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

reply to post by dreamingawake


If only they could find the liberal gene.....Imagine

Originally posted by Mandrakerealmz
Its "Pro Science"........... Wow. And how did these babies get these genetic defects? Could it be a group of old men with too much power consistently poison the planet and our environment to further there NWO agenda?

Is that "Pro Science" or "Pro Retarded Old Men"?

That is strawman bovine excrement.

Originally posted by 11235813213455
reply to post by dreamingawake

 

If only they could find the liberal gene.....Imagine

Yep - in a couple of generations no-one would give a rat's posterior for anyone other than themselves....

What about the aborted children that have no genetic defects?
I thought Obama says everyone should have a fair share.

Reminds me of the commercial on Grand Theft Auto where they talk about this...

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.

Awesome

To the point!

I support testing for genetic disorders.

Originally posted by Annee

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.

Awesome

To the point!

I support testing for genetic disorders.

How do you 2 feel that it is right to decide to kill someone because they are messed up? That makes no sense... really.. just cause someone is born with a defect you think they should be killed? This is how the nazi's viewed things.. Nice work...

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


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

I see potential with this!

reply to post by mobiusmale


Name me one thing that's ever been contributed to society by someone with an extreme congenital disorder. I mean something like Down's Syndrome or anencephaly. Quite generally, they just burden society.

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
reply to post by mobiusmale

 

Name me one thing that's ever been contributed to society by someone with an extreme congenital disorder. I mean something like Down's Syndrome or anencephaly. Quite generally, they just burden society.

Alot of people are smart... Wow you people...

That dude they based rain man after.. Tesla was insane, and alot of other people.. Bill Gates is thought to have either autism and/or Asberger's.. I can go on if you really want me to...
Here is a crap google search

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by ThichHeaded


There's a difference between autism spectrum disorders and mental retardation. Down's Syndrome and similar conditions can usually be detected before birth, while autism spectrum can take many years to diagnose.

reply to post by Annee


I agree with you totally. I hate it when society tells me to feel bad about murder. Nothing more than the tyranny of the majority. What gives them the right anyway?

reply to post by ShadeWolf


Hellen Keller?

She was a horrible person but you have to respect her tenacity. There is her contribution to society. The lesson of not giving up no matter what disability you face. And you are never a burden to those who feel blessed to help.

I can make the argument that some perfectly normal peoples' thought patterns and belief systems are a burden to society.

reply to post by 11235813213455


Keller wasn't born blind or deaf, and wasn't cognitively impaired in any way. Her case is more comparable to "locked-in syndrome" or paralysis than retardation or similar.

reply to post by ShadeWolf


Kinda funny the other 2 I mentioned dont have Autism.. Interesting that..

There are things people do who are not normal and can do way better than you can ever dream of.. Just because someone isnt the same as you doesnt mean that they should be put down... Wow... This conversation is sick..

reply to post by ShadeWolf


Where do you draw the line with an abortion as far as the age of the child is concerned? What gives you the right to impose your belief that a toddler shouldnt be aborted by a parent once they learn that they are defective?

boy peoples true colors really start to shine when this issue is at hand from the compassionate killers to ones who think that people with down syndrom are server burden to their precious society with nothing to offer...

truly unbelievable

Originally posted by 11235813213455
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

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

I see potential with this!

Yeah - a surer way to wipe out humankind than the H-bomb!

reply to post by dreamingawake


When can we categorize liberalism as one of these defects?

Originally posted by OhZone
So you people are OK with passing heritable defects on to offspring?

Why does this frighten you so much?

Humans have over 4000 heritable defects. Don't you think that it is time we who think we are so enlightened, should do something serious about it?

'Heritable defects' are mutations that cannot be bred out or smoothed over. They're the first principle of evolution. So, not only is this idea(s) bad science, it's not even based on the assumption of correct science.

Read Mankind Evolving by Theodosius Dobzhansky. It trashes every single eugenics argument there is about breeding out or 'fine-tuning' the human genome.

And then, after that, learn about the philosophy of science and what it is:

Ideology—of any kind—and science are at best inappropriate bedfellows. Science may indeed uncover unpleasant truths, but the critical thing is that they are truths. Any effort, whether wicked or well-meaning, to conceal truth or impede its disclosure is destructive.

- James Wilson

Is science of any value? I think a power to do something is of value. Whether the result is a good thing or a bad thing depends on how it is used, but the power is a value. Once in Hawaii I was taken to see a Buddhist temple. In the temple a man said, "I am going to tell you something that you will never forget." And then he said,"To every man is given the key to the gates of heaven. The same key opens the gates of hell." And so it is with science. In a way it is a key to the gates of heaven, and the same key opens the gates of hell, and we do not have any instructions as to which is which gate. Shall we throw away the key and never have a way to enter the gates of heaven? Or shall we struggle with the problem of which is the best way to use the key? That is, of course, a very serious question, but I think that we cannot deny the value of the key to the gates of heaven. All the major problems of the relations between society and science lie in this same area. When the scientist is told that he must be more responsible for his effects on society, it is the applications of science that are referred to. If you work to develop nuclear energy you must realize also that it can be used harmfully. Therefore, you would expect that, in a discussion of this kind by a scientist, this would be the most important topic. But I will not talk about it further. I think that to say these are scientific problems is an exaggeration. They are far more humanitarian problems. The fact that how to work the power is clear, but how to control it is not, is something not so scientific and is not something that the scientist knows so much about.

- Richard Feynman

Science is value-free, as it explains the world as it is. Ethical issues arise only when science is applied to technology – from medicine to industry.

- Lewis Wolpert

Simply put: she's not speaking of science, she's speaking of ideology. The application of scientific knowledge is different than the body of scientific knowledge itself. The body is science while the application of that body is technology. They are two different disciplines involving different methodologies.

And unless she meant voluntarily, nonsense like this does more harm to science than it does any perceived good. It leads laymen to think we have to stop research before they apply it on us! That's not true at all, and it's both irritating and embarrassing. It makes our job as researchers and communicators of science that much more difficult when idiots perpetuate ignorance.