<DIV>I am confused what is the precise measure they are opposing all it says is stop clause what ever </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> What is the name of the Bill ?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> it may be a link fault but I cannot find the substance of their objection</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>if they are opposing measures that would ensure that no child would be born with particular disabilities they are wrong this ought to happen </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>< Nothing wrong if you eliminate deafness by preventing people from being born deaf or with a gene that means they will go deaf .</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>People who oppose this are just in favor of suffering</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>On the other hand the idea of designer babies where potential parents can choose babies from a cataloger is wrong - I dint believe
parents should have Any</DIV> <DIV>rights anyway and fertility treatment should not be funded by the NHS </DIV> <DIV>if people cannot have child they should accept as a fact of nature and get on with their lives. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Would anyone sanction the spending public funds in order to developer my ambition to play the piano like the late Oscar Peterson? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> I am tone deaf cannot read music and have co ordination problems but I am sure that it is nothing that a few hundred(or possibly thousand ) million pounds of research and development could not cure . They will have to hurry though cost I am getting on a bit</DIV> <DIV>Edmund</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR><I>Volodya <Volodya@WhenGendarmeSleeps.org></I> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px
solid">-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<BR>Hash: SHA1<BR><BR>Hi,<BR><BR>I'm sort of interested what people think about this. Is this a desperate<BR>struggle against the government-backed eugenics or is this just political<BR>correctness gone mad.<BR><BR>- VolodyA! V A<BR><BR>- -------- Original Message --------<BR>http://stopeugenics.org/<BR><BR><BR>Not quite with the Times .<BR>By Dr. Steve Emery | December 22nd, 2007<BR><BR><BR>- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR><BR>This blog post relates to this article in the Sunday Times.<BR><BR>After four weeks in which a group of us have carefully investigated and analysed<BR>Clause 14 (4) (9) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, the Sunday<BR>Times covers the story in typically 'sensational' fashion.<BR><BR>The most unforeseen aspect of the article for those of us painstakingly trying<BR>to build a campaign against the Clause 14(4)(9) is that it is the RNID who
are<BR>at the centre of the story, even thought they have not been involved in the<BR>campaign. It makes sense though from a media perspective: Jackie Ballard, the<BR>CEO of the RNID, is also an ex-Liberal Democrat MP, and therefore it makes<BR>better 'news value' to focus the story on an individual who has some kind of<BR>status in the world of politics and business (the business being a charity in<BR>this case).<BR><BR>The article is very much to be expected:<BR><BR>* the story is being spun as a demand of Deaf people to create designer children<BR>- - i.e. a sensational angle for an almost entirely hearing readership;<BR>* misinformation with regards to the US case (it has happened there and they<BR>want it to happen here);<BR>* the campaign being centred on a demand for 'rights' to choose the make up of a<BR>child pre-birth.<BR><BR>The RNID comes across as contradictory in the article; Jackie Ballard is quoted<BR>as saying the RNID believes parents should not be
prevented from children being<BR>born deaf, but later on the RNID spokesperson states that they would not<BR>actively encourage the choosing of a deaf embryo over a hearing one!<BR><BR>The campaign that is being launched to stop Clause 14(4)(9) has already been<BR>seriously misrepresented by a high ranking newspaper such as the Times. If this<BR>is the news being reported from a supposedly respected broadsheet, one dreads to<BR>think what the tabloids will make of it.<BR><BR>The Sunday Times seems to have missed the simple fact that this particular<BR>Clause is only applying to those seeking IVF treatment.<BR><BR>It also ignores the fact that the campaign that is being launched is not one<BR>that has been set up to 'demand' the 'choice' of 'genetic abnormality'.<BR><BR>Therein lies an irony; Clause 14(4)(9) is specifically aimed to ensure the<BR>creation of a hearing/non-disabled child. Yes, there is a 'designer baby 'issue<BR>here, but the Clause is aimed to ensure the
baby is hearing or non-disabled.<BR><BR>The key word in the Clause 14(4)(9) is the word 'preferred'. IF a couple decide<BR>to have a test at IVF stage and IF there are found to deaf and hearing embryos;<BR>a hearing embryo MUST be used. Individuals who WANT to have a deaf embryo will<BR>simply not take the test, because they know that they won't have the choice; but<BR>individuals who WANT to have a hearing embryo WILL be able to take the test,<BR>because it gives them the ability to have the hearing embryo implanted, and to<BR>have the deaf ones discarded.<BR><BR>Those who want a deaf embryo, therefore, are being BANNED from doing so; those<BR>who want a hearing embryo, aren't. Discrimination, pure and simple.<BR><BR>Deaf people have reacted to this, because it means that if it becomes law,<BR>Clause 14(4)(9) bans a parent from choosing a deaf embryo at the IVF stage, IF<BR>they so desire to do so. I make heavy use of the word IF for a reason - only a<BR>tiny percentage
of people will actually want to do this, but while this is so,<BR>it is when clauses like this become law that it becomes not only harder to get<BR>them changed, but also easier to develop them in other ways.<BR><BR>You only have to read Professor Gedis Grudzinskas quote in the article to see<BR>how this might develop. Deafness, he says, is not the 'normal' state. Gay and<BR>lesbian people, Black and ethnic minority people (in the UK), also are not<BR>'normal' in our society (i.e. they are a minority in majority), so should they<BR>also be banned from using technology, if the gay gene or the black gene be<BR>identified?<BR><BR>Deafness is being defined as a 'disability'; which of course ignores the fact<BR>that being Deaf is about having a unique language and culture, one that has<BR>existed for as long as humans have been on planet earth. Deaf people have been<BR>striving for 30 years to bring to awareness to the public of Deaf people's<BR>linguistic minority status, with
some success.<BR><BR>The UK government actually recognised BSL as a language in its own right, on<BR>18th March 2003 to be exact. There has been a huge explosion in sign language<BR>classes in the last 20 years, with something like 400,000 hearing people<BR>learning sign language, having been taught mainly by Deaf people proficient in<BR>the language. And the value of sign language is confirmed by another explosion:<BR>hearing people with hearing babies are teaching their children to sign before<BR>they speak.because it is easier to communicate with their children earlier in<BR>their life by using gestures and signs.<BR><BR>Deaf people are recognised as possessing a real, true language, no different<BR>from any spoken language other than it being of a different modality. This is<BR>also evidence of the value that Deaf people and their language and culture bring<BR>to society.<BR><BR>Deaf people being of a language minority: so does that mean that those who are<BR>also of a
language minority - Welsh, Gaelic, Cornish etc - should be banned from<BR>using technology if somehow a 'language gene' was identified? After all, these<BR>languages are not 'normal' in our society, and are spoken by a minority.<BR><BR>The majority of citizens would object to denying black people, gay people,<BR>linguistic minority groups, or any other group that is a minority, to choose an<BR>embryo that closely resembled themselves, but the argument persists that deaf<BR>people and disabled people are somehow not 'normal'; the article refers to<BR>hearing embryos as 'healthy'; which in turn implies the deaf ones are<BR>'unhealthy'. The hearing gene being 'healthy' therefore justifies enforcing<BR>individuals to choose (or 'prefer') such an embryo, if they have a test that<BR>identifies such genes in embryos created from IVF.<BR><BR>The campaign is not one that is being launched specifically to try to give<BR>people the right to create a deaf baby; it is one that has been
launched as a<BR>reaction to Clause 14(4)(9). As Francis Murphy put it in the article, if<BR>embryo's are allowed to be chosen on the basis they are hearing, the same choice<BR>should be allowed for those who are deaf.<BR><BR>But the whole article misses a far more fundamental point: our entire society is<BR>built on diversity, and deaf people and disabled people have always been part of<BR>that diversity. Once you start passing laws to ensure that some of the people<BR>who have been part of a diverse society shouldn't be 'preferred' over others,<BR>you begin to 'play god' with humanity. Deaf people have brought something to<BR>societies and to our understanding of what it means to be human; sign language<BR>and Deaf culture are not 'abnormalities', Deaf and disabled people are not ill<BR>or unhealthy; they are artists, lawyers, workers of all trades and skills,<BR>abilities, professions.this author and many other Deaf people around the world<BR>hold a PhD, and those like
Stephen Hawking have made invaluable contributions to<BR>science and knowledge.<BR><BR>The Sunday Times is meant to be a broadsheet newspaper that explores issues with<BR>thought and depth. But in this article, it has seriously failed in that respect,<BR>and leaves us with far more questions than there are answers.<BR><BR>In the New Year, a group of concerned citizens who have coalesced around the<BR>www.stopeugenics.org website, will launch a Press Release calling for Clause<BR>14(4)(9) to be discarded.<BR><BR>The simple outcome of the scrapping of the clause is that individuals will not<BR>then have to 'prefer' a deaf or hearing embryo. For us in the campaign, there<BR>should be no 'preference' of an embryo; they should be treated as equals.<BR><BR>We do not seek to remove the entire Clause, just the specific part of it that<BR>would enforce a couple to 'prefer' a hearing embryo over a deaf one. It is<BR>discriminatory and tries to ban deaf (and disabled people) from
doing something<BR>that would be freely available to others. But more seriously of all, it is a<BR>step towards eugenics, since it will mean that couples going for IVF can design<BR>a baby, in this case, they can ensure it is a hearing one. And if it can be<BR>available to ensure the baby is hearing, the next step could be: why not ensure<BR>it can also be blue eyed, blonde, straight, etc.<BR><BR>As many people as possible are needed to come forward and sign the press release<BR>before it is sent out to the general press in the New Year, and to get involved<BR>with the campaign in whatever way you can.<BR><BR>This part of the Clause simply must be stopped and misleading and misinformed<BR>reports like those in the Sunday Times today must be urgently countered as part<BR>of that campaign.<BR><BR><BR>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>Yahoo! Groups Links<BR><BR><*> To visit your group on the web, go
to:<BR>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo/<BR><BR><*> Your email settings:<BR>Individual Email | Traditional<BR><BR><*> To change settings online go to:<BR>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo/join<BR>(Yahoo! ID required)<BR><BR><*> To change settings via email:<BR>mailto:smygo-digest@yahoogroups.com<BR>mailto:smygo-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<BR><BR><*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>smygo-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<BR><BR><*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:<BR>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/<BR><BR><BR><BR>- --<BR>http://freedom.libsyn.com/ Voice of Freedom, Radical Podcast<BR>http://eng.anarchopedia.org/ Anarchopedia, A Free Knowledge Portal<BR><BR>"None of us are free until all of us are free." ~ Mihail Bakunin<BR><BR>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----<BR>Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)<BR><BR>iD8DBQFHjLwDuWy2EFICg+0RAoVwAJ9ufuwvoQkfYp8uDtCpMrR+bWuYmQCeNLdl<BR>xx8m0vudS7hJkbFvWo6kk2g=<BR>=Ux8n<BR>-----END
PGP SIGNATURE-----<BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>LAF mailing list<BR>LAF@lists.aktivix.org<BR>https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/laf<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR><DIV> <DIV>Shut Down Guantanamo Bay<BR>see London Page at<BR><A href="http://www.guantanamo.org.uk/" target=_blank rel=nofollow><FONT color=#003399>www.guantanamo.org.uk</FONT></A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV></DIV> <DIV>see Events & Issues website <A href="http://www.eventsandissues.bravehost.com/events.html">http://www.eventsandissues.bravehost.com/events.html</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>See Book Events</DIV> <DIV><A href="http://www.freewebs.com/bookevents/" target=_blank rel=nofollow><FONT color=#003399 size=6><SPAN class=yshortcuts id=lw_1196243262_0><FONT size=2>http://www.freewebs.com/bookevents</FONT>/</SPAN></FONT></A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>
<hr size=1>Looking for last minute shopping deals? <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping">
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.</a>