This cure is still not preventing millions from dying from malaria each year. Some people must birth children with abnormalities in order for humans to evolve. Do you contest this statement?
Again with the late term abortions - which are for foetal abnormality Now let us say we move the line of viability to 20 weeks (most jurisdictions it is 22 weeks) then who pays? If a woman miscarries then we have to give full resuscitation (unless the parents decide ot palliate) and a million to one chance means that you have to put one million premature babies of 20 weeks gestation in NICU to have one survival Who pays for the failures? Who is going to bear the emotional, physical and social cost of that many dying babies? Nicu costs well over $1000 a day and babies that premature may need 2 =3 months care in NICU Who pays for that? Now returning to Zika virus and microcephaly - again who pays for the lifelong intense care this baby will need? What are you going to do when they reach adulthood and they are still being fed through a tube and needing full time care? Irritability is actually usually a sign of distress and or pain - these babies are irritable
Yes, for normal people. But those who want to control women and make others suffer think it's right to make others suffer...and you won't catch them volunteering for it.. I wonder if they'd allow experiments on their bodies while still alive? Ya know, to further evolution.....
How do you think we evolve? Do you think the thumb was a beautiful, fully functional appendage during the first few generations of offspring that possessed it? Are you contesting the statement or not?
Good post and it's good you pointed out to the "uninformed" just why those babies are irritable....it isn't that they're just having a bad day as the poster has suggested...
Would you try to prevent a fetal abnormality if your wife was pregnant if you could? Or would you do what is better for the species?
Yes Because there are favourable mutations such as resistance to cancer or increased intelligence but each can also carry a down side. But Microcephaly? They will not reproduce Large portions of the brain are MISSING
So do you contest the statement or not? Don't some people have to birth children that have deformities in order for humans to evolve? If not, can you please explain to me how a species evolves if every abnormal mutation in DNA is aborted? I'm not sure if these Zika babies apply to these evolutionary concepts I speak of. I just think we should be sure before advocating for aborting them all.
It depends if there was any possibility for the child to pass on its genes. If there is just one Zika infected baby that could reproduce, then we shouldn't be advocating for aborting them all.
If there is any possibility of reproducing, definitely yes. I don't trust you people, or scientists, to not be getting rid of something we might need 200k years down the road. Who is to say that the thumb wasn't a monstrous deformity on the hands of many generations who first possessed it? If y'all were around, and had the capability, you would have removed the thumb from the gene pool. You would have had no idea that humans could have benefited from it many many generations down the road. Am I the only one who spent more than 5 minutes thinking about evolution when it was taught in school? How do people not get this concept?
Does every single baby affected by the Zika virus turn out like this? What if one doesn't, and it carries a hugely beneficial trait that in 500k years, all humans would possess?
For the umpteenth time you are pretending that there some magical "fetal rights" that don't exist under the Law of the Land and therefore are not any kind of "stumbling block" except for those who can't comprehend reality.
That one baby sets the leading edge of the boundary. Thirty years ago, a baby born at 24 weeks would be considered a miracle, today that's considered the medical community threshold for viability and a baby born at 24 weeks is expected to survive. Hospitals with neonatal ICU's have an even lower threshold for viability. And in your popularity contest for granting human status, how many must survive? Are you going to apply that standard to all issues?
Onus is on YOU to explain exactly how humanity is going to evolve when the known birth abnormality is Microcephaly. Do you expect them to grow into functioning adults capable of supporting themselves and their families? So you expect them to have some other magical power that will allow them to roost in trees or breathe under water? What evolutionary advantage are you seeing from Microcephaly that all other normal rational people don't?
Then in your opinion, all who will not have a "normal" life are to be killed? The paraplegic, the deaf, the blind, the alcoholic, the drug abuser, the diabetic, the retarded, just kill them all?
Interesting that the person who claims extreme gun control with its associated costs is worth it if it just saves one life suddenly is concerned about the cost of life when it comes to babies.
There is no way to say how a certain combination of genes might help us 500k years from now. What evolutionary advantage was observed in the sickle cell gene when they first discovered it? I do believe it is only recently that we have learned that, in a malarial environment, one parent with sickle cell and one without, could actually be more advantageous than 2 parents without. Thankfully, we didn't have the capability to eliminate all of them...
Where did you get the idea that these women and their fetuses have some obligation to further evolution? Why don't you donate yourself and your children for live experiments in the name of furthering evolution? After you FORCE child birth on women will you advocate having the children FORCIBLY bred? To what end ? Producing humans who have physical problems to improve humans? I raised horses at one time and only an idiot would breed horses with obvious defects...... No, you have NO concern for evolution...just control....
Ironic since you don't seem to understand how evolution actually works at all. Amongst creatures without an opposable thumb nothing could be grasped. Needless to say there was an immediate advantage to the abnormality of being able to grasp that enabled those with it to survive at greater rates than those without it and thus be able to pass that abnormality down to their offspring. So no, it wasn't a "monstrous deformity on the hands of many generations who first possessed it" at all. It was an abnormality that fostered survival from the get go. And it didn't just suddenly appear as a fully formed opposable thumb either. FTR most creatures have some vestige of a thumb just as we humans still have vestiges of our tails.
Your extreme hypothetical is not a rational basis for making a decision. On the other hand facts are a rational basis for making a decision. You could not provide any explanation whatsoever to support your position ergo the rational and normal people will stick with facts as the basis for making decisions.
Forcibly bred? All of these women were raped? I have no idea what you are talking about. And what would be a defect in horse breeding? Is it like dogs, where we pick those that we can live with, regardless of the benefit to the animal if it were to live in the wild? Like aggressiveness? Is that a defect? Maybe not a defect if one considers that the species might need that to survive in certain conditions (without humans). You don't know what humans need to survive, and I don't think you, or anyone else, is in a position to determine what is beneficial or not, especially considering time scales of hundreds of thousands of years. We can end up causing a lot more suffering by pretending we know.
The sickle cell gene scenario is fact. It is a fact that sickle cell genes can confer better immunity to malaria. It is a fact that scientists didn't know this beneficial trait before they knew the negative traits. It is a fact that the "abort all babies who will suffer" theory will eventually kill us as a species if it is successfully practiced worldwide.
