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

Originally posted by dreamingawake

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

newsbusters.org

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."

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
beta.mrc.org

Well...so long as it's the parents choice I dont see the problem. Seems rational to me.

Maybe they could trigger the individualism gene so as to reduce one persons dependency on others.

reply to post by 11235813213455


What is interesting here is that everyone at some point is dependant on others. We are born dependant on our Mother, our families and network of friends. Of all the successful species including our own is because of their ability to depend on each other, to support each other; our communities etc.

I am all for being independent and self sufficient but not to the point where I would begrudge helping others when they need it. You never know when you may need to depend on someone else, circumstances change and sometimes we have no control over them.

I might also point out as I am sure others have that the likes of Beethoven and Van Gogh would not fare so well under this new "Pro Science" school of thought. In fact, I wonder how Stephen Hawking would feel?

Originally posted by Maxmars
I cannot fault a parent deciding to do this... I do fault a culture that presumes to tell you how to feel about it.

Some members may remember a time when children born with Downs syndrome were automatically institutionalized. It took a while for parents to question and change this "norm" by realizing the children could be taught etc.

I will say that I am against abortion after the heart begins to beat. Having said that, I think that parents should understand what effect the "defect" will have on any babies they have. To willingly give birth to a human being that is going to be miserable and suffer, IMO is simply abject cruelty.

So, the choice to have testing by couples who are thinking of having children is a good idea. But it can be used against us too. I think that would be worse when you weigh it out.

There are soooo many babies and children waiting for adoption, who need love too, that is a generous loving option. Some of you are aware of the dismal results of life in foster care. That too is preventable. (Do you know that there are a disproportionate number of nontypically developing children in foster care?)

I just believe that making choices about having children or not, or abortions etc., requires that the parents are given ALL the facts about the proceedures they can choose from. Then the choice is theirs in good faith.

reply to post by MollyStewart


You either missed the point or are choosing to frame what I said in an over-simplified perspective so as to somehow make me look dumb.

Let me over clarify since I believe that you chose to over simplify. It was directed at the hangers on of society that CAN contribute but choose to NOT and then vote for people that take from those who have and then give to those who want.

See the distinction?

I don't think there forcing anyone to abort there kids if they possibly may be prone to a genetic defect. Ultimately this is up to the parents, but the definition for "defect" seems to be broad and many. And with all the labels out there I think they are going to trip over there own assumptions and pseudo knowledge of things. But ultimately its the parents decision on whether to go ahead with such or not. I don't think anybody should be sticking there noses in unless its warranted, and definitely society or some over all group should not be the judge of who gets to life and who die.

But the whole picking and choosing traits or aborting kids because of certain traits they or the parents may find undesirable is a slippery slope, but I can see people and parents doing such things, oh yes I can. But the whole concept is laughable in a lot of ways especially considering that most of the people alive today more then likely came from some defect or trait that was going around thousands of years if not hundredths of thousands of years ago.

The way of nature is change, you know what happens when you have a base or group that are similar or there is not difference in them. They tend to die out or stop evolving, or at the very least become sickly over time. And it seems a lot of the so called defects may be causes more by the environment then the genes, or at least the environment triggers them much more so then the genes themselves.

And the truth i think is that you can not breed defects out, oh I am sure they will try. But watch how it mysteriously keeps coming back in all kinds of ways, really some people are just silly and believe all kinds of silly things. But again I don't think its my call or anybody others, but if the parents feel that the "defect" there baby may have is to much to be living with, which can be the case and if such is the case, then I get it...But over all its there call to go ahead with it and no one else, because there going to be living with it as much as the kid they bring into this world is.

reply to post by dreamingawake


...and this is why science without ethics is usually just a tad scary.

Pro-science? Maybe. Anti-human? Most assuredly.

Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
I don't think there forcing anyone to abort there kids if they possibly may be prone to a genetic defect.

"They" did this once before in the West, while the world wasn't paying attention. They had to stop and completely change their organizations' names once Hitler's crimes against humanity were publicly revealed. How else could they rally the troops to "stop this evil man" when "they" were guilty of similar crimes (albeit at a much lesser degree).

Here's "their" agenda in 1934. Watch and find out what the definition of genetic defect could become again:


And then some Anti-Nazi propaganda from shortly there after...






Here's a simple documentary on Eugenics:

reply to post by Sinny

I think its cold and cruel seeing some of these people clearly not enjoying or living their lives. I've seen parents breaking down wondering who is going to provide care for there children after they pass away.

I think it is amazing how most of them seem to enjoy their lives more than normal people and with that, bring a lot of joy to their carers as well. Has it ever occured to your that their are different levels of down sydrome and not all of them are entirely the same or effeected the same.

One may look disabled but have a good functioning brain. I have seen a couple with down syndrome who can do the same things as a normal couple, live a normal life like normal people and not have to worry about carers etc. They are pretty much normal but just have the familiar symptoms when you look at them.

Some of you are too young to remember Thalidomide. And after that the Rubella epidemic of 1965. If you can remember back that far you might well have a more liberal attitude about elective abortion because of congenital defects.

Originally posted by Shoonra
Some of you are too young to remember Thalidomide. And after that the Rubella epidemic of 1965. If you can remember back that far you might well have a more liberal attitude about elective abortion because of congenital defects.

That was back in the day when pregnant women smoked, drank, took "mother's little helper" whenever they had the chance. It's a wonder entire generations weren't lost. Thalidomide was not on the market in the US during that panic. Some doctors were able to give patients samples of it even though it wasn't approved by the FDA yet - that sounds so dang sketchy to me. So yeah some babies were born with deformities here, but mostly abroad.
Still, some of the deformities were just extra fingers and toes. Do you think that is something that would be too much of a burden for a person to have a happy life? Pretty sure a lawsuit would pay for some cosmetic surgery.
Or even born without a limb, life finds a way.

Check out this amazing man, he'd be high on the list of genetic defectives:

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by dreamingawake

 

...and this is why science without ethics is usually just a tad scary.

Pro-science? Maybe. Anti-human? Most assuredly.

Anti human? That is debatable.

If you think it is human or humane to encourage a mother to carry her malformed fetus to term then it might be considered anti-human. I think it is more humane for both mother and infant NOT to put a mother under such pressure and to mercifully stop that fetal life quickly before it forms sensory organs..

reply to post by primus2012


Yeah he's great but I have a hard time figuring why you bring him up? I think Nancy Sniderman was talking about infants with gross deformities and not extra fingers. You could go to extremes and say someone could abort if the fetus seemed too small or too dark skinned but no body is talking about that sort of termination, she is talking about severe deformities and it is up to the mother in that case anyway.

Originally posted by 11235813213455
reply to post by MollyStewart

 

You either missed the point or are choosing to frame what I said in an over-simplified perspective so as to somehow make me look dumb.

Let me over clarify since I believe that you chose to over simplify. It was directed at the hangers on of society that CAN contribute but choose to NOT and then vote for people that take from those who have and then give to those who want.

See the distinction?

edit on 9-6-2012 by 11235813213455 because: (no reason given)

I absolutely see the distinction and I would like to make it perfectly clear to you that I did NOT over simplify so as to make you look dumb. I simply put forward my response to what you said keeping within the framework of the original topic/discussion.

I do apologise for any imagined personal slight, that was not my intent.

reply to post by dreamingawake


Read the article & got the impression Synderman was mixing science with value. Actually, I reach my wit's end when the word science is used colloquially to validate a subjective preference.

I guess one caveat is that she recognizes, "The problem is that science goes faster than we have these societal questions. And that's exactly why we should have these societal questions now."

Okay fine. If this gal would park her mixed up dualism of science & value to objectively lead that discussion I wouldn't be quite so impelled to balk, roll my eyes, and get a beer out of the fridge.

Originally posted by newcovenant
she is talking about severe deformities and it is up to the mother in that case anyway.

That's where the debate begins and ends. But calling it 'good science' is just sloppy thinking and not helping anyone.

Besides the faulty science aspect, my initial concern is that this kind of sloppy thinking will extend it from an ethical private decision [i.e. between the mother/family, who are fully informed] into a 'scientific' public decision [i.e. done for the sake of eugenics nonsense and robbing both the mother and family of their liberty].

Stick science in front of anything and suddenly the layman, who isn't experienced in what science is, assents to it and perpetuates the issue based on the illusion of scientific authority rather than actual facts.

This is awfully reminiscent of the eugenics programs used by the Nazis, and lauded by the Rockefellers, as well as Charles Darwin and his cousin, Francis Galton. I think a better option is to do more thorough genetic testing on potential parents before they decide to have a child, so they have a better understanding of the potential for genetic disorders or other birth defects.

reply to post by buster2010


Noo, I'm saying Stephen Hawking *wanted* to be smart, and so he set out to be.

He still had to read thousands of books like the rest of us you know, he just took it the extra mile.

Everybody is capable, not just him.

reply to post by DarknStormy


I agree, of course not *all* disabled people are doomed to have a shiittyy life.... Were talking *severe* disabilities here, the *actual* cabbage people. I know that's not a nice term to use, but fitting all the same.

reply to post by Sinny

Stephen Hawking *wanted* to be smart, and so he set out to be.

He still had to read thousands of books like the rest of us you know, he just took it the extra mile.

Everybody is capable, not just him.

Are you suggesting that people need obstacles like disability to motivate them to reach their potential? That the lack of same supports laziness and mental sloth?

To the people saying, that as long as it's the parent's choice...

Do you think the doctor or assistant is going to sit them down and tell them: By the way, this test isn't certain and there are many cases where it has proven to be false, and that it may be very minor compared to how we are presenting it to you.

Probably not.

A lot of assumptions are being made on just how knowledgeable the parents are, and how coercive the medical staff are going to be. Like a previous poster with experience in the field explained, it's often a case of severe doom & gloom and it is usually never positive. Especially considering the test may not be accurate...

This paints a different picture...

Most people walk into the doctor's office and everything that doctor said is law. A lot of people won't even consider the term "second opinion", and those that do will expect their doctor to get offended or combative (which many do), so they go ahead and accept the doctor's word as final...

Don't get me wrong.. I do have my reservations with abortion and this aspect of it, but I will not encroach upon someone's right do what they wish. However, this is incredibly dangerous, and more steps need to be made to assure this will be a field of certainty and competence. Much in the same way that people held reservations on killing innocent men via the death penalty, and learning early DNA testing wasn't exactly "final", even though everyone coerced the public into thinking as much.

Whatever happens, I will absolutely never agree with the practice. I do not share the same sentiments to people who suggest this is somehow "progress" in science. It is not. Not when we don't even fully understand the human genome.

This would be as if I, an unlicensed pilot, jumping into the cockpit of a 747 and telling those who protest, "I got this, I know how to get us to our destination faster." Then those who protest will claim I don't know what I'm doing, and that I don't understand the full workings of the jet I'm attempting to fly, and in response I say, "Don't allow fear to halt your ability to progress, I believe I can get us there faster." Then we crash and burn...