|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 29, @03:34PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Dan,
You wrote that you'd like to be contacted if someone is interested in, or going to, the meeting.
Would you care to post an email address that
you can be contacted at?
Thanks,
Kingsley G. Morse Jr.
Reproductive Rights Chairman
National Center for Men
Protect Voluntary Fatherhood
http://www.choiceformen.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kingsley:"You wrote that you'd like to be contacted if someone is interested in, or going to, the meeting. "
Sorry my mistake, and rest assured I will be making more. I read the submission several times and I still forgot to write my added post.
It wa submitted by an anonymous user who I hope will make themselves known shortly. But as the date seems to be drawing I think those UK activists should be aware that this event is happening and in any event let us know the results. Thanks Dan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 29, @03:48PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I asked hgc@doh.gsi.gov.uk if the meeting will discuss limiting men's access to DNA tests:
To whom it may concern,
I noticed that the Human Genetics Commission plans
to meet on February 5th. See
http://www.hgc.gov.uk/business_meetings_05february .htm
Is this meeting to discuss the topic of regulating
men's access to parentage testing services?
Thanks,
Kingsley G. Morse Jr.
Reproductive Rights Chairman
National Center for Men
Protect Voluntary Fatherhood
http://www.choiceformen.com
I think it's outrageous that anyone would seriously consider outlawing private DNA testing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that it's outrageous, but would you really be surprised if it were happening?
I wouldn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would be very curious to hear the torrent of weasel-speak which comes out of this "hgc@doh.gsi.gov.uk's" mouth to attempt to justify this...
This...
this...
Crap.
You know, no matter what word I use, it's going to be understated. I could rant on for two hours, without repeating myself, and it still wouldn't cover it. So "crap" is just going to have to be the descriptor.
I have heard about this type of thing before, too. I think in Australia.
They're getting bolder. Anyone still think exercising a little jury nullification if someone were to torch a NOW H.Q. is too much?
Yeah. I know. They're only doing it for the sake of the "chiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiildren." Pardon me whilst I commit the technicolor yawn.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 29, @09:20PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
So, testing a man's DNA AGAINST HIS WILL is ok to if you do it to force him to pay 30% of his income for 18 years because he did nothing but (drum roll!) had sex!!!, but a husband testing his alleged child to see if it really is his child is breaking the law. Wow.
It's time for the slaves to revolt, bigtime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is slightly off-topic, but I thought I'd run it by the group to elicit comment.
I was watching a PBS thing the other night on TV and the guy doing this particular research was using DNA to try to figure out the migration patterns that brought certain groups of people to where they are today. It had appeared from oral history and from some elements of DNA tracking that the Aborigines of Australia never migrated there from anywher; they originated. This was contrary to the theory that human life began in central Africa. But I digress.
About midway through the program he pointed out that he was only collected MALE DNA. Why is this? Apparently, female DNA, and the way it bonds two X chromosomes together cause the loss of traceability to prior generations, while bonding and X with a Y chromosome leaves a number of markers through which this guy has been tracing migration patterns. I apologize to those of you who know more about this than me: I may well have screwed-up the technical description.
As I watched this I though about our tradition of naming children for their fathers, and I wondered if the people who established that tradition "knew" something after all: That there is something to the male side of heritage, and that the old tradition of birthright was based, at least partially, on some scientific fact. Perhaps it is the case that, while individual life springs forth from women, the life of the species depends on the man. That men and women and the species are co-dependent.
A useless thought, I guess. But perhaps a useful philosophical theorem to play against the feminist belief that all things (including wisdom) spring forth from woman. I mean, some of this is obvious and well-understood HERE, but the more these facts emerge, the harder it is for the feminists to sell the notion of feminine superiority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently, female DNA, and the way it bonds two X chromosomes together cause the loss of traceability to prior generations, while bonding and X with a Y chromosome leaves a number of markers through which this guy has been tracing migration patterns.
Something’s funny here. A few months ago I saw what I considered to be an excellent show called “The Real Eve” (I think) on the Discovery Channel (I think) about human migration patterns. The researchers were tracking by testing mitochondrial DNA in native people in various parts of the world – and they could track only through the female.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 30, @01:49PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Here's Emma Wilbraham's reply from the HGC:
Dear Mr Morse
Thank you for your email about the HGC meeting on 5 February. The
Commission will not be considering parentage testing as part of its
discussions on genetic testing services supplied direct to the public. Its
report and recommendations are focussing on health-related tests. HGC is
likely to be returning to consider parentage testing at some stage in the
future in light of the recommendations it makes on health-related genetic
tests. We would be happy to include your organisation in any consultation
the Commission carries out on this subject.
Emma Wilbraham
HGC Secretariat
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kingsley, I don't know how sincere she is but she just invited you to the party. Were it me, I would go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 31, @05:02AM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
maybe it would be helpful for us if we kindly pointed them to the fact that according to recent studies, 10% of all children are not of their fathers. Maybe one of us could go there and hold a small presentation or at least provide some data as outlined in this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2369357.stm
Of course, we would only ask them to discuss the implications these facts will have on the medical treatment of children (and everybody is the child of somebody!), in particular:
- problems with the application of future DNA-tailored treatments and medicaments that depend on the parents' DNA
- organ transplantations between (assumed) relatives
- any other consequences for medical treatment (anybody here with a bachelor in biology?)
Of course we won't mention paternity tests or paternity fraud with a word. We're just a few worried fathers who are interested in the medical implications for their children. The purpose of this is to "plant the seed". After they've argued a little bit about this topic, they will probably have come to the following conclusions:
- there exists a huge problem
- medical implications for affected children might be grave
In addition to that, their attitude might change as follows:
- moral concerns against paternity fraud
- reduced bias against paternity testing
- worries of the men in the committee (10% is a lot!)
The result will probably be that they will be less likely to prohibit paternity testing.
If we are really happy, they will recommend the government to introduce mandatory paternity tests immediately after birth.
This is the kind of grassroots lobbyism we need.
Cheers,
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 31, @12:54PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
I would add that many forms of disease, ie. heart problems, cholesterol, some forms of cancer, are directly linked to heredity. Having the correct biological history is extremely important.
In daughters, unless there is a family history, many insurances will not do certain tests such as mammograms before a certain age. I am not sure about prostate cancer, if there are certain tests which are restricted. Also regular cholesterol testing in high risk children should probably be done, and you do not know if you are high risk without correct family history.
Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If we are really happy, they will recommend the government to introduce mandatory paternity tests immediately after birth.
This is what we should push for. It would solve a number of problems. First of all, it would help the child to know its true genetic heritage. Second, it would allow the man to know if he is the biological father before he and the child develop a stronger bond. (The man may already have a deep bond that was developed during pregnancy, but at least the child won't yet feel such a deep bond.) Third, if the tests are mandatory for all births, it would prevent problems of the man wanting a test and the woman freaking out over his not trusting her.
Mandatory testing at birth is the solution to the problem, provided, of course, that if the man finds out he's not the father he can walk away freely from the lying cheat, even if he made the mistake of marrying her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday February 01, @04:02AM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe "Anonymous User" aka "Mr. Morse" should do that?
Is it ok for you, Mr. Morse? You already had contact.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
