More African-American Babies Aborted in NYC Than Born

[beanz]

 

[PortCityProphet]

If You Cant Feed Your Baby (Yeah, Yeah)
Then Don't Have A Baby (Yeah, Yeah)
And Don't Think Maybe (Yeah, Yeah)
If You Can't Feed Your Baby (Yeah, Yeah)
You'll Be Always Tryin'
To Stop That Child From Cryin'
Hustlin', Stealin', Lyin'
Now Baby's Slowly Dyin'

Mike told em years ago

 

[PortCityProphet]

the world won on this one. that does not need to reproduce and raise a child

 

[newworldafro]

In other news, I think its thread on it already last year on this in the UK ... but now ..........

http://www.myfoxny.com/story/24804604/fda-weighs-risks-of-3-person-embryo-fertilization

FDA weighs risks of 3-person embryo fertilization

Posted: Feb 24, 2014 9:15 AM CST<em class="wnDate">Monday, February 24, 2014 10:15 AM EST
By MATTHEW PERRONE
AP Health Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal health regulators will consider this week whether to green light a provocative new fertilization technique that could eventually create babies from the DNA of three people, with the goal of preventing mothers from passing on debilitating genetic diseases to their children.
The Food and Drug Administration has framed its two-day meeting as a "scientific, technologic and clinical" discussion about how to test the approach in humans. But the technique itself raises a number of ethical questions, including whether the government should sanction the creation of genetically modified humans.
The FDA panel will hear from several prominent critics who oppose any human testing of the approach, arguing that it could be a slippery slope toward "designer babies," - in which parents customize traits like eye color, height and intelligence.
But the field's leading U.S. researcher will be on hand to explain and defend his work, which he describes as "gene correction," rather than "gene modification."
"We want to replace these mutated genes, which by nature have become pathogenic to humans," says Dr. Shoukhrat Mitalipov, who will present on Tuesday. "We're reversing them back to normal, so I don't understand why you would be opposing that."
The FDA meeting was prompted by Mitalipov's research at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, where he and his staff have produced five healthy monkeys using the DNA-replacement technique. He is seeking FDA approval to begin testing in a handful of women who carry defective genes that can lead to devastating diseases in children, including blindness, organ failure and epilepsy.
An estimated 1 in 5,000 U.S. children inherit such conditions because of defective DNA in their mitochondria, small energy-producing organs found in the cell. Unlike most DNA - located in the nucleus of the cell - mitochondrial DNA is passed along only by the mother, not the father.
The experimental technique, if approved for use, would allow a woman to give birth to a baby who inherits her normal nucleus DNA but not her defective mitochondrial DNA.
To accomplish this, researchers would remove the nucleus DNA from a healthy female donor's eggs and replace it with the nucleus DNA of the prospective mother. After fertilization, the resulting child would inherit the mother's nucleus DNA - which contains most inherited traits like eye color and height - but the donor's healthy mitochondrial DNA.
The technique initially made headlines as a way to create babies with three parents, but scientists say that's an overstatement, since the child would have only trace bits of DNA from the donor.
No matter how it's described, the technique faces opposition from a broad spectrum of critics who say it presents serious medical, ethical and societal dilemmas.
Chief among these concerns is that the genetic changes created using the technique would be passed down to future generations, potentially spreading unintended health consequences throughout the population.
In a letter to the FDA, the Center for Genetics and Society points out that more than 40 countries - including Germany and France - have laws banning human gene modification that is passed on to future offspring.
The group's director says mitochondrial replacement would help only a tiny fraction of patients affected by such disorders, and they have other options like egg donation to create healthy children.
"It does initially look like something you would want to support," said Marcy Darnovsky. "But the safety concerns and the social and ethical concerns are really overriding."
Still, many experts expect the FDA to eventually sign off on testing the technique. They note that regulators in the U.K. found broad public support for the research there, with no evidence that it would endanger mothers or their children. The U.K. has significantly more regulations surrounding in vitro fertilization than the U.S., where fertilization clinics are essentially a self-regulated industry.
And before the FDA considers the philosophical implications of genetically modified children, its first concern is the safety of any patients enrolled in experiments. In documents posted ahead of this week's meeting, the agency said it will seek public input on how to monitor the safety of women who undergo the fertilization process. The agency also wants to hear proposals for long-term follow-up of any children produced via the process.
Stanford University Professor Hank Greely says the FDA is taking the right approach by focusing on the immediate safety concerns, rather than speculating on whether this could lead to a "Brave New World" scenario of biologically engineered humans.
"We constantly live on slippery slopes and it's our job as moral humans to hold a good position on the slope," said Greely, a law professor who studies medical ethics. "If you're worried about genetically engineered monsters or superheroes then you try to stop that, you don't try to stop medically useful interventions because you're worried that 17 steps down the line it will turn into something we don't like."

 

[NerdNash]

Sounds about right

 

[Deflatedhoopdreams]

Good. Abortions. Abortions for all

 

[HollowPoints2]

Statistics say it's a real problem. Black Americans have lower birth rate than cacs and a far higher death rate. This is in NY, which is a liberal region. We're not even talking about people like Mormons, rednecks, etc. At the moment, Black Americans are killing themselves off--both in birth and death rate--while cacs and Mexicans breed like rabbits. The group which controls America is the majority.

I wanted to high light your post.

 

[How Sway?]

the world won on this one. that does not need to reproduce and raise a child

lol! forreal

 

[HollowPoints2]

lol! forreal

But thousands of other women like her are giving birth to children everyday so instead of looking for the easy route (abortion)why not think of ways to promote better parenting?

Why not start a campaign of shaming bad parenting in the black community?

Set standards on acceptable behavior for adults and how we raise our kids.

that will force parents to second guess the way they conduct themselves in fear of being condemned or ridiculed.

If your argument is that abortion is needed for bad parents,which is a bandaid to a large problem,then why not look for a solution gets to the root cause rather than put a bandaid on it.

Fix the parenting problem by promoting a code of conduct but I don't think you are about solutions or getting black ppl on the same page when it comes to parenting our children.you're looking for a fast easy way out which will lead to a disaster in the future.

 

[airmax95fan]

But thousands of other women like her are giving birth to children everyday so instead of looking for the easy route (abortion)why not think of ways to promote better parenting?

Why not start a campaign of shaming bad parenting in the black community?

Set standards on acceptable behavior for adults and how we raise our kids.

that will force parents to second guess the way they conduct themselves in fear of being condemned or ridiculed.

If your argument is that abortion is needed for bad parents,which is a bandaid to a large problem,then why not look for a solution gets to the root cause rather than put a bandaid on it.

Fix the parenting problem by promoting a code of conduct but I don't think you are about solutions or getting black ppl on the same page when it comes to parenting our children.you're looking for a fast easy way out which will lead to a disaster in the future.

Preach brother.

 

[ProfessionallyTrill]

Yes. We need a CODE.

Black folks today live like the Zerg with no Overmind.
The ones that get it will get it

 

[PortCityProphet]

But thousands of other women like her are giving birth to children everyday so instead of looking for the easy route (abortion)why not think of ways to promote better parenting?

Why not start a campaign of shaming bad parenting in the black community?

Set standards on acceptable behavior for adults and how we raise our kids.

that will force parents to second guess the way they conduct themselves in fear of being condemned or ridiculed.

If your argument is that abortion is needed for bad parents,which is a bandaid to a large problem,then why not look for a solution gets to the root cause rather than put a bandaid on it.

Fix the parenting problem by promoting a code of conduct but I don't think you are about solutions or getting black ppl on the same page when it comes to parenting our children.you're looking for a fast easy way out which will lead to a disaster in the future.

You can lead a bird to water but you can't make it drink. Yes we can go all out for campaigns (where the money coming from for this?) but what good is it if the person in charge of the child doesn't wanna listen. I wanna see the education level of those aborting cause the idiots of the race don't need to reproduce. While the smarter ones do.
And what's this get black people on the same page ish? Name one thing black people are on the same page about and the last time we were on the same page about something?

 

[aqualung]

These numbers are not surprising. -_-

This city is no place to raise poor/indigent kids. Impoverished AfAm women who lack sophistication/education can indeed encounter difficulty when they attempt to obtain medical care for themselves. If you can't afford medical care for yourself, then you cannot afford even one single child. If you're not smart about BC and condoms and contraceptives and prophylactics and abstaining from sex, then YES. Ask your doctor what abortion can do for you

When poor women have many live births, those indigent children increase the city's crime rate. Freakonomics taught us. http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/
Best to abstain or use birth control. But if you're not THAT good at planning ahead, then abortion will do.

 

[aqualung]

That's fine, just know that it's all being manipulated by old White men on a macro scale.

Abortion is population control from the bottom up -- not from the top down. Aside from rape victims, nobody forced these NYC women to jump through all the hoops between conception and abortion. I have lived in Manhattan for 8 months; I am a black woman of reproductive age. Nobody has walked up to me and offered me a free abortion. (Scientologists have approached me 4x, but that's diff.)

Abortions are easily accessible in NYC? Well so are most vices (street narcotics, illegal immigrant labor, viruses/bacteria on pub trans, casual sex, etc.). At least abortions solve a social problem.

If you take away their easy access to abortion, will indigent and uneducated women suddenly get good at condoms and BC? No. They will spawn a buncha b*stard kids to rob you in 15 years.

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

It is a recession. Money is scarce. People who want to keep money in their families are having FEWER CHILDREN (and educating them better).
Ethnic minorities gain power by amassing money and organizing socially -- not by population boom alone.

 

[Poitier]

It is a recession. Money is scarce.

Money is not scare. It is unequally distributed.

I personally don't think us Blacks can organize or educate at the level needed to boost us without sheer overwhelming numbers.