Comment: I see nothing wrong with the speech;

(See in situ)


I see nothing wrong with the speech;

Rand was/IS correct to warn about the Ethical Dangers of "Designer Babies," as relayed @ recent Liberty University Convocation

Rand Paul on Eugenics, VA 10-28-13

http://youtu.be/7sJUesdi7rc
americanbridge21st
Published on Oct 28, 2013
Rand Paul at Liberty University Convocation
Lynchburg VA, 10-28-2013

NOTE: the only video of it I could find on YT was posted by an a-hole rabid commie statist fascist 'Progressive' apologist, but be that as it may, here it is.

The 'Ethics' of genetics tech/innovation usage in determining who gets to live, die, or improve, aka "designer babies," (H/T: SlugNuts) aka. eugenics, especially one determined by a centralized state's mechanisms determining such (aka. oBUSHmaScare), has been debated and resisted from its very founding days, and still to this day.

But, if you needed any more evidence that SOME among the white-robed cultists are literally sociopathic, look no further than the following (NOTE: this is from a group of Oxford linked self-described 'ethicists'!!!):

OMG: Psychotic Aussie "Ethicists," Yes, EthicistS argue FOR Killing Fetuses AND Healthy Infants!

***********************

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-1...

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Alberto Giubilini1,2,
Francesca Minerva3,4

1Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
2Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
3Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
4Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford University, Oxford, UK

Correspondence to Dr Francesca Minerva, CAPPE, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia; francesca.minerva@unimelb.edu.au

Contributors AG and FM contributed equally to the manuscript.

Received 25 November 2011
Revised 26 January 2012
Accepted 27 January 2012
Published Online First 23 February 2012

Abstract

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

***********************

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.


New arrival: but if his parents earn more than £60,000 each he will lose his Child Benefit from January Photo: Alamy

By Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent
1:38PM GMT 29 Feb 2012

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

H/T: JDawson

***************************************************************

The fact that Rand is merely citing reality, and using a film, GATTACA, as a visual aid for the modern dumb-ed down sheeple, and the likes of MADCOW are feigning indignant, and biitching and whining about him reading off Wiki description of the film's plot as "plagiarizing," is pretty propagandistically, telling:

Where'd you get your speech,Rand?

http://youtu.be/bV0TXNpFJFg
News
Published on Oct 29, 2013

'Cause you know, obviously, well, pfft, didn't ya know? If you read off the back of its BluRay packaging's description box or the same info given by the film co, recited in Wiki, then you tell someone else about the film's plot as described by the producers themselves, it's "plagiarizing"... you know: just like writing a novel about it and calling it your own, yay! Didn't ya know?

Is this how seriously dumb-ed down MADCOW's 200 member audience is?

Are all 'liberals' this moronic, these days?

I 'get' that MADCOW's official job description is to be the GE warWHORE propagandist, but WTF is the rest of 'liberals' excuse?

Are her viewers so moronic, that they actually think that this is a 'controversial' view, when geneticists and 'ethicists' and the citizenry constantly talk about this very issue?


Designing Life: Should Babies Be Genetically Engineered?

Wynne Parry, LiveScience Contributor
February 18, 2013 12:22pm ET


Do you think parents should have the option to genetically modify their unborn children?

NEW YORK — The increasing power and accessibility of genetic technology may one day give parents the option of modifying their unborn children, in order to spare offspring from disease or, conceivably, make them tall, well muscled, intelligent or otherwise blessed with desirable traits.

Would this change mean empowering parents to give their children the best start possible? Or would it mean designer babies who could face unforeseen genetic problems? Experts debated on Wednesday evening (Feb. 13) whether prenatal engineering should be banned in the United States.

Humans have already genetically modified animals and crops, said Sheldon Krimsky, a philosopher at Tufts University, who argued in favor of a ban on the same for human babies. "But in the hundreds of thousands of trails that failed, we simply discarded the results of the unwanted crop or animal."

H/T: SlugNuts

***************************************************************

All Rand was saying is that as a scientist himself while he is NOT against the science of genetics, that said, he's simply warning that one should seriously think about the consequences of "playing God," and the derivative society that it may result in, should 'designer babies' become as common as a nose job in Beverly Hills.

Big whup.

Another non-'controversy' controversy, by the statist propagandist drama queens.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul