How many Einsteins, Beethovens, Winston Churchills or George Washingtons will now be murdered because there is a 'slight probability' that they 'might' contract a disease fifty years after they are born?
And who is to say that a cure for Alzheimer's (or any other disease) will not be discovered within the next fifty years?
Such arrogance, such a lack of foresight and such monstrous evil is now a part of the law and as such is now part of 'normal, everyday procedures'......
May God Help us all
1 posted on
09/20/2007 11:55:47 AM PDT by
Stoat
To: wagglebee; little jeremiah; cpforlife.org; Coleus; cgk; narses; MHGinTN
2 posted on
09/20/2007 11:58:53 AM PDT by
Stoat
(Rice / Coulter 2008: Smart Ladies for a Strong America)
To: Stoat
Experts say there is a 50 per cent he is carrying the gene and a 50 per cent chance of him passing it on. While Mr de Beer has said he does not want to know if he is carrying the disease . . .I have no problem with people screening embryos for genetic defects like this, but it's ridiculous for the father to refuse to be tested first, given a 50% chance that he's not even carrying the gene and can't pass it on to any of the embryos.
To: Stoat
4 posted on
09/20/2007 12:15:31 PM PDT by
toast
To: Stoat
A couple who fear their child could inherit a rare form of Alzheimer's are to undergo embryo screening to eliminate the risk. And how, pray tell, does embryo screening "eliminate the risk"?
5 posted on
09/20/2007 12:32:12 PM PDT by
Logophile
To: Stoat
A couple who fear their child could inherit a rare form of Alzheimer's are to undergo embryo screening to eliminate the risk. And how, pray tell, does embryo screening "eliminate the risk"?
6 posted on
09/20/2007 12:32:58 PM PDT by
Logophile
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson