Could Prenatal DNA Testing Open Pandora’s Box?
- Posted on June 12, 2011 at 1:52pm by
Scott Baker
- Print »
- Email »
NEW YORK (AP) — Imagine being pregnant and taking a simple blood test that lays bare the DNA of your fetus. And suppose that DNA could reveal not only medical conditions like Down syndrome, but also things like eye color and height. And the risk for developing depression or Alzheimer’s disease. And the chances of being gay.
So far that’s still science fiction. But scientists have been taking some baby steps in that direction. And some ethics experts say it’s time to start talking now about what that could mean for parents and society.
___
This is the second story in a two-part series on fetal DNA testing and the ethical issues raised by it.
___
Scanning fetal DNA from a blood test will be “without question a major medical advance that promises to greatly improve current prenatal care,” says Jaime King, an associate professor at the UC Hastings College of Law in San Francisco who studies genetic testing. But bringing it into practice “raises significant practical, legal, ethical and social challenges,” she says.
“This really changes the experience of what it will be like to be pregnant and have a child,” said Marcy Darnovsky of the Center for Genetics and Society in Berkeley, Calif. “I keep coming up with the word, game-changer.”
She wonders if parents would withhold their commitment to a pregnancy until test results show a fetus is “good enough” to be born. And what, she asks, is good enough?
She and others worry about how well couples will be able to understand this flood of information, and just what should be revealed.
The issues have been discussed before. The DNA of a fetus has long been recoverable through medical procedures, with a small risk of miscarriage. But a blood test would be free of that risk, which should make many more women interested in it and doctors willing to test for a wider range of conditions, some experts say. And the results could come early enough to allow for an abortion before the pregnancy is even obvious.
The trigger for the new round of discussion is a couple of papers published last December. In preliminary results, two research teams showed that they could essentially reconstruct a baby‘s genetic makeup by recovering fragments of fetal DNA from the mother’s bloodstream. That ability, plus the rapidly falling cost of analyzing DNA, would open the door to inspecting individual genes.
That would go well beyond the more accurate prenatal blood test for Down syndrome that some companies hope to market within a year.
Within five to 10 years, doctors may be able to test for 100 or 200 diseases, albeit many of them rare, estimates Stanford University law professor Hank Greely, who studies the implications of biomedical technologies.
Prenatal testing “is going to put a lot more information about the genetics of a child into the hands of a lot more parents,” said King.
That knowledge has a flip side. “How much responsibility are we expecting people to take for the genetic makeup of any child they might have?” asks Josephine Johnston, a research scholar at the Hastings Center, a bioethics think tank near New York City.
If a child is born with a condition that could have been detected, the presence of the test changes that outcome “from something that happened to you, to something that you participated in,” she says.
“That’s a very big burden to place on would-be parents,” she said, adding that it’s hard for a pregnant woman to refuse any test for a medical condition because it feels like the responsible thing to do.
Johnston has personal experience; she gave birth to a girl just two years ago. When offered a medical screening test for the fetus, she generally felt compelled to take it.
“At the moment these things happen, it’s just you there by yourself,” she said. Some people might like that level of control, but others “would be happier to leave things up to chance a little more.”
She said if she were pregnant again and offered a wider range of tests, she’d restrict herself to “really, really serious disabilities and disorders.”
King, who had a son 18 months ago, said she wouldn’t have wanted to know about any risk for incurable diseases that show up in adulthood. Those are “things that would have caused us to spend a lot of time worrying about what his future would look like even though there’s nothing we could do about it,” she said.
In the future, such testing could also look for other genes — some of which aren’t yet identified — that affect non-medical traits.
“If no limitations are put on, you can have a couple get a prenatal genetic test in the future saying their fetus has … a 60 percent chance of having breast cancer at the age of 60 and a 30 percent chance of being gay,” says Dr. Brian Skotko, a board member of the National Down Syndrome Society.
Since such information would come early enough for an abortion, Skotko says, “The ultimate question for society is, What forms of human variation are valuable?”
Then there’s the possibility of direct-to-consumer companies stepping in to fill demand, King said. Couples who go that route may miss out on getting help in understanding the nuances of what the test results really mean, said Dr. Mary Norton, a Stanford professor of obstetrics and gynecology.
Once the prenatal information is available, another question arises, King said: Should a woman be allowed to get an abortion for any reason, even a trivial one like test results about height or eye color? Some state governments have passed laws outlawing abortions on the basis of sex, she said. But it’s not clear whether those are constitutional, and a woman might simply not reveal her true reasons for wanting the abortion, King said.
Skotko points out that people use their own personal perspective in deciding what they want for their children. Some couples who are deaf from a genetic condition already use current technology to avoid having children with normal hearing. “It’s their lens by which they view the world, and they want a child who views the world through that same lens,” he said.
Greely sees other concerns. Will the testing become so routine that women won’t even realize they authorized it, and then be faced with information and an abortion decision they didn’t necessarily want? How can they be helped to make an informed decision on whether to be tested? And if offered a choice of genes to be tested, or results to be told about, who will help them sort through the long list to decide what they want to know? Few doctors are informed enough, and there aren’t enough genetic counselors go around, he said.
The same problem arises later when it comes time to help couples understand what the results really mean, he said. “How do you tell somebody about 100 different genetic things?” he asked. “Who’s going to do that? Who’s going to listen to that? Who’s going to pay for that?”
Results can be complex. For example, how is a woman supposed to balance a 25 percent increase in risk for one disease versus a 15 percent decrease in another, Darnovsky asks.
On a societal level, King said she’s concerned that the prenatal diagnosis might become seen as a way of “curing” diseases by aborting fetuses that have them.
Greely recently spoke about prenatal diagnosis before the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical issues, a federal advisory board. Valerie Bonham, executive director, said the commission may pursue the topic further as part of a project on DNA technology. “It’s an important and emerging issue,” she said.
Norton doesn’t believe the arrival of a blood test for DNA analysis would raise all the issues some observers cite. But she thinks it’s still a good idea to talk about what the new technology could mean.
“I think that it is always better and helpful and important to bring up all of these issues, whether they are likely to really become reality or not,” she said.
“Once you‘ve opened Pandora’s box, it’s harder to close it.”
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 677 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 529 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 417 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 373 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 329 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 270 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 279 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 153 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 270 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (104)
cookcountypatriot
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 4:02pmsounds like a progressive smorgasboard///let me know when they can tell if the fetus is a thug in the making or productive citizen
Report Post »ICEDRAGONNITE
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 3:47pmThis is wrong on so many levels. First trust gov. with your personal info? Second. Trust Drs that want to stay in God- like esteem. 3rd. Trust chips that can pacemaker your heart via satellite. Death on the fly. 4th. Trust a few with the control of life and death with no appeal allowed. THESE PEOPLE LIVE IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES, (LIKE THE MIDDLE EAST), But they can push the button to super charge your heart for political ends. 5th. What could possibly go wrong with allowing a bunch of elitists the power over your life.. O’BOY IT JUST GETS BETTER AND BETTER. ONLY THE STUPID AND THE ABSOLUTE NAIVE CAN POSSIBLY GO WITH THIS PROGRAM, BUT WATCH THEM STAND IN LINE!!!!!!!……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Report Post »SgtB
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 3:45pmHere is the problem with this DNA testing. First of all, an egg and sperm must be united for a complete genome to exist. Second, the taking of DNA from the product of this union involves removing cells from that potential life, which carries an inherent risk to the mother and baby like any other surgery. Thirdly, what will be the standard procedure for “correcting” the situation if there is some problem with the child’s DNA? Now I know that some of you out there will say that a blastocyst cannot be a person, but I disagree. To me, people who say that an unborn child is not at least a potential person with its own consciousness are flat wrong and I ask them this; why do you then automatically assume that a person becomes a person at birth? A newborn can no more care for itself than a fetus and it relies on its parents just as much. Also, a newborn has not yet developed a personality or any interpersonal relationships, so yet again, why do you choose birth as the start of a human’s life.
When man starts deciding what lives are worth living and which are not, the term slavery will no longer be a harsh enough word for the ownership of man that follows.
Report Post »cloudsofwar
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 3:37pmnext dna testing will determine who can and can’t have children. big brother is watching and testing.
Report Post »SgtB
Posted on June 13, 2011 at 12:02amYou should study history Clouds. Over half of the states in this great nation have had forced sterilization laws on the past 100 years. Mainly between WWI and the end of WWII. DNA testing is just a way to make the laws of the past more savory to the masses of the future. This is nothing new, nor is it right or advantageous to the human race.
Report Post »RN MOM
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 3:36pmWho’s going to pay for these DNA tests? This is a non-issue for the majority of Americans as we are trying to hold on to the healthcare we have.
Report Post »Jennine
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 3:32pmLet them DNA-test human beings after they’re born– that‘s when you’ll really need information about how to make an individual’s life as positive and healthy as possible. Prenatal testing is a slippery slope. That’s when you get the God-complex doctors stepping in and deciding who should live or die. Special needs people are truly in the hands of God already, and they’re here to teach US something. As the parent of special needs children, I can attest that there is no greater teacher in life than the puzzle and blessing of a child with physical disabilities. The thought that any doctor could have decided to eliminate them before they were born is absolutely revolting. They deserve to live happy lives, and I’m infinitely blessed because of their presence on this planet.
Report Post »Wyatt's Torch
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 3:31pmThis sounds like the movie GATTACA…
Report Post »Belle
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 3:30pmGattaca
Report Post »Vincent: “I belonged to a new underclass, no longer determined by social status or the color of your skin. No, we now have discrimination down to a science.”
Coldheart
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 3:18pmThis a genuine 24 carat FUBAR~!@
The implications are mind boggling.
Will the next step in DNA science be finding women and animals conducive to bearing chimeras?
Infanticide Incorporated has reached a new low.
Report Post »Captain Crunch
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 3:10pmThe mark of the beast is going to modify the DNA of every human being who takes it. It will be one of those modern medical wonders with lots of promises for good health, longivity, and immunities for future generations. Not to mention the “spiritual enlightenment it will offer. Line up for your health care mark early. $10,000 in credit to the first million takers.
This is where all the medical advances are headed.
Report Post »All you libs can go ahead of me….I’ll be coming shortly after you. not!
ADNIL
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 3:09pmThis could be a good thing even if it is scary, so long as it remains a choice. Why not test parents first to see if they have the combination of genes that may express the indesired traits BEFORE they decide if they want to risk conception? Oh no, that wouldn’t work. Better to find out AFTER. Better yet, let the government decide who is worth carrying to term and for what reason, since, once we start down this road, that will be the ultimate outcome. OH, BRAVE NEW WORLD!
Report Post »angelcat
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 3:04pmAnother excuse for abortion in the making. Now if only they could find the gene for liberalism and eradicate it before birth (I don’t want the baby aborted), we would be in good shape.
Report Post »publicuss
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 2:56pmGattaca 1997
“They used to say that a child conceived in love has a greater chance of happiness. They don’t say that anymore.“ ”I‘ll never understand what possessed my mother to put her faith in God’s hands, rather than her local geneticist.” Gives a whole new meaning to ‘God-Child’.
“I belonged to a new underclass, no longer determined by social status or the color of your skin. No, we now have discrimination down to a science.”
“Consider God’s handiwork; who can straighten what He hath made crooked?” – Ecclesiastes 7:13
“I not only think that we will tamper with Mother Nature, I think Mother wants us to.” – Willard Gaylin
http://www.thehastingscenter.org/About/Board/Detail.aspx?id=1262
In biopolitics, “eugenics wars” are sociopolitical conflicts characterized by coercive state-sponsored genetic discrimination and human rights violations such as compulsory sterilization of persons with genetic defects, the killing of the institutionalized and, specifically, segregation from, and genocide of, “races” perceived as inferior (see Edwin Black’s 2003 nonfiction book War Against the Weak)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
How long will it be before the possibility of a ****-Superior will be too tempting not to try for? “Superior ability, breeds superior ambition.”
http://isurvived.org/t4-program.html
RELY ON YOURSELF for personal protection against the Uber-Mench. After all, WHEN SECONDS COUNT, the POLICE ARE just MINUTES
Report Post »conrad_carter
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 2:49pmThere are very few people who after finding the “gay gene” would keep the fetus.
Report Post »And there is a gay gene, Andrew Sullivan said so.
Aiser
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 2:57pmThere is no gay gene. The gay gene was first proposed by geneticist Dean Hamer back in the early 1990′s. Although after countless experimentation’s and peer review, he concluded that the gay gene does not exist back in 1998. That still stands to this day, although somehow the debunked gay gene is somehow still used to describe the phenomena of homosexuality. Genes have nothing to do with it.
Report Post »Annie Fields
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 2:44pmMy “baby” is 14 now, so I’ve forgotten all the minutiae, but when I was carrying her it was standard to have some kind of test at about 16 or 18 weeks to see if the baby had Down’s. I thought: “I love my husband. I want this baby. AIN‘T NO WAY I’m ABORTING at EIGHTEEN WEEKS! So why have the stupid test?” Everyone said it was highly unreliable anyway. I remember everyone pushing me and pressuring me to do and I was getting increasingly aggravated. It was like: HEY – How can I make this more plain? AIN’T TERMINATING NO WAY NO HOW SO LAY OFF. I have DEEPLY mixed feelings about abortion prior to 12 weeks. But after? They’re too “human” after that. Heartbeat, brain, arms, legs… I just don’t see how you can dispose of that just for blue eyes… I grant you, even BEFORE that it’s a horrible decision, but once you see something even approaching a “baby” on the sonogram, what kind of monster are you to kill it for something so superficial?
Report Post »Belle
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 5:28pm@Annie Feilds
Report Post »I too refused these tests with all four of my children, as it changed nothing for me.
I also have to say that I find it disturbing that you justify your mixed feelings about abortion prior to 12 weeks by the “human-ness” of the fetus. If you tested that “12-week old fetus” you’d find that it has a distinctly different set of DNA than that of the “womb” that carried it, making both an individual and a human. Just as you were once a teenage, child, pre-schooler, infant, you too were once a 12-week old fetus, with your own distinct DNA just at a different physiological point of growth, you were ALWAYS, however, human! The proper way, IMO, to describe your feelings on this matter is to clearly sate that your discrimination is based on the point of development of that human, in that you believe that these “12-week minus” fetus’s are worth less than other humans and therefore should not be awarded the same rights as the” 12-week plus” crowd…embrace your discrimination!
Belle
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 5:32pm@ Annie Fields
Report Post »I too refused these tests with all four of my children, as it changes nothing for me.
I also have to say that I find it disturbing that you justify your mixed feelings about abortion prior to 12 weeks by the “human-ness” of the fetus. If you tested that “12-week old minus fetus” you’d find that it has a distinctly different set of DNA than that of the “womb” that carried it, making it an individual human. Just as you were once a teenage, child, pre-schooler, infant, you too were once a 12-week old fetus, with your own distinct DNA just at a different physiological point of growth, you were ALWAYS, however, human! The proper way, IMO, to describe your feelings on this matter is to clearly sate that your discrimination is based on the point of development of that human, in that you believe that these “12-week minus” fetus’s are worth less than other humans and therefore should not be awarded the same rights as the” 12-week plus” crowd…embrace your discrimination!
quicker
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 2:33pmIt`s a slippery slope if man starts playing God.
Report Post »ZAP
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 2:32pmDNA won`t detect if your gay. Gay is a choice.
Report Post »Oldphoto678
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 3:14pm“DNA won`t detect if your gay. Gay is a choice.”
I knew it wouldn’t take long for someone to bleat that out. Well, I don’t know for sure one way or another, but so what if being gay is a choice. Personal choice is a right given to man by god. Isn’t that right? I don‘t believe in god so I’m asking. Isn’t it? I have heard some say that being gay is against god’s law. Maybe thats true, but god didn’t put any of you here to enforce his law. I would think that if god is all that xtians say he is, he’d want you to live and let live. Maybe I’m wrong, but no christian will ever make me think so.
Report Post »nomercy63
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 2:26pmLets let the government play God they really enjoy that!!!!! How long have we lived under nuclear threat!
Report Post »christos
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 2:19pm…….Like many ideas,could be used for good or bad,splicing genes,to avoid genetic defects,could be good,if people embraced that,like breast cancer gene-splice-gone,etc.but also would lead to more bossy bureaucrats,deciding peoples lives…
Report Post »MOLLYPITCHER
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 6:28pm@ christos
Report Post »Scientists don’t think that way. Mengele would have loved this.
christos
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 7:38pm@MOLLYPITCHER–I understand what you are saying but I will and can not speak/judge/throw the whole scientific community in the same bushel basket,they are not all monsters.
Report Post »LastCallForEmpathy
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 2:19pmImpersonating GOD is beyond arrogance…No doubt the future eugenics programs will be labeled as philanthropy and humanitarianism…Last call for empathy…
Report Post »UpstateNYConservative
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 2:08pmBecoming a parent is complicated enough. Why add to it?
Sometimes, it’s a bad idea to over-think (like certain liberal atheists do all the time).
I’m past making babies now; if I become a father again, that baby will be younger than my granddaughter angel who is soon to turn three.
Call me old-fashioned, shoot me if you like. I prefer the ‘mystery’ of an impending birth of another treasure that only my God can make happen.
Report Post »hi
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 2:06pmNotice that the tests only predict percentages. Your baby could be perfectly fine. Even if she has handicaps, I’m sure she will want to live and not be aborted! Let God decide, not humans. and ESPECIALLY not the government!!! Kids with downs are blessings.
Report Post »The_Hut_In_Co
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 2:21pmPlaying God(or trying to) can be a dangerous thing! He(God) is in control. Ps.139:13-16
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 5:24pmNormal kds are a blessing too Every parent wants their children to have a better life than they did, and nobody can have an unlimited number of children. If you have a baby with a serious birth defect you’re having it instead of a kid who would start life without that problem. If I knew that I was going to have a baby with Down’s syndrome or spina bifida, I’d abort and try again. I’m not proud of that, but it’s the reality. I’d do it. I wouldn’t do it to get a kid who would be taller or straight instead of gay or who could live to 90 instead of one who might or might not get a serious disease when he was sixty. My father died before his time, but he was one of the smartest guys I’ve ever known and I’m grateful to him for everything that is worthwhile in myself. I hope that most people would only use this kind of knowledge to give their kids a fair chance at a good life, but I know that many would do a lot of harm chasing the impossible dream of a perfect life.
Report Post »LOOKING_BOTH_WAYS
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 2:05pmIt all started here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Steve Watson
Friday, May 2, 2008
StumbleUpon
President Bush last week signed into law a bill which will see the federal government begin to screen the DNA of all newborn babies in the U.S. within six months, a move critics have described as the first step towards the establishment of a national DNA database.
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 1:56pmTime and money would be better spent by doing something about our economy instead. How about DNA on OBAMA?
Report Post »CatB
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 2:19pm@SHOWTIME
Can we get an I.Q. test also? He is either our first “short-bus” President or evil. With what he is doing to the country, friends, neighbors, our communities and the like I am not discounting the later .. but would like to know just what this “smartest President ever” per the MSM really has between those ears.
If his academic records were “exceptional” I doubt that they would be sealed .. unless there is something else he is hiding? Who is this person in the White House?
Good afternoon..
TEA!
Report Post »ConservativeMomofFour
Posted on June 13, 2011 at 2:51amWasn’t this what Hitler tried to do? Create the “The Perfect Race” of people?..Mien Fuhrer Obama…..this is one EVIL bastard, I guess he has chosen which side of the Good and Evil Battle he’s on.
Report Post »ILUVAMERICA
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 1:54pmWith “O”mam care the doctor’s and the government will decide if the baby will live or die
Report Post »GodHatesFigs
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 2:01pmGod hates Egyptian babies!
Report Post »ILUVAMERICA
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 2:06pm@GodHatesFigs
God hates no baby
Report Post »What’s your IQ?? 45????
CaptainKook
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 2:08pmDNA testing is here to stay.
One example of such a test that will become increasingly important is the testing for genetic mutations that lead to certain cancers.
There is a DNA test that has shown a common mutation in colon-cancer and endometrial cancer patients – over 80% of people found to have this mutation develop colon cancer compared to the general populaton rate of less than 2% developing colon cancer.
Knowing that you have that mutation can affect your decisions about future care and what risks you might want to avoid.
NYTIMES:
“Two new DNA-based tests, one of them described at a meeting in Philadelphia on Thursday, hold the promise of detecting early — and sharply reducing — colon cancer, a disease that afflicts 150,000 people a year in the United States and costs an estimated $14 billion to treat.
The new tests could help most people avoid colonoscopies, which are routinely prescribed for people over age 50. Instead of screening the entire population, doctors could instead refer people for a colonoscopy only if they had tested positive in one of the DNA tests.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/health/29cancer.html
Report Post »right-wing-waco
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 2:20pmMaybe the testing would allow the identity of babies that will turn out to think like Kook & Encinom. Naw, we need someone to laugh at.
Report Post »ILUVAMERICA
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 2:21pm@CaptainKook
Report Post »You are soo right, it is here to stay
This is another example of our right being taken away bit by bit
another example of them herding us up to the slaughterhouse
right-wing-waco
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 2:23pm@ CaptainKook
“DNA testing is here to stay….”
All politics aside, you make a good point about cancer & screening for it.
Report Post »CaptainKook
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 2:24pmWow – OK
cue Twilight Zone theme.
Report Post »CaptainKook
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 2:34pmThe Twighlight Zone thing was for iluvamerica
just teasing you know.
but, still…
WOW.
Report Post »Oil_Robb
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 2:47pmwhy wouldnt it open the box?…..they will kill babies for all kinds of reasons…#1 had to many shots…#2 forgot the pill….#3 Pill didnt work…#4 Im Black and thats how we deal with it….#5 Im a leftist killer and I dont care if for the rest of my life I remember the day I KILLED my CHILD and regret it so that I could go to clubs an party……………AND YOU WONDER WHY THE USA IS FALLING FASTAND THE REST OF EARTH IS LAUGHING….its Rome falling…your Ed system isnt in the top 30 and USA is becoming a third world country…long live Mexico and the MUSLIMES….lolololol….because the leftwing want it that way……do have morals…the rest of the world will feed on the carcas the was once USA the light on the hill……now its the stain on the sheets
Report Post »GETLIFE
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 2:54pmResearchers should have to be able to explain the how, why, and when of “common genetic mutations” before getting all excited about how we can “avoid” the risks of having a child whose genetic makeup indicates certain tendancies or possibilities. ETHICALLY, why a gene mutates, or when it mutates should be the next questions to answer.
Report Post »CaptainKook
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 3:10pm“why a gene mutates, or when it mutates should be the next questions to answer.”
I believe they are working on that.
Example: they know that smoking tobacco is a trigger for some cancers so perhaps smoking would be one of the behaviors people might choose to avoid, especially if their DNA testing shows a tendency towards developing cancer.
Report Post ».
Nobamazone
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 3:14pmThe testing can be very helpful, especially as kook mentioned with cancer screenings, BUT it DOES NOT need to be done on a “baby still in womb”. It can be done later in life and be just as valuable. Testing on babies not born yet will cause more needless baby killing due to the fact that a child MIGHT get a disease later in life. Baby killers don’t need another excuse to end a life.
Report Post »GETLIFE
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 3:30pm“…especially if their DNA testing shows a tendency towards developing cancer.”
Your “example” did not really fit my point CAPITANOK. We should be investigating how that person’s DNA got that way, not just focusing on whether or not the person should smoke. Besides, the issue here is not smoking adults, but unborn children, and the decisions their parents might be led to make because of DNA OBSERVATIONS, without understanding the when and why of mutations.
Report Post »Dale
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 3:31pmKook;
Don’t want to minimize your comment, but we all know smoking is a bad health choice. Aside from cancer, there is emphysema, and a myriad of other conditions brought on by smoking. Can you suggest another more helpful example?
Report Post »Kafir
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 3:35pmAlthough I am 99% anti-abortion…for that remaining 1 %, if they could screen for diseases like: Liberalism, Socialist, Marxist, Progressive…you know, basically Democrats then, I think the testing could be justified and that information used to better our country.
Report Post »Dale
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 3:39pmKafir
Report Post »Although I am 99% anti-abortion…for that remaining 1 %, if they could screen for diseases like: Liberalism, Socialist, Marxist, Progressive…you know, basically Democrats then, I think the testing could be justified and that information used to better our country.
————————
You’re suggesting more than a 1% solution.
TomFerrari
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 4:01pmWe need laws that keep up with technology.
Congress is running around handing out moolah in exchange for campaign contributions (and stock tips, etc., I feel certain), while the REAL work of congress goes undone.
Ask yourself, when is the last time congress passed a budget?
Now, we have a weenie investigation for the next year. (Bwahahaha)
We need many more BOLD men and women who are unafraid to speak truth to power.
This is why I use my own name. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, nothing to lose – except our FREEDOM and LIBERTY which I contend is all but lost already, anyway.
I’d like to see many more not-for-profit healthcare providers – large hosptials that seek to serve, not to profit.
ESPECIALLY for the treatment of life-threatening / terminal illnesses.
Whatever happened to community owned hospitals or regional medical centers? I seem to recall there were many not-for-profit ones a few decades ago.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 4:06pmWatch the movie GATTACA if you want to see a brilliant drama of where this could head.
It would be interesting to see the contortions of liberals if it comes out that some couple aborted a child because of fear it would be gay.
Report Post »CaptainKook
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 4:30pm@ GETLIFE
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 3:30pm
“…especially if their DNA testing shows a tendency towards developing cancer.”
Your “example” did not really fit my point CAPITANOK. We should be investigating how that person’s DNA got that way, ”
Again – they are – lots of mutations are inherited, but there is no universal trigger that I know of.
Smoking is just one trigger, but other triggers could be environmental factors like exposure to toxins.
Someone with DNA markings for liver cancer might want to avoid alcohol or exposure to certain chemicals etc etc
@ Dale
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 3:31pm
Kook;
Don’t want to minimize your comment, but we all know smoking is a bad health choice. Aside from cancer, there is emphysema, and a myriad of other conditions brought on by smoking. Can you suggest another more helpful example?”
Well, I suppose dietary advice could be impacted by certain DNA test results – say you find you have a genetic predisposition to diabetes – you might want to manage your diet differently once you have that information.
That’s what this is about: information you can use to your own benefit.
Report Post »waggie
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 4:37pmI got news for ya. DNA will NOT tell you if you’re gay. That is a life choice, not genetics. Tell the truth Blaze!
Report Post »Robert-CA
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 4:54pm@ GODHATESFIGS
Go & play somewhere else .
Report Post »YellowFin
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 5:11pmHitler would have loved this.
Report Post »tower7femacamp
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 5:50pmI say test all govt officials for Reptilian DNA
Report Post »and I’m not joking.
silentwatcher
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 6:03pmSo if the fetus (also known as ‘baby’ is not perfect,,,,,,what, just kill it and go for another? I think that our ‘civilized’ race has hit a new low.
Report Post »nomorpc4me
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 6:09pmCan you see a time when they just take a DNA sample of the prospective parents. If anything comes up not to their liking, they tell you that you can’t have children, or worse, force you to undergo sterilization and/or abortions to prevent an unwanted child. This smacks of eugenics which is cleary what planned parenthood’s founder was all about.
Report Post »silentwatcher
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 6:20pmWasn’t Hitler involved in mass sterizations??
Report Post »tower7femacamp
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 6:22pmLet’s test Obama and the congress first
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread513915/pg10
I want to know if Obama is related or cloned from the egyptian king Akhenaten?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fhTkpv9OYo
Is Barbra Bush really Alister Crowley’s daughter ?
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/04/george-w-bush-barbara-bush-and.html
when will you all wake up ?
Report Post »*************************
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 6:26pmTESTING is never the problem. It‘s THE SOLUTION that’s always the problem.
Report Post »dr_funk
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 6:36pm“And the chances of being gay.”
Nope, that’s determined by how you raise your kid.
Report Post »tower7femacamp
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 6:40pmSarah Palin’s pedigree “shares ancestor John Lathrop with presidents Ulysses S. Grant, Franklin D. Roosevelt and both Bush presidents…Revolutionary War traitor Benedict Arnold, (and) the list (also) includes Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon religion, poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Dr. Benjamin Spock, financier John Pierpoint Morgan and the original fuller brush man, Alfred Fuller…Tumbling out of the list of politicians who descend from Lathrop are Adlai Stevenson, John Foster Dulles, Thomas Dewey and presidential hopeful Mitt Romney.”
Report Post »http://fanaticforjesus.blogspot.com/2010/05/vlad-impaler.html
tower7femacamp
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 6:42pmSarah Palin, according to Rosemary E. Bachelor, is also “a 12th cousin of John McCain and descends from Simon Newcomb of Edgarton, MA and Lebanon, CT, as do both Bush presidents …President Bush, Barack Obama and Sarah Palin all descend from Samuel and Sarah (Soule) Hinckley, (whose) son Thomas Hinckley (1618-1706), held several governmental posts in the Plymouth Colony and served as its last governor from 1681 to 1692.”
Report Post »Taquoshi
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 7:27pmMany years ago, one of the members of our church found out she was pregnant while she was on a particular type of drug that caused major birth defects. She was originally told that the baby was severely deformed. Just before the abortion procedure started, one of the nurses put up an ultrasound film and Charlotte asked if the nurse could point out the deformities to her. The nurse couldn’t. Neither could the doctor. She decided not to have the abortion and her son was born 100% normal.
However, in 1966, a lawsuit was filed against the parents of a boy who was blind and deaf by the “child” for allowing him to be born. Unfortunately, the article is archived at the Times, and requires payment for the abstract. Here’s the link
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0B14F83B54117B93C6AB178AD95F428685F9
Of course, since then there have been numerous lawsuits by parents whose child has a disability against the doctors for not informing them in advance.
Personally, I know what my answer would be, but apparently a lot of people feel that they want the perfect child.
Report Post »ManThong
Posted on June 12, 2011 at 8:13pmI want to know the gene sequence for the likelihood of becoming a liberal Democrat.
We could solve a lot of problems if we had that one.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on June 13, 2011 at 12:40am@ Waggie You’re immense ignorance is shameful… I may be conservative but I know gay people and they don’t choose it you F@@L
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on June 13, 2011 at 12:40am*your
Report Post »snidley-whiplash
Posted on June 13, 2011 at 1:27amScience taking small steps to control the world. If they can’t scare us with climate control they will kill us before there are newborns. Oh wait they do that already.
Report Post »