“Kill me now so I won’t have to die a miserable death 37 years later.”
If only fetuses could talk. Is this what we would hear?
“Dire diseases being decimated with gene testing.
Births of babies with cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs dropped with wider testing”
This MSNBC article is covering one of our marvels of modern medicine: we can detect, with fairly low percentages of being wrong, who will have genetic-related diseases such as cystic fibrosis.
How does genetic testing in utero help us, as a society, control these diseases?
By killing the in-utero babies suspected, by the pretty-good-but-not-perfect tests, of having the disease.
If we killed each and every woman determined to have breast cancer, we would have no more problem with breast cancer.
If we killed each person with schizophrenia, we could control the ravages of schizophrenia.
It is not the diseases being decimated, it is people with illnesses being decimated.
You can consider that a cure, if you want to. Me, I don’t. I consider it inhumane.
This is disgusting. Lets’ look at this honestly and call it what it is. Thankfully, this story actually acknowledges the truth that one of the main health benefits of genetic testing is that it leads to the path of killing the baby before the baby is born.
This story actually says straight-up: we control the diseaase by aborting the in-utero baby suspected of having the disease.
How does the baby feel about this?
Well, if you kill the baby, we will never know.
However, over at the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, there are tens of thousands of people who can reasonably give you and answer. UCF says 30,000 people. You think each of these should ahve been aborted? If only we had systematic genetic screening back then?
Your genetic counselor will tell you that you should abort your baby if the baby is one of these 30,000. Or at least will hurry into the exam room, and let you know there are “options,” and this is why genetic testing is promoted so heavily early in pregnancy.
Why kill a baby, in utero, who seems destined to have CF by the genetic testing?
we can come up with our speculative, hypothetical reasons: to save misery, to spare the burden on society, etc.
But we don’t have to speculate. We could just ask the 30,000 people in the U.S. about their view. And, we don’t even really have to do that! We can simply look at their existence as evidence that they would prefer their life of misery compared to a foreshortened, immediate death. I am not really sure how to express this, but I guess what I am trying to say is: If CF is so horrible, why aren’t these people with CF killing themselves off?
sure, I know that if I searched, or if we really did the study, we could probably find a suicide rate in people with CF that is higher than the national average for all of us in general.
to me, that does not make the case. If a policy or medical recommendation is: your baby will have CF, so better to kill it off now, in utero, while the law still allows us to do this,” that is tantamount to saying one of two things: either CF is so terrible that we will kill the baby now, saving the person the trouble later, and helping the person avoid some level of misery that is beyond tolerance, or we are saying that the burden of the disease is so horrible on the rest of us that we should kill the baby now, before we really all have to start throwing money at their miserable life.
Take your pick.
Where are we, as democrats, on this issue?
The power elite want to enjoy their nation, their society, without having the landsacpe spoiled by us plain folks limping around with our infirmities.
The power elite, the haves, don’t want us being a burden upon their wealth with our desire but inability to financially manage these chronic illnesses.
The power elite want taxes to go to roads, so they can drive when they prefer not to travel by plane, and they want the taxes to go to national defense, so we can carry on as usual within our safe borders.
The power elite, the upper class, don’t want to give away a portion of their money to provide humane care for our own citizens.
So, we have these instituted establishments for controlling these burdensome, sorry, limping, coughing disease-ridden people. The medical establishment, the research machine, the medical societies, the maintenance of legal abortion for such purposes, and a mythology about “choice,” etc.
Hopefully, we as democrats can take our concern for the little guy and sustain political positions that are right: what is humane, what is moral.
And work it.
The wealthly and powerful never know when they will be toppled from their position. This can happen in many ways. It could happen by the strike of illness.
Also, a person with CF could possibly – just possibly – do more than consume our tax dollars, and be a joy to their immediate family and friends.
Any person with CF might be the one to find a cure for CF, or who knows what other problem or malady.
Each of us deserves to have a free life of opportunity to do whatever it is we are going to do. And just watch what we can do in a free society. If given the chance.
Sure it is extemely unlikely, but there are human beings that have done worthwhile things before the age of 37. So, don’t let that median life span fool ya. I know it is difficult to think of any examples, but I know I can if I try.
Hmmm. Is there any value in a life of 37 years? Or should we simply kill someone because they will be 37 years of burden.
Wait: it gets better: the lifespan has been getting ayear longer each year, across the last 3 decades!
Throw in some computer-modeling, and we can reasonably assume that the lifespan is extending to -egads – 47!!
Use the global-warming projections, add a hockey stick curve, and the life span projections go to a hundred!!!
Where are we, as democrats, on this issue? Figting for the little guy? Fighting for fairness in the pursuit of happiness?
Or have we joined up with the comunists, the socialists, the marxists, in their top-down strategy of culling the weak to benefit the collective, overall? And calling that “progress?”
We had better get our values straightened out now. Because sooner or later, someone will come up with the genetic test for same-sex orientation, and parents will make a decision to abort based on a positive-screen result. And where will we be, on that day, on that issue?
Is the essence, the defining characteristic, of our party some handful of core values, or is the essense the allegiance to whatever handful of constituencies that can be strung together to win some elections and maintain an ongoing party apparatus?
We need to decide. Because on that day that a company is marketing a prenatal genetic test for same-sex orientation, we will end up cutting loose the abortion constituency, or the same-sex constituency.