FlishFun Veteran Posted January 28, 2004 Veteran Share Posted January 28, 2004 A GOVERNMENT adviser on genetics has sparked fury by suggesting it might be acceptable to destroy children with ?defects? soon after they are born.John Harris, a member of the Human Genetics Commission, told a meeting at Westminster he did not see any distinction between aborting a fully grown unborn baby at 40 weeks and killing a child after it had been born. Harris, who is a professor of bioethics at Manchester University, would not be drawn on which defects or problems might be used as grounds for ending a baby?s life, or how old a child might be while it could still be destroyed. Harris was reported to have said that he did not believe that killing a child was always inexcusable. In addition, it was claimed that he did not believe that there was any ?moral change? that occurred between when the baby was in the womb and when it had been brought into the world. Harris, who also gives advice to doctors as a member of the ethics committee of the British Medical Association (BMA), is understood to have argued that there was no moral distinction between aborting a foetus found by tests to have defects and disposing of a child where the parents discovered the problems at birth. The words drew a furious response from anti-abortion campaigners. The Pro-Life lobby group, who had members present at the meeting, noted what Harris had said and condemned his words. Julia Millington, the group?s spokeswoman, said: "It is frightening to think that university students are being educated by somebody who endorses the killing of new-born babies, and equally worrying to discover that such a person is the establishment?s ?preferred? bioethicist." However, Michael Wilkes, the chairman of the BMA?s ethics committee, claimed that Harris was simply trying to encourage debate and consistent thinking. He said: "There are many who might concur that there is no difference between a full-term foetus and a new-born baby, although the majority would see there is a substantial difference. Abortion is legal, but termination after birth is killing." In the past, Harris has spoken of the need to allow people to buy and sell human organs as a means of increasing supplies for transplant operations. He also recently expressed support for the sex selection of babies for social reasons. He said: "If it isn?t wrong to wish for a bonny bouncing baby girl, why would it be wrong to make use of technology to play fairy godmother?" Source: Scotsman.com :blink:ts on this?? :blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PezDspncr Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 hmm...defects is a really broad term...personally I'd rather not have a kid "destroyed" after they are born...aren't most serious defects detectable before birth? btw.... He also recently expressed support for the sex selection of babies for social reasons. what social reasons?? is it not working out to be a 50/50 chance over there in the UK? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digital.K Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 According to the advisor's beliefs, he himself should have been destroyed, as he is seriously defected in this kind of thinking. This is disturbing, to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.... Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Isn't that murder? :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlishFun Veteran Posted January 28, 2004 Author Veteran Share Posted January 28, 2004 Isn't that murder? :huh: Now you'd think that, wouldn't you? :blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dashel Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 I'm for it personally. I would rather terminate the life in a humane way at an early age if my son/daughter was born with a life crippling defect or disease. It seems more inhumane to force them to live out a short and painful existance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
threetonesun Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 John Harris, a member of the Human Genetics Commission, told a meeting at Westminster he did not see any distinction between aborting a fully grown unborn baby at 40 weeks and killing a child after it had been born. That'll I'll agree with, but consider I'm against abortion in all but the most extreme circumstances, you can imagine I disagree with pretty much everything else he says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aem4162 Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 i think that sex selection is wrong no matter why it might be used. as for birth defects...it depends on the severity - if the baby is born with half a brain or no brain and would only be a vegetable...that might be ok....i can't see why anyone would try to raise a kid who'll never see, hear, speak, learn/recognize anything, eat, or breathe on is own....i wouldn't put anyone through that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John S. Veteran Posted January 29, 2004 Veteran Share Posted January 29, 2004 John Harris, a member of the Human Genetics Commission, told a meeting at Westminster he did not see any distinction between aborting a fully grown unborn baby at 40 weeks and killing a child after it had been born. I don't believe in either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplecookie Veteran Posted January 29, 2004 Veteran Share Posted January 29, 2004 Goodness, this is a really hard topic to respond to. I believe that all parents should have the right to treat an unborn fetus as they choose. Now, that does not mean that I agree with every person who aborts their child just because they want to continue having one night stands and things like that. I personally don't think they should wait until the baby is full term though. That is like giving birth to a child, then shooting it after it's been breathing and crying. I think it's wrong. Before I had a tubal, I was doing research upon research about things like choosing the sex of a child, making sure that I could choose the healthiest baby to be implanted into me, and I was willing to pay anything I had to just to make sure my child didn't end up like me or some of my family. Instead of killing a child with serious birth defects, the option to genetically engineer a child should be made available to everyone. Then a family who knows they carry the genes for certain things won't have to worry as much and be forced into making a decision that results in a life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnsonBox Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 Has Harris considered the feasibility of relevant laws? If aborting, it is easy to judge it as acceptable by laws, but for new-born baby, it is very difficult to judge it has "enough" defects so that parents have the right to destroy it. No doubt most of new-born babies are healthy, but for some reason, parents might not want the baby. For example, a peasant in China wanted a son, but his wife brought him a girl, so he left no stone unturned to destroy the female baby, and finally he made it. And of course, he was arrested soon. If Harrris' idea has been accepted by laws, the evil peasant might make every possibe feints, and escaped from the punishment of the laws. Because Harris' idea can not be easily operated by police or judicial members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnsonBox Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 Hi Anita, what you said is in fact another question -- the question of euthanasia. The new-born babies who have such severe defects should receive euthanasia rather than llive in the world very miserably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Veteran Posted January 29, 2004 Veteran Share Posted January 29, 2004 Sex selection for a child is appalling. And "aborting" a "fourth trimester" or beyond child is murder and should be treated as such regardless of Dr. Mengele here's definition of a defect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FearMeAll Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 Before I had a tubal, I was doing research upon research about things like choosing the sex of a child, making sure that I could choose the healthiest baby to be implanted into me, and I was willing to pay anything I had to just to make sure my child didn't end up like me or some of my family. you are a little hard on yourself aren't you? :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlishFun Veteran Posted January 29, 2004 Author Veteran Share Posted January 29, 2004 you are a little hard on yourself aren't you? :( No she's not... she has Bipolar 2, as well as numerous allergies, Celiacs Disease, etc. Most of these are genetic and many people in her family have them, or something similar. She doesn't want to bring a child into this world and have a chance that she/he may have to suffer the same things. :( Hense part of the reason she had a tubal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aem4162 Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 Hi Anita, what you said is in fact another question -- the question of euthanasia. The new-born babies who have such severe defects should receive euthanasia rather than llive in the world very miserably. that's what i meant :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Veteran Posted January 29, 2004 Veteran Share Posted January 29, 2004 No she's not... she has Bipolar 2, as well as numerous allergies, Celiacs Disease, etc. Most of these are genetic and many people in her family have them, or something similar. She doesn't want to bring a child into this world and have a chance that she/he may have to suffer the same things. Hense part of the reason she had a tubal... While it is certianly her choice to create a child as she sees fit, removing her own DNA, especially parts that define personality deprive the potential that is inheritent in her genetics. Many things that are a burden in some respects can be a huge advantage in others. One for instance comes to mind, savants often times can not tie their own shoes, but can compose beautiful music and music can inspire great change for the better in all the world. Just my opinion mind you but, god, genetics, fate (whatever you'd like to believe created humanity) knows better then we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlishFun Veteran Posted January 29, 2004 Author Veteran Share Posted January 29, 2004 While it is certianly her choice to create a child as she sees fit, removing her own DNA, especially parts that define personality deprive the potential that is inheritent in her genetics. Many things that are a burden in some respects can be a huge advantage in others.One for instance comes to mind, savants often times can not tie their own shoes, but can compose beautiful music and music can inspire great change for the better in all the world. Just my opinion mind you but, god, genetics, fate (whatever you'd like to believe created humanity) knows better then we do. Very good point, BUT, she's had to live with these problems and knows how bad they make her feel. I guess she just would feel guilty possibily causing someone else to go through it as well. I think if they could remove the genes associated with those problems, she'd have no problem having her own child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Veteran Posted January 29, 2004 Veteran Share Posted January 29, 2004 Very good point, BUT, she's had to live with these problems and knows how bad they make her feel. I guess she just would feel guilty possibily causing someone else to go through it as well. I think if they could remove the genes associated with those problems, she'd have no problem having her own child. Pain doesn't necessarily make for a worthless human being. I'm personally against altering any genes that have effects on personality or higher brain function, for the above stated reasons. Even the completely insane, provide insight that may never otherwise be realized. Some fictional examples I can think of are the title character in the TV show Monk, Russell Crow's character in A Beautiful Mind. These people's lives aren't always pleasant, in fact the must be miserable at times. That however doesn't change the fact that they are capable of feats that you (I imagine) or I simply could not even realistically attempt. Embracing your uniqueness is not dressing in black, and listening to industrial music, or listening to rap music because your parents hate it. What I've mentioned is true uniqueness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlishFun Veteran Posted January 29, 2004 Author Veteran Share Posted January 29, 2004 Pain doesn't necessarily make for a worthless human being.I'm personally against altering any genes that have effects on personality or higher brain function, for the above stated reasons. Even the completely insane, provide insight that may never otherwise be realized. Some fictional examples I can think of are the title character in the TV show Monk, Russell Crow's character in A Beautiful Mind. These people's lives aren't always pleasant, in fact the must be miserable at times. That however doesn't change the fact that they are capable of feats that you (I imagine) or I simply could not even realistically attempt. Embracing your uniqueness is not dressing in black, and listening to industrial music, or listening to rap music because your parents hate it. What I've mentioned is true uniqueness. That's quite true... she's just very caring, and though it may benefit others, I don't think she could bear to be the cause of another's pain, you know? I do agree with you, mainly since she's the love of my life, and she just wouldn't be who she is without the complications she has. And even though she has those problems, she's a very smart and caring woman... and I agree with you. I'm just arguing her point, since she's sleeping right now. lol Also, since I just saw it, she wouldn't think they're worthless, she just knows what they'd go through and would blame herself for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Veteran Posted January 29, 2004 Veteran Share Posted January 29, 2004 That's quite true... she's just very caring, and though it may benefit others, I don't think she could bear to be the cause of another's pain, you know? I do agree with you, mainly since she's the love of my life, and she just wouldn't be who she is without the complications she has. And even though she has those problems, she's a very smart and caring woman... and I agree with you. I'm just arguing her point, since she's sleeping right now. lol Also, since I just saw it, she wouldn't think they're worthless, she just knows what they'd go through and would blame herself for it. Well if it helps (speaking to her as much as I am to you), even "normal" children will experience pain. It is an imutable part of life. I'm sure every single person on this board and the larger world at that, has suffered at one point. Most are actually better for it. You never know how strong you are until you are forced to use all of your strength. Good luck to the both of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kairon Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 It should be acceptable. Weed out the weaklings and retards and we can all save money from not having to pay for their needs and constant care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Veteran Posted January 29, 2004 Veteran Share Posted January 29, 2004 It should be acceptable. Weed out the weaklings and retards and we can all save money from not having to pay for their needs and constant care. I stand corrected some of us (^) should have been "weeded out" at birth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt74441 Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 I guess it would completely wrong to say "destroying" children is right, but under certain circumstances is should be done. For far too long have I seen these children on TLC and other channels who have some severe birth defect, or incureable disease, and the parents wanting their children to fight as long as they can. Should I ever have children of my own, I know that I wouldn't want my child to have to live out a short life in constant pain. Even if this becomes common practice, there will still be parents who will want to let their children to live, because they might get better. Someone is going to have to make the decision for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Widdowmaker Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 Ok first off i agree with him on a certain level. There is little difference between a 40 week old baby in a womb, and a 40 week and 1 day old baby that has been born. Murder is murder no matter how you put it. Thats about as much as i agree with him. His talk about "destroying" kids because of defects is odd. While it has positives, more food and air for us, more living space, less stress, and less money spent on medical research for these people. The negatives are far too great. Take Stephen Hawking, a leading scientist in phyisics. He is bound to a wheel chair since birth i belive. Under this guys rule he would have been murdered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts