dream was to work with children who had Down's syndrome. She was pro-abortion. I attempted to tell her considering her career choice, her position on abortion was contradictory and made no sense as such children were targeted (even then) for abortion and it would only get worse. I didn't realize the present day percentage for the abortion of children with Down's Syndrome was so high. Astounding and terribly tragic.
Failed Liberal solutions beget even more horrific Liberal solutions also doomed to failure.
Yes, and their "solutions" create problems infinitely worse than the ones they futilely [is that a real word?] tried to solve.
Some problems cannot be done away with. This world is not created to be a playground; it's more like a rehabilitation center. It has built in "problems". Such difficulties give us all opportunities to develop things like love, faith, charity, self-sacrifice, concern for others, courage - the list is long. Liberals want to re-engineer the world - as though God made a bunch of mistakes, and they're going to fix it. But everything they do creates worse and worse problems, as you note.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.