It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by dreamingawake
NBC's Snyderman: "It's Pro-Science To Abort Children With Genetic Defects"
(visit the link for the full news article)
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."
Related News Links:
reply to post by 11235813213455
Maybe they could trigger the individualism gene so as to reduce one persons dependency on others.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
Originally posted by newcovenant
she is talking about severe deformities and it is up to the mother in that case anyway.
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.