The Glade 4.0

And? If homosexuality is genetic, and a parent desires to have grandchildren then where's the issue?

It should be up to the individual parents to determine if it goes against *their* moral code.

As far as my moral code goes? Health > *. If my parents could have turned off the "asthma" gene, I damn well would have wanted them to. I would have been pissed if I found out that it was possible and they chose not to fix it because it was "god's will" that I have asthma.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

No, in a broader sense you are saying that parents do not have the right to choose to have a child with a disability.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Arent you the one who argues for fetal rights? You can't 'give' a child a disability after they're born.

No, in a broader sense you are saying that parents do not have the right to choose to have a child with a disability.

I, for one, am glad that Hellfire has not blown up.

No, that's not at all what I am saying. My view is that is intentional harm to inflict a disability on a child for whatever reason.

Say two deaf parents had an otherwise normal child and intentionally destroyed his eardrums so that he would be deaf like them. Would that be wrong?

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

If an unborn child has a disability that is know to the parents and doctors, and there is a known prenatal therapy to treat and reverse that condition, should they be allowed to intentionally all ow that child to be born disabled?

Oh, so all the other one-limbed children these parents will have will not be aborted if noticed early?

You didn't answer my question. Nice Dodge there.

As to yours, No. Especially if they are on government insurance. I don't want my tax dollars supporting your bad choices. If I was a private insurer, I would disallow any claims related to the disability if they *chose* to not have it corrected.

But then, I guess that makes me an *******.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

The Wetaskiwin, Alta., woman convicted of infanticide for killing her newborn son, was given a three-year suspended sentence Friday by an Edmonton Court of Queen’s Bench judge.

Katrina Effert was 19 on April 13, 2005, when she secretly gave birth in her parents’ home, strangled the baby boy with her underwear and threw the body over a fence into a neighbour’s yard…

Effert will have to abide by conditions for the next three years but she won’t spend time behind bars for strangling her newborn son.

Indeed. As Judge Joanne Veit puts it:

“While many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support,” she writes… “Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother.”

Gotcha. So a superior court judge in a relatively civilized jurisdiction is happy to extend the principles underlying legalized abortion in order to mitigate the killing of a legal person — that’s to say, someone who has managed to make it to the post-fetus stage. How long do those mitigating factors apply? I mean, “onerous demands”-wise, the first month of a newborn’s life is no picnic for the mother. How about six months in? The terrible twos?

Speaking of “onerous demands,” suppose you’re a “mother without support” who’s also got an elderly relative around with an “onerous” chronic condition also making inroads into your time?

And in what sense was Miss Effert a “mother without support”? She lived at home with her parents, who provided her with food and shelter. How smoothly the slick euphemisms — “accept and sympathize . . . onerous demands” — lubricate the slippery slope.

My vews are irrelevant to this conversation, as I haven't offered any positions in this thread. I will at this point, in light of your above post, point out that you do indeed support compulsory genetic modification. I guess it did logically follow then, right?

Nah, RD, I believe in light of Rynar's question, Arafys' statement would only be directly related to one approach: mandating "corrective" in utero modifications.

If an unborn child has a disability that is know to the parents and doctors, and there is a known prenatal therapy to treat and reverse that condition, should they be allowed to intentionally all ow that child to be born disabled?

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Agreed. Personally, I favor a combination of 4 and 6. Parents should be permitted to get any corrective, enhancing or otherwise non-harmful in utero treatments they want, and corrective ones should be mandated (though I would obviously advocate a narrow and cautious approach to choosing which treatments are manadatory).

Much like the argument about the Gov't protecting and encouraging all that is "good and right" that those in favor of the DOMA put forth, I don't want a Gov't deciding what is "good and right" or "corrective", and making mandates to support those decisions. As has been brought up previously, would it be ok if parents "turned off" the "gay gene", that may be considered enhancing or corrective, right? What about the Gov't deciding that they have a need for able-bodied men to fight a "just war"? Would "correcting" the sex of the fetus be a good way to achieve those ends? How are we to be sure that we, the people, would be willing or able to restrain the Gov't once they are allowed into that portion of our lives? Precedent doesn't favor the idea.