It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by kickstart
 





Just out of curiosity to help with my understanding and not trying to argue, what factor in the abortion equation makes it seem like its victimless?


At least in earlier stages of pregnancy, there is no higher brain developed yet, no consciousness, no sentience, thus no victim and no crime. "piece of meat" sounds a bit devaluing, but yes, thats what it is from a moral perspective.




Also why is it our moral obligation to abort genetically defective foetuses?


Because being healthy is better than having a genetic defect. Its not about tax dollars for me, but more about ensuring that humans are born healthy, and I would argue they even have a right to a healthy body over one with genetic defect, assuming we can make it happen.




posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire
People are opposed to abortion.

The same people are also opposed to the ssi and other welfare it takes to raise disabled kids.


Technically they aren`t opposed to SSI and welfare they are opposed to paying taxes to fund SSI and welfare

but yeah, you`re correct.
They are against public funding for birth control for poor people,
they against public funding for abortions for poor people,
they against welfare and other aid for poor people,
basically they against poor people.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 05:10 AM
link   
since these defects are hereditary, why kill the unborn child.

just test the whole human population, and kill the carriers of these defects.

who knows, it could be you.

that's the next logical step of this evil and disgusting suggestion snyderman proposes and the ignorants of the world that applaud it.

i think the world would be better off without the snydermans of the worlds, instead of a human being, who thru no fault of their own are born with something out of their control.

how about instead of abortions, we pull humanities resources and look for cures and treatments.

focus on something good, instead of the death.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 05:16 AM
link   
Here` the problem with this slippery slope,
if it becomes generally acceptable to abort defective fetuses what is there to stop us from taking the next logical step and start "aborting" all people who become disabled?
When it becomes acceptable to "abort" disabled people of any age then the next logical step is to "abort" them at the moment they are diagnosed with an incurable dibilitating disease, I mean why let them hang around for 10 more years using up our natural resources when they are going to be "aborted" anyway when the disease eventually does disable them 10 or 15 years from now?

A baby born today with a disability may live to be 80 or 90 years old and who`s to say that a cure for that disability won`t be found in their lifetime?.
edit on 9-6-2012 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by acmpnsfal
 


Our species is still affected by natural selection. I mean people who cant function in society usually get cast aside where nobody can see them and live a life that is not glamorous.

You obviously don't understand the theory of natural selection. It may exist in the third world in some places but not for you or me or you won't be on a pc. This type of selective abortion could be described as artificial natural selection though.

Sure we have technology, we have the technology to decimate the entire planet if we wanted to, but should we use it? Is keeping someone alive with machines and constant care really worth it?

decimate the planet ok... Worth a life, a life that is happy and enjoying itself, no we can better spend the money on military or something worth while instead of supporting disabled bludgers who hate life anyway??

Their quality of live will suck. They will be alive but they wont ever live a life equal to someone with no disability.

Says who? you? obviously not all but alot of disabled people are happy in themselves they just don't appreciate the looks and comments from people such as you.

Abortion is not really killing at all stages. I mean if the fetus cannot survive on its own I dont see how you could even begin to call it a human being. Its not aware. It doesnt think, it doesnt know its alive, it has no autonomy.

It may not be murder but it is killing at all stages, otherwise explain to me what killing means? not what your opinion of killing means. Serious you dont see how i could even begin to call it a human being? if its not a human being than what is it?



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by kickstart
 



The quality of life that people lived 100 years ago sucked compared to now, and the quality of life now probably sucks compared to what it will be 100 years from now.If it`s quality of life that is going to be used as the yardstick then maybe mankind should abort itself right now.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinny
 


Asking someone when they started to detest life is such a devasting question...

I think you'll find that homosexuality is genetic alot of the time, and genetics for metabolism contribute in heavily overweight people.

Twisted, thats the nicest compliment i've had all day. It is the weekend, i think you need to go shoot a elk or whatever game they have in the uk and get it out of your system.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Tardacus
 


its nice to see some logical, non discriminatory opinions..



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 05:37 AM
link   

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


Yep. Sounds like something a person at NBC would say.
How very 'progressive' to say that, right? Wrong.
It's rather Spartan of him. They used to kill off those kiddies born with even the slightest blemish.
Sounds like this person needs to come up out of the dark ages ...



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 05:59 AM
link   
2012, and we have educated adults, from the richest nations to ever exist in the history of the world, advocating for a regression in morals and intellect, probably of the most heinous way possible. I guess this isn't the 90's, and people aren't "torn over the death penalty" anymore. "Should the state kill a murderer?"; 'spose we've moved on ay? I really need to catch up on pop-culture buzz.

There are Amazon tribes that, to this day, take some of their "weakest" children, kill them, and bury them. Just pick a day, and there ya have it.. after all, got nothing else to do with no internet or TV to sate oneself. So just walk out from the huts and bury the weaklings in the dirt right next to where you piss and #. Why? Because how ever will the tribe prosper if the kid with a limp lives; who cares about being smart?! Must I explain everything. Though it's not always a limp, sometimes it's just the kid that looks the "most sleepy" the past few weeks.. it must happen though, it's tradition.

It had to turn into a ritual-sacrifice eventually however, because the "killing and burying" didn't have much meaning. The recipient of sacrifice must be one cool cat to warrant such a bounty, huh? So now they do it alive, while they swallow dirt screaming. Sometimes they give 'em a good conk to make them a little woozy, but alive and choking on piss-soaked dirt nonetheless. Perfectly logical though, even with the "buried alive" part, because it's better the child not suffer a mild limp for the rest of it's life. It needs to be swift, or not at all! Baby with a limp ain't going to feed itself, now is it!? There are a few documented videos available on the web if disposing of weak humans is your thing. I can understand if you need to hone your craft. You can't repress all your morals and sanity in the blink of an eye of course.. Rome wasn't built in a day. (But hot damn, I bet it can collapse in one!)

Why of course, moral and intellectual regression is perfectly logical. The "civilizations" of yesteryear were really on to something, but alas they waited until the offspring were too old, and they waited until they could dash their heads against a large stone. Or you know, just toss them in the river if the sight of innards became too much to bear, or you simply couldn't stand it whenever you got that weird feeling in your belly, or "the spirits" made your knees weeble-wobble. But you have to put up with it damnit, because it's your moral obligation to slaughter infants. If you don't your perfect society can't go on any further!! It wasn't so much barbaric as it was inefficient...

..Better to wait until you have something to hold onto as you swing them, you see. Effective method of dispatch, but far too much effort really. As the people back in the glory days were less civilized and they lacked the proper dexterity (and spirit of mind) to wield a curette, forceps and scissors. You know, the civilized way, the way it is now, the World of, Tomorrroooww!!! We've come so far from smashing infants on rocks! It's simple really, you shove the instruments inside the vagina, eviscerate the useless soulless offspring to bits, scoop it into a bag and discard it. Easy, done. Use a black bag and be quick about it, and it's truly see no evil, hear no evil because it's not evil at all! Assist the proper citizen in descending from atop the altar slab, and usher them out the door.

Because you deserve better!! What with your pretty little fuel-efficient SUV, mondo-screen TVs, every iDevice on the market ever, and a great place to store it all in your wonderful 3-Bedroom 2-Bath dream home (with a great mortgage, omg!) The best part about it though, is all the bombs fall all over the other side of the world!! Eat your heart out oceanfront property! So screw that, you don't need a baby that speaks funny or doesn't walk straight. Are you kidding me! No, you deserve the best baby, because you are perfect in every little way. You've come far after all, so don't stop now, you're almost living in your own perfect world! Just the way you made it. Your own little creation.


Shucks, guess I'm glad that I dumped all my stock in human currency after all. Sell sell sell!! Absolutely no return on my investment, what a damn shame. Trading totally off-world from now on, lesson learned.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinny
Nope! Sorry! I'm all for it.

Its like selectively breeding cattle(1)... Your not gonna breed anyone with disease now are you?

It amazes me when people continue with pregnancies that the scan has shown to be highly defected(2), like severe downs syndrome. I look at those people sitting in wheel chairs pretty much cabbaged all their life... And that aint no life!(3)

Breed serious disease and deformaties out of us (4). Simple. Its for the greater good after all(5).

Why can't some people grasp that?


1. Humans are not cattle.

2. That's not your pregnancy.

3. Your definition of life is scientifically nonsense. The definition of life starts at the microbiological level.

4. There's not even a consistent method for determining what defects even are. When you can develop an algorithm for determining hereditary traits from environmental traits you can start speculating.

5. The greater good is fictitious and equally unscientific.

I'm amazed at how ignorant people are of hereditary science. This is grade school stuff, people. It's like advocates deliberately choose a Stalinist book on eugenics while a genetics textbook is laying right next to it.

I would say intellectual defects, like ignorance of this such, are far more defective and harmful to the human genome than any genetic defects. People can't choose how they are born biophysiologically, which means defects of the genetic type are natural and are very important. People who are already born and are intellectually defective have no excuse.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
At least in earlier stages of pregnancy, there is no higher brain developed yet, no consciousness, no sentience, thus no victim and no crime. "piece of meat" sounds a bit devaluing, but yes, thats what it is from a moral perspective.


There's a major difference between what's moral and what's legal. A human child is a human child as soon as the heart beats. People can live while being braindead but people can't live while being heartdead.

Legally, I agree with you: life starts when the child is born. Morally, I disagree with you: human life starts with the first heartbeat.

I suggest Erwin Schrodinger's What is Life? essay for a consistent definition.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinny
 


Just calling a spade a spade.

As I said, in theory, it's a great idea.

In execution? Not so much.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   

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.


Quite, life with defect is a hard one. And not easily a choice that should be made in consideration on one s selfish wants in regards to keeping child. Yet rather how child will evolve due to said disease and likelihood of being able to care on the family gene pool.

But you shouldn't be allowed to feel that's its normal to do so.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by imherejusttoread
 





There's a major difference between what's moral and what's legal. A human child is a human child as soon as the heart beats. People can live while being braindead but people can't live while being heartdead.


Nonsense. Heart is just a stupid pump. People who are braindead are legally dead, and also morally dead. "Heartdead" people can sometimes live on life support and with artificial hearts, and it is probable that in the future heart will be completely replaceable as medical technology progresses. There is nothing special about heart at all.
edit on 9/6/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   
...
edit on 9/6/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
Nonsense. Heart is just a stupid pump. People who are braindead are legally dead, and also morally dead.


I wasn't commenting on whether you liked it or not or whether you think it's special or not, that's the scientific definition of a living human being.


"Heartdead" people can sometimes live on life support and with artificial hearts, and it is probable that in the future heart will be completely replaceable as medical technology progresses.


Whether it's life support or artificial, the fact is that there is no human being who can live without a stupid pump.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   
If society evoles to a point where genetic defects are eradicated/aborted, then what is to stop that same society from eliminating disabilities after someone is born?

Does someone who loses a leg, have to forfiet their life because o this "perfect" society?

Where does it stop?



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrandHeretic

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.


Quite, life with defect is a hard one. And not easily a choice that should be made in consideration on one s selfish wants in regards to keeping child. Yet rather how child will evolve due to said disease and likelihood of being able to care on the family gene pool.

But you shouldn't be allowed to feel that's its normal to do so.


Define "defect", as I'd like to know how far you'd be willing to take that term. It's kind of important here. Down Syndrome.. ? Palsy.. ? What about, say.. Blindness, or Deafness. What would you be willing to accept, and where would you draw the line in physical defects?

What blows my mind, utterly.. is your last statement.

You claim it is "selfish" for a parent to care for their child unconditionally, despite their inherent defect. Debatable, if the child is always on life-support and has not developed, then I could see where you're coming from.. but again, this is why "defect" needs to be defined.

However, you go on to state that it is of the utmost importance the child carries on YOUR gene pool, as if this is it's sole charge in it's sanctioned life. I can see the point of someone wanting to do that... but to bring it up as an argument in a discussion about eugenics, and then not have the hindsight of seeing it as selfish.. ?
edit on 9-6-2012 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   
When science is your God, I guess you would have this opinion.




top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join