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

Originally posted by beezzer
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?

Indeed that's that's the frightening part.

Likely chances are it would be.

I've worked with the mentally retarded for most of my life, and I can say they do indeed contribute to society.

Eugenics is an awful lot like what the Nazi's wanted to do with their "master race", free of homo's and mental defects, and Jews, can't forget them.



You may think that takes it too far, but do you think Scientologists are mentally balanced? I sure don't, but I feel that way about most of the main stream religions also. Very few scientists adhere to deism, I don't see a future for religion if Eugenics happens.

careful snydermen, it's these kind of ideas that got me banned from "godlike productions".

guess we'll show them who's Godlike..

What if your parents had this option and they deemed any of the following genetic defects?:

Red hair
Black hair
Brown hair
Blonde hair
Blue eyes
Brown eyes
Green eyes
Big nose
Big ears
6 fingers/toes
Malformed fingers/toes
Poor vision
Poor hearing
Albinism
Asperger's Syndrome
Prone to seasonal allergies
Potential to become obese

If our parents had this option, how many would've used it? How many of us wouldn't be here now?

A genetic defect can fit any of the above, it is extremely subjective.

Originally posted by kickstart
reply to post by Sinny

 

Suffer a long time? I assume your disabled in some way and are speaking from experience and not putting words from a abled persons perspective into all disabled persons mouth. I know many people with varied disabilities and alot of them are happy and content with what they were given, it is more often abled people who become disabled that suffer more as the know and have felt what they will now miss for the rest of their life. Your comment seems to come the emotional part of your brain not the logical one.

I bet those alleged happy disabled that you know are those who are laughing on the outside but crying on the inside. No one is ever content to be disabled. It is just to embarrassing for them to admit otherwise. They don't want you sympathy, as this would only make them feel worse.

reply to post by SyphonX

You seemed to have -more- of a problem with the woman having children. Advocate of sterilization.. or forced compliance, or nay?

If a person chooses to marry a person whose genetic makeup jeopardizes the quality of life for a child they might conceive, it is incumbent upon them to research the possibilities.

No, not "forced" sterilization" or "compliance"....!! Did you look at the source explaining how T-C syndrome is inherited?....All I am advocating is mercy. Mercy on that child, who is shown (via early genetic testing) to have a grave genetic problem.....and will have to endure a life of multiple surgeries, ostracization, misery, and all the while be told how "special" s/he is.....

Seriously.....
do YOU want to live as Juliana Wetmore?

reply to post by dreamingawake

On Friday's NBC Today, chief medical editor Nancy Snyderman explained to viewers that it's just good science to abort an unborn child that may have a genetic disorder, explaining that testing for such conditions, "gives parents a chance to decide whether they're going to continue that pregnancy or not. This is the science of today."

*Sigh* perhaps, this moron doesn't know how many genetically 'defected' ones have been Great Scientists. BTW, no doubts, winds been blowing from insurance $©*mbags, their @$$€$ so lust after yet another bucki€$

Originally posted by 11235813213455
reply to post by beezzer

 

I agree completely.

I think that abortion/infanticide is a gateway belief that will lead to the broader belief of eugenics. Its a logical step for these people.

Thank GOD there are more moral people on this earth than them. Additionally...You don know who you are killing when you scrape'em out. You might be killing the next Martin Luther King or the next Thomas Edison.

Or the next Jeffery Dahmer, or the next Josef Stalin, or the next Pol Pot.

Do you see how this argument does not help your position at all? Because it works both ways in case you did not realize.

On topic: I'm all for screening for genetic defects and letting the parents make a decision. Now some could argue where the line is drawn in terms of severity of said defects/diseases. In my opinion, if the chances are the child will not live very long i.e. a day or maybe a month, what is the point? You are only going to make the whole situation worse by putting yourself through that. And I'm speaking from experience.

And to the person who posted a pic a Stephen Hawking: You might want to read a biography on him and learn more about his life, especially his university years.

reply to post by ideasarebulletproof

Just a little remark: one moment is, parents been informed of troubles & hella other one -- they been forced to abort + keep in mind, hospitals could kill 'wrong' babies by silent agreement w/ gov. & insurance companies

Unfortunately the media and ATS has decided to blow this out of proportion to revert to the climax argument and not even notice that Snyderman is about preventing genetic defects early - even though i'm sure she is pro-choice, it is besides the point of the obvious spin that's going on. Just look at the title and watch the video, people are making this more about abortions than about discovering genetic defects early and saving lives.

reply to post by Maxmars


I humbly agree. Social morals can hinder scientific progression callable to that of religion.

Originally posted by Pepeluacho
reply to post by Maxmars

 

I humbly agree. Social morals can hinder scientific progression callable to that of religion.

at the same time do you really want science to go back to inhumane experiments in the name of discovery?

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
Eugenics is an awful lot like what the Nazi's wanted to do with their "master race", free of homo's and mental defects, and Jews, can't forget them.

A good lesson from history.

Not a reason to avoid science.

Originally posted by Maxmars

How many of us might have been considered too high risk to deliver, or been seen as an insurmountable burden to a young couple?

And it wouldn't matter.

Because I would never know.

I see nothing wrong with getting an abortion if theres proof that the child is going to be deformed or disabled in some way. no reason the parents should have to suffer through a life of financial troubles because of random chance with bad genes

reply to post by ShadeWolf


Seriously? Have you never heard of Stephen Hawking?

reply to post by Jebbaroo


Dr. Hawking has Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), commonly known as Lou Gehrig's disease. In 95% of the cases there is no genetic link to the disease. I found no indication that this runs in Dr. Hawking's family. Even so, although he is a brilliant scientist, I would not wish that condition on my worst enemy, and removing the 5% that is genetic in nature would only benefit the gene pool as a whole.

Source 1
Source 2

reply to post by OhZone


Ah, so you want to be the new Hitler now?... You know, implement SOCIALISM, and through it implement eugenics for a "MASTER RACE"?...

You sir/madam disgust me... Perhaps if should have been your kind who had been aborted because you have a defect, you have a God complex... You think you, and a few other people are special above everyone else...

Originally posted by Sinny
reply to post by buster2010

 

So you only care for Stephen Hawking because of his intellect? Show me how not everybody is capable of his intellect? (Apart from those of disabled mind, might I add) what ever drives his soul is what drives his intellect.

So your basically saying that if a person is stupid then his soul is stupid. So he will always be a stupid person every time he is reborn he's stupid. No chance whatsoever of getting a chance of being a doctor or a scientist or a teacher? If I were a religious person I'd say God is one cold mother.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
I found no indication that this runs in Dr. Hawking's family. Even so, although he is a brilliant scientist, I would not wish that condition on my worst enemy, and removing the 5% that is genetic in nature would only benefit the gene pool as a whole.

Right. I support genetic pre-testing of a fetus. And the right to abort.

But - - I also support government guaranteed care of any/all disabled or "challenged" individual. Costs are exorbitant for parents and even if they are insured - - it probably doesn't cover all needs.