In the ongoing struggle to reform my image as a “hater of all progressive thought”, I’ve decided the time has come to appease my critics and provide some of that “balance” SDA is so often accused of lacking.
So, without further ado – today’s breaking news from the cutting edge of progressivism!
The licence was granted by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to Professor Gedis Grudzinskas, who believes the landmark ruling marks a shift away from granting licences only for life-threatening conditions.
He said: “ We will increasingly see the use of embryo screening for severe cosmetic conditions.”
He added that he would seek to screen for any genetic factor at all that would cause a family severe distress.
When asked if he would screen embryos for factors like hair colour, he said: “ If there is a cosmetic aspect to an individual case I would assess it on its merits.
“[Hair colour] can be a cause of bullying, which can lead to suicide. With the agreement of the HFEA, I would do it.
Think of it as an olive branch.
h/t
Joseph Mengele Deja Vu.
We are full circle back to the degeneracy of Hitler’s Aryan Race interventions.
Waiting for the first lefty, builders of utopian societies and defenders of ultimate human choice, to denounce my parochial attitude…..
Oh help me. I’m drowning in the sea of dripping sarcasm 😉
Like everything else in this world, progressives and even neo-cons can take that leap of logic to justify just about anything. After seeing first hand the ravages of cancer (missing jaws, lips, nose and such), the research into cosmetic surgery can be valuable but, as I said this will be taken by some as an excuse to justify just about anything. Because something will eventually make it to the category of WTF, it shouldn’t be thrown out as blasphemous, unless of course you are taliban.
1. Why is it OK to abort if you simply want to look good on your cruise, but not if you dislike some characteristic of your future son or daughter?
2. Since the mantra of Planned Parenthood is that access to abortion assures that every born child is a wanted child, can we at least assume that they support abortion for all reasons including sex-selection and designer-baby reasons?
3. Now that humans are viewed as a virus, and having babies recognized as the ultimate cause of human-based C02, how long will it be before abortion is viewed as a praiseworthy, planet-saving behaviour?
Madness!
Attaboy doc. Kill’em before they kill themselves.
Just wait until they can detect if the embryo is gay – the contortions of the progressives saying you can abort for any reason except for sexual orientation will be fascinating to watch.
The whole lefty world is in competition to be the new messiah.
Gore, Cruise, and now this doc who wants to create life, babies, whatever.
They don’t believe in Christ yet all want to be him. Interesting.
WHY, IN CANADA, do we have to call anyone a ‘Progressive’? They are simply Gradualist-Socialists, and we do not need any cryptic terms to understand that. The NDP call themselves Social Democrats, or now, confusingly, Progressives, but ultimately they are simply Gradualist-Socialists. There is no secret in that, and Socialists, if they truly believe in their own philosophy, should proudly call it what it is. I personally am vehemently opposed to Socialism, no matter how gradual it is.
It’s the Americans who have trouble uttering the word ‘Socialist’, from all the days of the Communist scares. To hide their politics, US Socialists wave around this ‘Progressive’ label ad nauseum.
I myself am still recovering from the egregious abuse of that word by the former ‘Progressive Conservatives’. What the heck did that ever mean anyway?
Joel at ProudtobeCanadian.ca brought this up this morning. I can see screening for major diseases – but hair colour?
Ahem. The link goes to Joel’s post.
Can we say “The Boys From Brazil”?
I’d like a son about 196cm tall, blonde hair, blue eyes, marches well, doesn’t ask too many questions and obeys blindly.
Must be an excellent swimmer so should have webbed feet, must be able to sound duck calls while wearing camo outfit.
I want a goosestepping duck!
Oh hang it all, I went “Quackers” with that last post!
Stop the internets. I’ve found another angry conservative! That makes… let me see, two, carry the one, divide by four… I do believe that makes all of them.
Kate can’t seem to denounce something without laying it at the feet of some poorly defined, poorly understood, over-generalized category of people.
Terrorism? Fear immigration, and liberals.
Abortion for cosmetic reasons? That’s your progressives.
RCMP who wear Turbans? We got your moonbat-libtards covering that one.
The balance of articles isn’t the problem. It’s the analysis that sucks.
It sounds like good old capitalism to me.
Now if we can just identify the gene that made Ted Nancy,we can weed them all out! Although the only part of his comment that was wrong was the analysis. Everything else he attributes to progressives,terrorism,leftards is exactly right. Maybe there is hope!….NOT
So what happens to all the hairdressers and others making hair coloring stuff. They will go out of business.
I don’t recall providing any “analysis” in that post, Ted. How come so touchy?
…what’s that sci-fi movie called where a guy beat the odds of making to Saturn by doping his DNA with another person?
Gives new meaning to ‘Baby’ section in the Sears Catalog eh…
I think this is great news. It shows that the government is no longer letting religious bigots set medical policy and allows us to do the research that will eventually enable us to build humans from basic chemicals thereby avoiding all the defects that historical processes involve.
Good post, Kate.
Ted: it’s not poorly analyzed.
It’s a tenet of feminism that ALL abortions must be supposrted, even if you disagree with the reason. The mantra is “Trust Women”.
So all feminists think it’s A-OK for this to be legal, and women should be trusted to make this decision. We can’t criminalize this in any way shape or form.
And I have a question: what happens if the test doesn’t work, and you have a kid with hair colour YOU don’t want? Do you sue? There are already lawsuits for “wrongful birth”.
So aborting because of a serious disease is OK but not because of hair colour? What do you have against people with diseases? Are they not people anymore?
Seriously, the lefties want to control our pocket books and the righties want to control our moral life. Can’t anyone just leave us the hell alone?
colino, being a conservative, I will respond with my PERSONAL view on the matter. I was raised in a religious setting but have moved beyond religion now. To me, I oppose abortion NOT because of any religious reason, but because of the fact that the “fetus” is actually a viable human…it’s not a vegetable, it’s not a mineral, it’s not some other kind of animal and it’s not just a “collection of cells”…it is a human being that happens to be growing inside of another human being.
I would gladly leave prospective abortionists alone…but just as soon as they leave the human beings growing inside the womb alone. Got it? I’m saying “You first!”. You leave the baby alone and I’ll leave you alone.
I think it is a “Canadian value” to come to the aid of those less fortunate or to those who are in trouble…I am exercising this “Canadian value” by trying to defend the defenseless little babies. And you and your ilk try to spin ME and my ilk as the bad guys.
To soften that a bit, I am also realistic…I can support abortion up to the end of the first trimester or to the point where the fetus removed from the body could reasonably be expected to survive with reasonable medical intervention. Killing a baby once it has reached a stage of development where it could survive outside the womb is MURDER.
‘Good thing Professor Gedis Grudzinskas and the technology at the disposal of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) he’s attached to weren’t around when I was in the womb.
They might have detected the brown birth mark I have on my inner calf, righ leg–the one my grandmother once tried to scrub off in the bath. Never mind that it’s faded with the years and you can hardly see it now.
I might have been stigmatized for life, when my panty hose didn’t cover it up. Don’t you think I’d be better dead than marked for life?
If Dr. Grudzinskas had been around, I might not be here. This guy and his “Authority” are totally scary; they’ve virtually been handed a licence to kill.
“I can support abortion up to the end of the first trimester or to the point where the fetus removed from the body could reasonably be expected to survive with reasonable medical intervention.”
Me too. I guess you belong to the category or my “ilk”. I think you’ll find yourself lonely with a position like that in this space.
ted struck a nerve……
slow down colino…some of us here are fiscal conservatives, not social conservatives….as far as abortion is concerned, if some middle class woman wants to kill off baby after baby, fine….I just would rather not pay for it out of my taxes….if these middle class couples would rather raise pets than kids, fine….I just would rather not pay for it our of my taxes…..when 30% of the Canadian population has no family doctor, why are we providing surgical birth control on demand, with no fee attached….if I do not have to pay for it, I really do not care
“I can support abortion up to the end of the first trimester or to the point where the fetus removed from the body could reasonably be expected to survive with reasonable medical intervention.”
That is an improvement but still silly. You would be content to allow a baby to live on day X but to be dissected while alive on day (X-1).
I don’t “hate” “progressive” thought….I just reject people and notions that are nonprogrressive who label themselves “progressive”.
From my obsevations most of what passes as “progressive” thought these days is grossly intolerant of dissent or diversity of opinion…it is overtly elitist in nature and it is distinctly intrusive and uncivil in its intent.
When modern “progressives” regain some sense of classic liberal democratic values maybe I won’t reject their their thinking as being obnoxious hubris.
I feel the need to apologize too. I watched Fox News once and I was hooked. I am not really evil I just haven’t met that special womans libber who tells me how to act yet. That could be why I watch E.D. Hill. Anyway I was going to post this. Is their any hope for me?
Yesterday, E.D. Hill just had a blood-sucker that we call a banker on her show.
The big banks are loaning illegals a ton of money (30 pieces of silver no doubt) which provides them all the documentation they need to live and work and take advantage of those social programs liberals assume are free. No matter the sliminess involving loaning creditors who have a zero chance of repaying anything, the banks response has been unanimous.
Evidently the only way that these leeches can lose loaning money to the illegal aliens is for them to return home. Does anyone still wonder if there will be a bill that takes a bite out of this crime, the identity theft, and drug smuggling, and the depletion of American resources? Will common sense take over or will bank profits continue to fuel this wreck? Big banks only bet on sure things. They are betting open borders and cheap labor forever. Clearly, they know something that we don’t know. It smells rank, like something already bought and paid for, like the Democrats, like most of the Republicans, like the Senate, like real sleaze.
I feel the need to apologize too. I watched Fox News once and I was hooked. I am not really evil I just haven’t met that special womans libber who tells me how to act yet. That could be why I watch E.D. Hill. Anyway I was going to post this. Is their any hope for me?
Yesterday, E.D. Hill just had a blood-sucker that we call a banker on her show.
The big banks are loaning illegals a ton of money (30 pieces of silver no doubt) which provides them all the documentation they need to live and work and take advantage of those social programs liberals assume are free. No matter the sliminess involving loaning creditors who have a zero chance of repaying anything, the banks response has been unanimous.
Evidently the only way that these leeches can lose loaning money to the illegal aliens is for them to return home. Does anyone still wonder if there will be a bill that takes a bite out of this crime, the identity theft, and drug smuggling, and the depletion of American resources? Will common sense take over or will bank profits continue to fuel this wreck? Big banks only bet on sure things. They are betting open borders and cheap labor forever. Clearly, they know something that we don’t know. It smells rank, like something already bought and paid for, like the Democrats, like most of the Republicans, like the Senate, like real sleaze.
Possibly OT, but I can’t resist pointing out that “progressive thought” is a textbook example of an oxymoron, and the fact that it’s embedded in an inelegant clause -“hater of all progressive thought” -is a bonus which perhaps proves the point.
I’ve really got to go with KingstonLad on this one.
Some crud like Professor Gedis Grudzinskas wants to provide a custom abortion service, that’s disgusting. I’m against it. BUT, and this is where the rubber meets the road for Conservatives, do I want the government involved here?
Consider what tools government has to control this. They can either ban abortions outright, which we know from history does not work, or they can make a bureaucracy to pass judgment on each request. Meaning some bored civil servant in a cubicle is given the power of life and death, with his/her decisions being covered by cubic miles of paperwork. Which babies live or die will then depend upon the whim of social fashion, legitimized by the stamp of official approval.
IMHO, I really, REALLY don’t want that. I prefer to trust my fellow citizens and God. As a practical matter, not as some airy fairy spiritualism/ideology. People are for the most part decent and will not avail themselves of this disgusting man’s “service”. He will therefore have a hard time making a buck.
Also, just because something is not illegal doesn’t mean we have to shut up about it. We have the Internet. We have e-mail lists, blogs, cell phones, what have you. Its called shunning. Historically a very effective method for handling the likes of Professor Gedis Grudzinskas. He’d probably straighten right up if he couldn’t buy a hamburger or get his car fixed, eh?
As for a woman who would abort her own baby for having the wrong hair colour, her life will be the best punishment possible.
Or we could have a law requiring all pregnancies be registered, to make SURE the baby is ok. Compulsory doctor visits at the local Ministry of Life office, the works. Anybody want to go there?
“ban abortions outright, which we know from history does not work”
You’re stuck on stupid. Laws punish crime and remove criminals from society, they cannot stop crime. Whether a deterrent occurs is debatable but secondary.
Phantom said:
…”local Ministry of Life office”
This already exists, and is commonly known as the voluntary body and given the appellation: Church.
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP
Commander in Chief
Frankenstein Battalion
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
M Hawkins: In response to your X-1 comment, I would PREFER not to allow the abortion of ANY fetus, but I can recognize that there are extenuating circumstances in some cases where abortion may be the most practical solution. In addition, an outright ban on ALL abortions will NEVER EVER happen in Canada…NEVER.
Being a realist and being practical about it, I believe that one can address all of the reasons for “needing” abortions by permitting the abortions to continue up to the time that the baby can reasonably survive outside the womb. The women still have their choice (they only have 3 months to make their choice, though), pregnancies resulting from rape can be ended, babies born to those who cannot “deal” with them can be avoided, etc.
Compromise on any issue will always appear to be logically flawed, in my opinion. And so it is with my stance.
I should say though, that I also agree with Kingstonlad…if they’re going to abort, do it on their OWN dime…in 99% of the cases, it is NOT medically necessary, therefore taxpayers shouldn’t cover the cost.
“You’re stuck on stupid. Laws punish crime and remove criminals from society, they cannot stop crime. Whether a deterrent occurs is debatable but secondary.”
Rrright. So we should pass a law that everyone will promptly ignore, and only prosecute the odd one now and again to keep everybody else’s head down. The gun registry springs to mind for some reason. Bad public policy. You either respect and trust your fellows or you don’t M Hawkins.
Hans, I was being ironic. Perhaps I should have said “Ministry of Death”, that being a government body which decides which abortions shall take place and which shall not. There would still be abortions, and we would still be paying for them. The only change is who does the deciding.
An outfit like that could just as easily decree compulsory abortion for all minor birth defects, so the gubmint doesn’t have to cover the expense of corrective surgery. Or the carbon. You can’t see the Greenie Weenies doing that?
In “the phantom” world without laws, you better have a gun because it’s every man, woman and child (unborn and born) for themselves.
So Mr/Ms. Hawkins, you’ll trust your neighbor with a gun but you won’t trust a mother with her own baby?
I think there should be laws against murdering people: by gun or otherwise.
If I understand your position, you are an anarchist.
“…what’s that sci-fi movie called where a guy beat the odds of making to Saturn by doping his DNA with another person?”
tomax7, that would be Gattaca.
Great flick, BTW
mhb23re
M. Hawkins, not really, I just think government is an extremely blunt instrument best used sparingly. I don’t have your faith in bureaucracies to make things better. In my experience they almost always make things worse.