Odd, I don't remember such restrictions being placed on this before other examples were given. I believe I was replying to Sarvis's uncalled-for and overly melodramatic accusation, and while there is a very narrow window for the particular condition you're referring to, the "strawman" stands. If you're arguing about tests that save lives, then you'd best decide which lives you're willing to save and which ones you're not. Is the two week window your cut-off? Or can we extend that to a month? Two months? If it's not diagnosed within a year should they be allowed to die?
If the argument is "you would rather let people die than spend money on them" then do feel free to tell me exactly which ones you think deserve to live. Go ahead, set up specific criteria for which people you think deserve to have their conditions diagnosed in time to save their lives.
No, Kelly, the strawman doesn't stand... mainly because it is a strawman and doesn't really apply. You're making it seem entirely too black and white: either we pay for all tests that save lives or none. Sure, we could give everyone an AIDS test which will save lives. We can give everyone MIRs, CAT scans, x-rays to find early stages of cancer, but we are talking about one thing in particular: Kiryan's pro-life stance on abortion which is diametrically opposed to his economic stance on this ONE particular test, which, unlike the other tests you mention or allude to, are not in the same category. This is where the argument started, and I think it should stay here rather than meandering around this or that and taking a bypass into some territory that only vaguely, if at all, resembles the original debate. This is where you're taking it.
To clarify, Kiryan is pro life -- for various reasons. One of which happens to be that human life is sacred and that the destruction of the life is done with no regard to the owner of said life's wishes (if they do have any). There is little difference in the situations; however, I feel I must explain further. In the case of the test, there is hardly a way other than the test to prevent certain death. There is hardly a possibility to recognize the symptoms as being this certain disorder due to them either not showing or them being masked by other normal baby behaviors. The window to catch this disease is insanely small (talking days/weeks at most); for cancer you have years at times; there is nothing you can do about AIDS except prevent the spread (but a baby isn't sexually active). I can list very good reasons why this test is entirely different than the ones you are proposing. In other words, this disorder/disease is invisible without either the test, or if the child(ren) were to have Dr. House as a father -- assuming he would pay attention to anybody but himself. So, in short, we are talking about necessary prevention. The key word here being "prevention."
In the case of abortion, we also have the existence of a "prevention." By outlawing abortion you are again preventing the deaths of children who have no say in the matter -- except these children do not necessarily have all the "things" that make one a "real" person. I say this to show the argument of when a child becomes a child or when a fetus becomes a child. In essence, the test prevention removes this argument which the pro-lifers use so often -- that a life is a life at conception. Regardless, though, none of this seems to matter in the arena of testing to Kiryan, yet it is the driving factor behind his pro-life position.
In both cases, we see a prevention of death. In both cases we see the loss of value of life per se. To a man who rests his abortion position on a foundation of this sanctity of life and the inability for the child to choose for him/herself whether or not to live, it is contradictory by nature to also be against this certain test. I am not arguing for all tests, mind you, but this one in specific and others which mirror the criteria this also meets: certain death without it with no other avenue of preventing said death. In most other tests, there are other avenues and the test is not even remotely as important to the child as this. And I would also like to draw attention to the criteria of this being on newborn babies -- the closest thing you can get to an abortion situation as possible. THIS is why this test is being argued and why a test for MS, CP, Huntington's, etc. are not being argued -- because those tests do not mirror the same criteria that abortion does. Lastly, this is why your argument I quoted was a strawman, and I hope I answered your question/statements up to the bold markers. Anything else, again, becomes peripheral to the actual argument.
Kiryan, you say the test is not necessary or shouldn't be done. I would like you to clarify your position on this. Is the cost to lives saved ratio too large? At what percentage of lives saved to cents does the ratio need to be in your mind to be "worth" saving the life? When you took this stance on this test and others like it, were you factoring in that abortions are "unwanted" babies, put in environments that are disastrous to the well being (both mental and physical) to the child, and most likely will not get the care and nurturing that a baby whose parents didn't want to have an abortion; yet, the test is naturally on babies that were wanted and were, probability-wise, opposite to the living conditions of the other abortions? Also, did you factor in how much you save on taxes from all of these abortions due to the strain on healthcare, social security, job loss, over population, welfare, etc. that these aborted babies would have drained from the coffers of the government over the span of their lives? For someone who is fiscally responsible enough to allow innocent children to die because the test is an extra $.50, you would think you would not only be pro-choice, but you would be doing backyard abortions for free with a sign on every major highway in a 50 mile radius.