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: 6
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by imherejusttoread
 




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.


Nope, it is not. It was used as a criterion of death in the past. In modern times medical and legal definition of death is braindeath.



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


The same is true for other organs and bodily functions. Heart is not special at all.
edit on 9/6/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by dreamingawake
 

I guess there was a time when I was growing up, having learned the morals and courtesy from my parents and family, and having a tight-knit family consisting of Aunts and Uncles, cousins, Grandmothers and Grandfathers, and at one time or an other combined all together in one household...... there was a time that as a child I noticed how other families were dis-similar. The children were less disciplined, the parents more lay-about, their morals much laxer or non-existent, or in some way apparently different. In my mind it was wrong for them to behave so, and I saw them as lower than the average family., sometimes as heathens.......what little I knew of heathens lol.... Children were born with genetic defects, or bastard children were born, after all we were coming off of the mistake of thalidomide or rampant polio, some children had no fathers due to the second world war. Most of these were burdens or taboo's. What was it...?... 1959..? ...when Ortho came out with 'the pill', that daily pill that prevented pregnancy..! Now promiscuous people could indulge unscathed with responsibility. Sex could be fairly risk-free. Both illegitimate children and to a larger degree ones with birth defects, were seen as unwanted. Then came the popularity of abortion. It could solve both problems, or at least the illegitimate ones. We was less likely to know about birth defects until full term had passed, but silent comments of pity or hindsights were often spoken or thought. Almost all thought that having a deformed or disabled child was so unfair, and thought these things in secret.They felt a certain sympathy for the parents, thinking... "there but for the grace of God....."

Sometimes it is prudent to terminate a pregnancy, but not just for convenience, but rather for gross deformities and certain medical reasons. There are legitimate reasons though, heartbreaking as they might seem. And as many try unsuccessfully to conceive and see these abortions as so unfair to themselves, and the irony to them is...... it's not fair. But seldom is life fair.

Whether young or old, should Genetic defects be a reason to exhaust life???
Deformities...... they bring to mind.... Roosevelt, Hawkings, Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, George Washington, Robin Williams, Christopher Reeves, Beethoven, Van Gogh, literally an endless list, some from birth and others manifesting after.

To value life solely on Beauty, or lack there-of is at best selfish and abhorrent. Feminists will argue it's their body. We'v all heard the rants... and they must ultimately decide, it's not for others to intervene, interrupt, nor deny, but at least provide compassion and other options. Life is Sacred, it is a gift, and once extinguished, it's gone forever. Society can proclaim all their arguments one way or the other, but the woman must decide, and live with that decision. And lets not forget the men...... knowing their child has fallen victim to abortion. Is a defect reason enough to abort?
More importantly is it 'Pro-Science'...? ..................by that proclamation, and under that prerequisite....... there are 'enormous' populations of us that shouldn't be suffered to inhabit the Earth.
Tolerance might be well advised lest we find ourselves in the same boat of those deemed not valuable enough, or too disabled, ....... to contribute fully to the God Capitalism.

How many of you have fallen in love with that illegitimate child of your own Child and loved them beyond what words could express....
Now........ can you imagine life without them...? because of convenience or a genetic defect........


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



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   
I'm going to ignore appeals to legality because it's silly.


Originally posted by Maslo
Nope, it is not. It was used as a criterion of death in the past. In modern times medical ... definition of death is braindeath.


Life is defined as any cellular aggregation that shows certain attributes that include responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy transformation, and reproduction. A child in the womb possesses most of these traits, but metabolism, growth, nor energy transformation aren't possible without a heart. No other organs provide the basic metabolism of the body. So, your opinion that the heart isn't special is just ignorance.

1. If it possess cells, it is life.

2. If it possess cells, along with the developmental genetic code of a human being, then it's a potential human being.

3. If it possesses cells, along with the developmental genetic code of a human being and a beating heart, it is now a human being.

4. If it possesses cells, along with the developmental genetic code of a human being and a beating heart, and has reached viability, it is now a potential person.

5. If it possesses cells, along with the developmental genetic code of a human being, a beating heart, is viable, and possesses the necessary brain activity patterns that result in personality, it is now a person.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by 11235813213455
 


I'm still pro-choice but I just think that killing a child because it has birth defects is a terrible idea.

I won't ever agree with the pro-life people but I will say that allowing parents to abort children with birth defects is a slippery slope because what if it doesn't stop there? What if people starting aborting all their girls or boys like some in China?

The only times I support abortion is when the mother's life is in danger or she is a victim of sexual assault resulting in pregnancy.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Sad that society follow the idea of purity of their population. Just like Hitler and those before him. I am curious as to what exactly would qualify those genetic defects though? Mutations that strengthen a person, or make them useful will have them killed because it's "pro-science."



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by imherejusttoread
 




Life is defined as any cellular aggregation that shows certain attributes that include responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy transformation, and reproduction


There is no universal consensus in the definition of life. But even with your definition, I dont see how the heart is more relevant than any other organ or body part critical for survival.



but metabolism, growth, nor energy transformation aren't possible without a heart.


Of course they are. There are many organisms that grow and metabolise even though they dont have a heart. Human embryo also grows and metabolises from conception, even before heart develops. Heart is just a mechanical pump.



1. If it possess cells, it is life.

2. If it possess cells, along with the developmental genetic code of a human being, then it's a potential human being.

3. If it possesses cells, along with the developmental genetic code of a human being and a beating heart, it is now a human being.

4. If it possesses cells, along with the developmental genetic code of a human being and a beating heart, and has reached viability, it is now a potential person.

5. If it possesses cells, along with the developmental genetic code of a human being, a beating heart, is viable, and possesses the necessary brain activity patterns that result in personality, it is now a person.


1. If it fulfills the chosen definition of life, then its life. There is more in your definition than "possess cells".

2. Define "human being". What criterion should be significant for something to be considered a distinct human? Biological independence? Genetic independence? Potential, or actual?

3. Why should heart be the criterion for the human being, and not for example lungs? They are also critical for its life.

4. Why its not a potential person from conception? I would say even sperm and eggs are potential persons.
Potential is ill defined, so I refrain from using that word. It solely depends on how far back in the casual chain you want to go. Its subjective.

5. I think only the last one is necessary - if it possesses the necessary brain activity patterns that result in personality, or some analogue of it. A theoretical mind uploaded into a computer (or sentient AI) should still be a person, even though its not even biologically alive.
edit on 9/6/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/6/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/6/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Another thought.

Imagine the gene(s) that control individuality were discovered.

Imagine a passive populace, genetically isolated to promote whatever pap from whatever leader.

A rose by any other name. . . . .



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   
@ Kickstart has resorted to discussing fat people and gays having a genetic disorder, so ill halt my convo over there...

As to the rest of you, I'm currently talking about others pregnancies, however, one day it may be my *own*.

And I would completely follow through with my previous statements.

I'm an ideologist, a lot of people can't think way, in my world within 200 years, I could have breed out all physical defects...

Not up your street? Glad your not in my world



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Several criteria have been proposed for the beginning of human personhood:


- fertilization, the fusing of the gametes to form a zygote
- implantation, the start of pregnancy, occurring about a week after fertilization
- segmentation, after twinning is no longer possible.
- when the heart begins to beat
- neuromaturation, when the central nervous system of fetus is neurobiologically "mature"[12]
--"brain birth" concepts (compare with brain death):
--- at the first appearance of brain waves in lower brain (brain stem) - 6-8 weeks of gestation (paralelling ′′whole brain death′′)
--- at the first appearance of brain waves in higher brain (cerebral cortex) - 22-24 weeks of gestation (paralelling ′′higher brain death′′)[13][14]
- the time of fetal movement, or "quickening"
- when the fetus is first capable of feeling pain
- when it can be established that the fetus is capable of cognition, or neonatal perception
- fetal viability
- birth


In my opinion, brain birth - at the first appearance of brain waves in higher brain (cerebral cortex) - 22-24 weeks of gestation (paralelling ′′higher brain death′′) is the best one.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   
The ironic thing about science, despite popular opinion, is that it is so ignorant and blind that it will lead to our own[self] destruction.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by SyphonX
 


I was referring more along the lines to the cost of caring for said child....and the term defect is scaled accordingly to such. If a parent cannot afford to care for a disabled child when its born, they should not have that child. That is what I meant by selfish.

The same goes for children without disease as well. If you cannot afford to care for the child, don't have it...or I should say (if childbirth is actually your thing) don't keep it. Often emotion overcomes reality in such decisions.

We can do whatever we like, but should we? With 7 billion in the world, why not adopt? Why not keep yer legs closed? I have no sympathy for the mother that decides to keep a child with disease and cannot effectively care for that child and remain a productive member of society. I love kids, but if I cannot in reality care for it, I will not advocate keeping it.

I sure as hell wouldn't live off the government teet to do so either. There are enough burdens in this world. In this respect, yes, you do have a choice to not create an unnecessary burden, or carry the load for the life of the child.

Assuming said child lives a long life due to disease which then you have to deal with the emotion of losing said child so early on in its life. A unavoidable pain none the less. It sounds cold I know, yet it is reality and logic that drives this response. Nothing more.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by albertabound
The ironic thing about science, despite popular opinion, is that it is so ignorant and blind that it will lead to our own[self] destruction.



Yes and no, again we are too busy thinking about whether we can, we dont stop to think about whether we should.

This is what tends to make science immoral in its progression.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by 11235813213455
 



The only times I support abortion is when the mother's life is in danger or she is a victim of sexual assault resulting in pregnancy.


So you can deal with caring for a disabled child, rather than have a rapists love child that would turn out normal?

Curious response, whats the difference? Both could be a child one wants, but this is how you decide on which one to keep?



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
It is not pro science, nor anything of the sort to abort a child with genetic defects. Pro science would be learning how to eliminate genetic defects without termination and removal from the gene pool of persons who carry them. While I believe it should be the choice of parents (particularly potential mothers) whether or not they continue with pregnancies that may result in a deformed or disabled child, I also believe that the choice should be one of whether or not the parents can take care of the child that results.

Pro science would be to create cures that can be applied to persons who have been born with genetic defects already. Eugenic attitudes like this, if anything at all that lives on our planet, are more deserving of immediate termination than are the unborn and malformed babies that Snyderman is reffering to, by a very long chalk.

Not only do I find the suggestion he makes completely lacking in moral integrity and fairness, but also it is a blatant smear against science, and the scientists who are trying to raise the public awareness of, and research cures and treatments for, those hereditary genetic abnormalities that cause defect and deformity. For those who would find it easy to believe that all science thinks in such repugnant terms, this is not the case. Most doctors, and genetic researchers get into the field because they value life in all its forms, and wish to understand it in order to protect it. Nazi filth like Snyderman would do well to keep that in mind, before becoming the mouthpiece of a near to dead system of pseudo scientific belief.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by GrandHeretic
 


Why should a woman be forced to keep a child that she did not consent to?

It's bad enough that she was raped and now, she has to actually carry that baby to term?

Do you realize the kind of emotional trauma that this woman will suffer?



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Here's a great idea, let's get rid of all the kids with genetic defects that we know about so that when something new and undetectable comes along medical science will have absolutely no idea how to deal with it...

This idea is the very antithesis of 'pro'science. Science is about finding out knowledge, not creating a society devoid of the very things which help it grow.

And science should never dictate what a mother chooses to do with her unborn child....





edit on 9/6/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Part of me is like "awesome that this is happening". Sounds pretty sick right? Well ill tell you why its not. Two things 1) they are going to do it anyway and you are powerles to stop them and 2)all the people that spit in my food or ever attacked me, now you get put on the chopping block. You deserve it. I guess its God paying you back through your children.


EDIT: cant wait for the super flu they are planning to spread through the milk supply, that should be fun lol
edit on 9-6-2012 by strangedays because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded

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...


Well I don't believe any abortions can or should be preformed for any reason, past the first trimester.

I do believe in the right to choose whether or not you wish to carry a child to full term, but nothing past the first trimester.

Anything past the first trimester when the body suit is developing enough for the soul to come in, like I remember doing all my life, is murder, of consciousness, which is life.

So, alot of this pretesting, since the US allows you to murder children even to the very day they can be born, to me is part and parcel to a crime.

However, if it was within the first trimester, that would enormously change my feelings.

What is quite alarming is Scientists who relate that since abortions have been done to the very day of birth, the next step is, its OK to kill a newborn infant, and we shouldn't take away a parents right to choice then, so this statement made by Snyderman is really the tip of their proverbial iceberg for they don't intend to stop with any limits on murder of the handicapped.




top topics



 
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join