Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How could anyone in their right mind object to this? The only "downside" is that someone might get a label, a proper one, that they have an illness that could cause them to die.
But liberals, oh no, they might get offended or labelled. Better for them to die.
You make the erroneous assumption that liberals are causing a problem. Sorry, that is not supported. I find it odd that you're calling out liberals for objecting to the government making inquiries into one's health status. Isn't a small non-intrusive government what conservatives want? I don't get it. According to conservatives, it's OK for the government to enter the bedroom or look at one's blood samples, but it's not OK for government to regulate industry because, as we all know, THAT's too intrusive. Wasn't it the conservative state of Texas that wanted to mandate an inoculation to keep girls from getting a certain type of cancer? It was soundly defeated as too intrusive and Orwellian. These conservative "values" have me all confused!
You make the erroneous assumption that liberals are causing a problem. Sorry, that is not supported. I find it odd that you're calling out liberals for objecting to the government making inquiries into one's health status. Isn't a small non-intrusive government what conservatives want? I don't get it. According to conservatives, it's OK for the government to enter the bedroom or look at one's blood samples, but it's not OK for government to regulate industry because, as we all know, THAT's too intrusive.
What does this have to do with liberals? I take it you didn't read the article? The NCAA has mandated this testing following a law suit. If they are sincerely concerned about the health and wellbeing of their athletes they would mandate other testing too. Sudden death due to previously undiagnosed cardiac issues is way more common than sickle cell disease. The largest advocacy group opposes it, the SCAAA.
Quote:
Although endorsed by some doctors, sports officials, athletes and parents, the testing has raised objections from both the Sickle Cell Anemia Association of America and a federal panel that advises the government on issues related to genetic testing.
This is a poorly thought out knee-jerk reaction. I'm still uncertain what liberals have to do with your rant though.
What does this have to do with liberals? I take it you didn't read the article? The NCAA has mandated this testing following a law suit. If they are sincerely concerned about the health and wellbeing of their athletes they would mandate other testing too. Sudden death due to previously undiagnosed cardiac issues is way more common than sickle cell disease. The largest advocacy group opposes it, the SCAAA.
This is a poorly thought out knee-jerk reaction. I'm still uncertain what liberals have to do with your rant though.
So in your liberal opinion, it's better for someone to die than possibly be offended?
Do you deny that people with Sickle Cell have the possibility of dropping dead, like has happened several times?
Or is it better to not offend anyone by letting them know they have the condition?
When you donate blood, they test for HIV, and if you have it, they notify you. Should that be stopped so that people don't get offended?
Location: Georgia, on the Florida line, right above Tallahassee
10,471 posts, read 15,838,455 times
Reputation: 6438
Your posts never cease to amaze. Did you know? Some liberals eat nachos. Obviously, this means that liberals condone nachos. While conservatives tisk-tisk and pish posh at the mere thought of eating a nacho, once it has been determined to have been tainted by liberal bias, some may very well argue that there are conservative who enjoy a good macho-nacho dinner, every now and again. Or at least, as a crunchy snack to enjoy during the game. http://foodalogue.com/wp-content/upl...os-500x375.jpg
I do see your point though. Mass genetic screening is good for all mankind.
In the early part of the Shōwa era, Japanese governments executed a eugenic policy to limit the birth of children with "inferior" traits, as well as aiming to protect the life and health of mothers.[110] The Race Eugenic Protection Law was submitted from 1934 to 1938 to the Diet. After four amendments, this draft was promulgated as the National Eugenic Law in 1940 by the Konoe government.[111] According to the Eugenic Protection Law (1948), sterilization could be enforced on criminals "with genetic predisposition to commit crime", patients with genetic diseases such as total color-blindness, hemophilia, albinism and ichthyosis, and mental affections such as schizophrenia, manic-depressiveness and epilepsy.[112] Mental illnesses were added in 1952.
The Leprosy Prevention laws of 1907, 1931 and 1953, the last one only repealed in 1996, permitted the segregation of patients in sanitariums where forced abortions and sterilization were common, even if the laws did not refer to it, and authorized punishment of patients "disturbing peace," as most Japanese leprologists believed that vulnerability to the disease was inheritable.[113]
P.S. I'm near sighted, and have a slight lazy eye. I was born with it. It's called strabismus. It's not terrible, but it's who I am. My wife doesn't mind having a husband with one eye that is slightly crossed. My children don't have the crossed eye (my mom does) and my son is near sighted. Obviously, we are misfits who should not have been allowed to be born.
How could anyone in their right mind object to this? The only "downside" is that someone might get a label, a proper one, that they have an illness that could cause them to die.
But liberals, oh no, they might get offended or labelled. Better for them to die.
How about - and I realize that for an authoritarian, this may be a bitter pill to swallow - how about the NCAA offering the screening? Voluntary participation. Land of the Free and all that.
Even better, how about offering a screening for the bigger risk factors - cardiac issues, for instance - instead of forcing a very specific test as a knee-jerk reaction to a lawsuit?
(Perhaps, best of all, people could drop their unhealthy fixation on professional sports and athletes could stop subjecting their bodies to injurious loads to provide entertainment.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
