Breast cancer? You don’t deserve to live.

That is the message of the latest so-called “treatment” for breast cancer that was featured on the news last night. The report was on the first British baby born after screening for a gene that contributes to breast cancer risk. The BBC has more info here.

The first baby in the UK tested before conception for a genetic form of breast cancer has been born. …

The embryo was screened for the altered BRCA1 gene, which would have meant the girl had a 80% chance of developing breast cancer. …

Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) involves taking a cell from an embryo at the eight-cell stage of development, when it is around three-days old, and testing it.

This is before conception – defined as when the embryo is implanted in the womb.

Doctors then select an embryo free from rogue genes to continue the pregnancy, and discard any whose genetic profile points to future problems.

Firstly, the BBC need to ensure their medical reporter knows some basic science – they have no clue about what conception is, basic early high-school biology. Stupid sentences like “This is before conception – defined as when the embryo is implanted in the womb” really destroy what reputation the BBC may still have.

Basically what they do is produce a number of babies, test them, use one they like and kill the rest.

The media are calling it a “treatment”, or “gene therapy”. But it is nothing of the sort. A treatment is when someone has a disease and you treat them. This is simply killing off those that have an increased risk of developing a disease. You don’t treat anything. Nor do you prevent anything, as the “murdered ones” may never have developed the disease anyway, and the “chosen one” could still develop it regardless.

This process is actually called “eugenics”, killing off or sterilising the “undesirable” humans. It was pioneered in the USA before WWII, where many disabled people were sterilised. Hitler became a big fan, and set up death camps where millions of disabled people, Jews, Gypsies and gays were killed. Following the exposure of these camps at the end of the war most of the world rejected eugenics and suddenly no-one had ever supported the idea. But the philosophy lived on, and now it is coming back with a vengence.

In this situation, they are basically saying that if you have this one gene that increases the risk of breast cancer you don’t deserve to live. Already we have many Downs syndrome babies aborted, because people believe they don’t deserve to live either.

Where is the moral outrage that we saw at the end of WWII? Back then the West was dominated by Christianity. Now it is dominated by atheism. The moral fibre has gone.

So now eugenics is back. And many people don’t care because if you kill them before they are born you don’t have to hear them scream.

5 Responses to “Breast cancer? You don’t deserve to live.”

  1. kiwipolemicist Says:

    There’s an odd dichotomy here: a culture of perfection and a culture of death.

    The altered BRCA1 gene *may* carry an 80% risk of breast cancer (far too many “facts” are fudged to fit an ideology) but if they kill a baby on that basis there’s a 20% risk that they’re killing a baby who will never develop breast cancer.

    Pardon the rash of links, but these posts are relevant:
    1) http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2008/11/25/tapu-misa-of-the-nz-herald-advocates-forced-sterilisations/
    2) http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2008/12/02/update-to-tapu-misa-of-the-nz-herald-advocates-forced-sterilisations/
    3) http://christianclassicalliberalist.wordpress.com/2008/11/14/abortion-is-an-unwanted-baby-a-trespasser/

  2. Ozy Mandias Says:

    Peter Vardy writes some interesting views on this very subject in his book ‘being human’. Has anyone read this book??

    I think, if I can remember, that he argues Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (or whatever it is called) is morally okay because we would attmept to fix the child once it is born, so why not before. I cant remeber if the circumstance were similiar but I think that was the basic idea. Could be wonrg.

    Any important part of the book also looks at the implications of this type of genetic work on our society which I think is very scary. Imagaine in the future, once this is common, if you decided not to the the treatment for your child and it was born with some defect (for lack of a better word) that could have been avoided through a simple gene swap prior to birth. The consequences in our society could be very damaging. Could parents be liable???

    My fear is that this is just the tip of the iceberg on this topic. Sadly there is always someone willing to go that ‘next step’.

  3. Mr Dennis Says:

    Ozy Mandias:
    “I think, if I can remember, that he argues Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (or whatever it is called) is morally okay because we would attmept to fix the child once it is born, so why not before.
    …and it was born with some defect (for lack of a better word) that could have been avoided through a simple gene swap prior to birth”

    I think you misunderstand what they are doing. They aren’t swapping any genes around (that would be genetic engineering). They’re just identifying the “defective” humans and killing them, leaving the ones that already have the desired genes.

    I can see no problem with diagnosing problems at any stage of development, or treating those problems. But this is not treatment, it is murder.

  4. Joel Says:

    It reminds me somewhat of Gattaca…only, sad to say, Gattaca would be “preferable” to what the UK is doing.

    You are correct; this is eugenics.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: