It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NBC's Snyderman: "It's Pro-Science To Abort Children With Genetic Defects"

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 01:27 PM

Originally posted by howmuch4another
Finally a way to rid us of people with red hair......

Well, we are special. We stand up for what we believe in, and we do it outspokenly.

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 01:29 PM

Originally posted by neo96
Well hoorah for Eugenics!

Well Hoorah for the master race!

Who made the supporters of that ideology GOD?



I guess it is just a coincidence that Merkel, the German leader, is calling for European nations to give up sovereignty for fiscal stability!

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 01:35 PM
reply to post by fnpmitchreturns

What the hell does that have to do with aborting children that do not live up to a perfection standard set by others?

No one is born perfect they never will be, and then just continuing on until someone deems something else to be unacceptable.

Pandora's box because once started it will never end.

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 01:43 PM
reply to post by neo96

I think is just a stupid policy and it is just wrong. People with disabilites often become gifted in another area. However, I agree that it should be a choice. I would probably not make that choice until it became clearly apparent of a severe disability to abort but that is me. There might be some parent who choose to or not to.....

I see it as a "personal choice" and none of the publics business.

I was going with ...

master race and Eugenics of the last great reich ..... I just found a parable between te fact now someone is pushing eugenic and the Germans want to do a fiscal takeover in Europe.....

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 01:56 PM
1 in 100 children alone born in the U.S. now have autism. There are 313,000,000 people in the United States as of July 2012, Census Bureau estimates. "If" and I say if, this heritable genetic anomaly suits the bill we are looking at 3,130,000 abortions a year, and if we say just 50 percent will actually decide to do it. The number is still large.

And this is but one genetic defect.

edit on 9-6-2012 by Daedal because: Edit

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 02:09 PM
I see further nightmares here.

Okay, we have a test to determine genetic defects.

If a couple chooses not to have the test done, will they sacrifice insurance for their child?

If a couple chooses to have the test but opts out of abortion, will insurace still cover the child?

I honestly see this as another form of social engineering.

I don't see any pluses to this thing.

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 02:15 PM
reply to post by wildtimes

Yes, why don't you ask them.

Go see them, and show how much respect you have for them, that you assume they wish to be dead, and prefer they be so. After all, it fits your neat little package of what "selfishness" is.. apparently the ability to tell other people they should want to feel like they were never born.

We all have our moments in life, but please eh? Try not to swing that bat around.

To add;

You seemed to have -more- of a problem with the woman having children. Advocate of sterilization.. or forced compliance, or nay?
edit on 9-6-2012 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 02:24 PM
Pardon me as I wax philosophical here....

I see, in this thread, so many thoughtful and clearly formed policies regarding the underlying rationale of the source and OP.

Yet I feel some sense of 'action-reaction' in the argumentation. Almost as if (and I am spit-balling here) the idea presented, in and of itself, is a threat.

It is not. It is up to each parent to consider and weigh this technical capability, what is reports, and whether that information has any bearing on a such a decision.

Do you want to know what I think, if it were me.... tough, I'm not saying. That matter's between me and whomever else I wish to include, not larger social-engineering pressures. (Hopefully you get the metaphorical point I was making.)

Let's not pretend for this once, that the world is drawn in black and white. Let's this time, forget the adages based upon marketing campaigns, and the larger message the world receives that "this is what everyone else thinks."

This perception that 'genetic disorder' is a 'drain on society' feels flat wrong to me. The human condition is jam packed with extraneous nonsense that we have fabricated to appease our frailties. We needn't add to that with "meme" baggage about the genetically afflicted being somehow responsible for the potential difficulties inherent in the human condition.

Part of humanity's condition is the very real fact that what drives the human to the greatest achievement and stride onward despite resistance is the act of confronting and overcoming challenges.... few would dare compare their strength of character and personal drive, to a so-called "handicapped" geniuses who not only far outpaced their peers, but also overcame disability for which others, similarly afflicted, have taken their own lives - all while dodging the social stigma thinking like "drain on society" engenders.

I urge caution in complicating the issue, by inserting morality; a strength of human character, but a weakness in cultural interfacing.

As a rule of human nature, there are no rules.
We humans, unlike many of our fellow earthlings, frequently prove that.

I would prefer to think of the possibility that once such unborn children are discovered, the parents use the time to prepare themselves fully to cope with the condition, as for making a decision.... they are not buying a car....

Many presume that abortion is clinical; they will base their decision on that (perhaps).
Many presume abortion is violent; they will base their decision on that (perhaps).
Many have an "order" or "tradition" which they choose to honor; they will base their decision on that (perhaps).

But notice.... it a choice.... does everyone agree it should be about not losing that choice? That this so-called eugenic principle is a "choice" too. And that it should not supersede the "choice" of another, as that would engender tacit inequality.

I believe we desperately need to shed ourselves of the desire to 'right' and to embrace the possibility of hope.

Someday, other medical advances will be released to address the human condition; perhaps even in-utero-gene therapies and other mediation techniques to help the future human. But without the ability to detect them pre-delivery; the most effective period of treatment may be lost. It is not the knowledge that needs to drive the decision.... it's the human heart. Follow it.... at least you'll be able to sleep at night (there's an ironic pun in there.)

How many of us might have been considered too high risk to deliver, or been seen as an insurmountable burden to a young couple? No one ever said, life would be easy, or simple, or painless... and aren't we surprised when we find nobility, brilliance, strength, empathy, and joy where we were certainly never expecting it?
edit on 9-6-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 02:27 PM
reply to post by The Sword

Probably the same type of emotional trauma she would suffer if the child died early on from disease...a horse of a different color is still a horse.

Not that Im advocating such from a rape victim..ultimately its her choice. And there are some that would carry the child to term save any taboo instance brought on by society in a sense of whats right and whats considered wrong.

My point the end...each has the same amount of baggage that comes with it. And unless an individual is fully prepared to carry said baggage....keeping the child would logically not be recommended in either case.

Again that seems cold, but maybe I don't view the value of human life like everybody else is told they're supposed to. Our species has been killing each other off for the better part of thousands of years. Why should this particular instance raise an eyebrow? In the end, we're animals.

I've known of women who aborted what would have been perfectly normal children for no other reason than the fact that it was an unplanned action (like so many selfish desires in life sited as the cause).

And I've also known women who carried to term who were not prepared for it. The fore mentioned individual turned out better than the latter. And with the latter, the child still suffers due to not having a parent who was initially prepared for it coming into this world. These are children conceived under normal conditions mind you, ones without defect.

Now add disease to the mix and honestly ask yourself, what would you really want for that child? Granted its a selfish choice to abort, but no more selfish than the decision that put a woman in the position to show up at a bar wearing hump me pumps, drinking too much, then going home with Mr Wrong the barfly.

Again I ask, if your not fully prepared for what the result entails, whats the difference? Im not saying that a child with defect cannot be brought into this world, do what makes you happy. Im just saying that if your not prepared for it...maybe you shouldn't.

As far a the gov goes, they should have nothing to do with it. its a personal matter and ultimately what I say means nothing in the concerns of other peoples bodies.
edit on 9-6-2012 by GrandHeretic because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 02:32 PM
reply to post by Maxmars

You would first have to get rid of the money issue where treating the human condition is concerned. Get rid of that and we can cure everything.

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 02:34 PM

Originally posted by beezzer
I see further nightmares here.

Okay, we have a test to determine genetic defects.

If a couple chooses not to have the test done, will they sacrifice insurance for their child?

If a couple chooses to have the test but opts out of abortion, will insurace still cover the child?

I honestly see this as another form of social engineering.

I don't see any pluses to this thing.

Your right in that aspect, a scary notion to say the least....I could not be party to a bill that supports such in any aspect. What people do to themselves is their business and should not fear penalty for their decisions.

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 02:54 PM
reply to post by dreamingawake

So, what exactly does this have to do with advancing the collective knowledge of the human species?

(Second Line)

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 03:34 PM
Some of the most interesting and wonderful people I know are considered 'defective'.
There's something about imperefection that makes things all the more perfect and sublime, it's a shame the perfect cookie cutter folk can't appreciate that. I'm sure they mean well and think to improve the quality of life for future generations but given the present madness of humanity, that intention will quickly be warped and twisted to other intentions less 'wholesome'. It's one of those damned if you do and damned if you don't situations, I reckon.

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 03:39 PM
This goes hand in hand with a topic I started a couple months ago

Basicallly my ex-gf in australia works for an auzzie firm dealing with autistic individuals, and my current GF and I got in a convo about about what we would do if we she got pregnant and we ran tests and it turned out that our fetus had an extra chromosome or something. We're both pro-life but after seeing what my uncle went through and how our family dissolved after they had a Down's child, I just think that I couldn't go through that intense pain. For those of you that haven't been affected personally by a severe disablement, it's (extremely) heartbreaking, just watching the pain my uncle went thru makes me feel so bad for him even if the last time I saw him he almost beat the # out of my step-dad for NO-REASON whatsoever. Then they hermited up and dissavowed EVERYBODY including my grandpa who'll never say it hurts because of the kind of man he is but I can see the pain in his eye because our uncle was a certain kind of "glue" that held our families together and encouraged family values in his own quirky sometimes rascist way LoL.

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 04:00 PM
We have the legal workings of a totalitarian regime and a people advocating for eugenics on a public, mainstream network. When am I going to start hearing Heil Hitler?

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 04:00 PM

edit on 9-6-2012 by ArrythmianDreams because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 04:01 PM
In the end, it can be no one other than the parents' decision.

I know some parents who consider themselves blessed; even after financial ruin.... which may imply that sometimes - it's not about money.

Leave those so inclined to not have to "justify" to the world that they want to keep a child.

As for those who don't... well that's your choice... maybe it's for the best... but no one ever knows for sure, do they?

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 04:10 PM
Did you know some in the field of disabled children - - - recommend you have a funeral for the child you were expecting - - - and a "new birth" ceremony for the child you now have?

Almost everyone expects their child to be perfect - - to fulfill a dream you have for that child. When that child doesn't come - - what do you do?

Many families split because of a disabled child. Not only because one parent may devote all their energy and emotions to that child - - ignoring spouse and other children - - but also because the "dream" is no longer there.

Some people really can not accept that dream is not going to happen. Some simply can not let go - - blame and resent the child.

It is an incredibly idealistic viewpoint - - - to think all parents are going to love and care for a "less then perfect" child. FACT: we do not live in an idealistic world. Parents of "normal" children aren't even all that great. Why any living child should suffer is beyond my scope of understanding.


I do not feel wrong in wanting parents to have a healthy child. For a family to live their dream. To give their healthy child everything they planned for.


posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 04:10 PM
reply to post by Maxmars

As someone already stated, unfortunately, we don't live in a vacuum.

We have government stepping in to tell us HOW MUCH soda we can have.

You think this wouldn't be regulated?

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 04:42 PM

Originally posted by flashtrum
reply to post by dreamingawake

"Forced sterilization of minorities"? Source please?


Compulsory sterilization aka forced sterilization:

The United States was the first country to concertedly undertake compulsory sterilization programs for the purpose of eugenics.

According to the activist Angela Davis, Native Americans, as well as African-American women[33] were sterilized against their will in many states, often without their knowledge while they were in a hospital for other reasons (e.g. childbirth).

Since 2002, five states -- Virginia, Oregon, North Carolina, South Carolina and California -- have publicly apologized to people who were forcibly sterilized under laws in effect from the early 1900's until the 1970's.
NyTimes[/ur l]

ATS Threads:
[url=]Forced Sterilization in America: It Inspired the Nazis and Went on Longer

NC panel: Forced sterilization victims should get $50K,

new topics

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in