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

reply to post by tothetenthpower
Let's extrapolate.

Imagine couple A has the tests done.

The child will be born partially blind (I use this because of my own son)

Government healthcare then uses this information to "aid" in determination of the child's future.

Cost definitely has a part to play in this. Insurance companies may or may not insure people based on genetic propensities.
Government may or may not supply supplimental funds based on potential disabilities.

This is a draconian step towards a corporate OR government fiscal decision best left to the parents.

(My son is growing into an awesome young man btw )

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


Eugenics is bloody horrible, and everyone who practices it ought to be vilified in the strongest possible terms. Crufts types, dog breeders with obsession over the "purity" of a species, are killing entire branches of domestic dogs, by breeding IN genetic deformities, for their own amusement, for their own gain.

Spaniels with brains that grow too large for their skulls, Ridge Backs that have HOLES in their backs that are open to the SPINE, Alsatians that almost always get terrible trouble with their pelvises and back legs... all this and the murder of uncounted myriads of people in the forties,are the ONLY thing that Eugenics has EVER achieved, and I hope to God they are all it EVER achieves. I would personally like to see the entire practice burned from the face of the Earth in order to prevent it, and its practitioners having any say in the affairs of man, or the direction the future takes. I know of no more dangerous a group of thinkers, nor do I know of any more poisonous idea.

reply to post by dreamingawake


These tests can be very unreliable and no excuse to commit murder,


The Medical Community's Negative Spin
There are a few problems associated with testing for down syndrome. One is that the tests can be inaccurate. With the ultrasound and blood tests, one in 20 women will have a positive result - far more than those who eventually deliver a baby with a chromosomal abnormality. Most women who have a positive result from a screening test deliver healthy babies. With Amniocentesis, CVS and PUBS, the results are between 98 and 99 percent accurate.

The other problem with this testing is that when it is found that a baby could have down syndrome, doctors often portray a gloom and doom scenario to the parents. When parents are told their baby has Down syndrome, it is often put in such a negative way by medical professionals, that the final result of the process is a Down syndrome abortion. If medical professionals and health care workers had a more positive attitude to Down syndrome pregnancies, then the Down syndrome abortion rate would drop substantially.1

carijean.hubpages.com...

You say "Eugenics"

I say "Selective Breeding"

Originally posted by Sinny
You say "Eugenics"

I say "Selective Breeding"

The irony would be if this "selective breeding" did get rid of a myriad of diseases but it was later found that it also got rid of high intelligence, artistry, love.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone

Eugenics in and of itself is not an evil practice.

Indeed. Eugenics is simply "applied science or the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population". It is not good or bad in itself.

It is the METHODS of eugenics that make it morally objectionable or not.

With things like killings or forced sterilisations, it is easy to see why eugenics is a dirty word.

But when abortion is used, it is not black and white anymore, and there is going to be a division between those who consider abortion acceptable and those who dont.

I may be imagining things, but I vaguely remember a time when abortion was far, far more serious a topic. When an "abortion clinic bombing" wouldn't be considered rare. Those days.

The "eugenics" arguments were alive and well then too, and if the internet had 20/20 hindsight back into the early 90's.. We'd be able to pull up a myriad of debates on how "abortion" would eventually lead to eugenics.. (oh wait, wait.. I'm sorry, we're calling it "selective breeding" now) and that anyone who suggested there would ever come a time that women/couples/government would advocate for a such thing were just loons.

I can almost see it now, "You're just saying that to deny women their right to free choice. You are just a nutter, get real, no one is going to want to "selectively breed" just because abortion is protected right now."


Also agree with the poster a few replies above, regarding the horrid mutations of selectively breeding dogs as an example. I do not recall a case of eugenics that wasn't a horrifying abomination, that wasn't either decidedly grotesque and miserable, or that wasn't used as an unfathomable tool in the war for globalization.

reply to post by TrueBrit


Eugenics is being used in a completely different context here. Its the idea of science, advanced clean technology science IS evolution, but each discovery can have two different polarities of usage for bad or good. Good eugenics would be a process of weeding out imperfections and produce long living, healthy, intelligent attractive people, without harming anyone, gradually, and it would be done post birth as well, for DNA changes in real time, and they've got alot of science buried underground, such as cures that involve cell memory and energy/source field, that restore DNA, restore holistic health from an image of this. Akin to having an image, ie a hologram and putting a frequency wave through it to the body. We're stuck here in a time bubble, kept 100 years out of the loop of real knowledge.

Part and parcel to an advanced, equal, free, positive system with positive uses of science, and alot of people power as watchdogs to overturn any corruptioin would come the need to overturn the religions, taking only the best out of them or spiritual practices, and taking away the power structure especially, that is the most important part, the power on the top of the religious heirarchies that keeps births up, and self governing or intelligence low, OBEY is their goal.

So, we need intelligence and control over births as well, not through dictatorship, but by real education of the population and advanced, non risky means and methods, which we don't seem to have right now. Birth conrol pills are dangerous. IUD's are chain saw massacres in the womb, and also physically dangerous. They need better methods, even advanced biorhythms where everyones systems were monitored and the exact days in question for each person was determined, and in case of someone losing their heads, then really good temporary methods other than chemicals.

Eugenics as health and advancement is a fine goal, but not in the hands of evil.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

Let's extrapolate.

Imagine couple A has the tests done.

The child will be born partially blind (I use this because of my own son)

Government healthcare then uses this information to "aid" in determination of the child's future.

Cost definitely has a part to play in this. Insurance companies may or may not insure people based on genetic propensities.
Government may or may not supply supplimental funds based on potential disabilities.

This is a draconian step towards a corporate OR government fiscal decision best left to the parents.

(My son is growing into an awesome young man btw

)

That isn't the kind of thing that I would consider worthy of ending a life Beezer.

My son also has a rare genetic condition, it doesn't really affect his quality of life until it flares up which is once or twice a year.

My comments were more for really serious conditions that affect the overall ability of that child to live a normal* life. I don't think blindness is something that could effect somebody to that extent. There's far too much in the way of therapies, technology and parental assistance that can make it, as it seems in your case, that your child lives life to the fullest regardless of his condition.

I don't think the government should ever be the ones to make these final decisions, that should be left up to the parents, and both of them, not just the women.

~Tenth

We're all still posting in a vacuum..

When stacked with the other absurd problems of the world, it kinda paints a different picture, doesn't it:

-Ongoing, historical cases of unimaginable famine and suffering. Throughout the impoverished nations of the world, while the wealthiest nations do everything they can to somehow still exploit it.

reply to post by tothetenthpower
The point I'm trying to is that this movement would gain support if it just focused on those terrible diseases, but it has the potential to be so much more.

Wha's terrible and life changing to one family might be a blessing to another.

This just won't stay with the parents though. Social stigmas, insurance, government regulations, would also play a part in the decision making process.

reply to post by beezzer


Which is why IMO it's wrong to judge people in those situations because of the myriad of variables that go into making such a decision.

I think were on the same page

~Tenth

Originally posted by Maxmars
How many luminaries, geniuses, and last hopes of humanity will be extinguished prematurely? Can you honestly say "none?" Ever see Gattica? "Gene"-ism will start with thinking like this.

edit on 8-6-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)

Motor Neurone Disease, a genetically inheritable disease, allowing Stephen Hawkings parents to abort based on inherited disease would have robbed humanity of one the greatest minds of the last 100 years.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by beezzer

 

Which is why IMO it's wrong to judge people in those situations because of the myriad of variables that go into making such a decision.

I think were on the same page

~Tenth

Unfortunately, the individual families won't be making the decisions.

It'll be some faceless beancounter with actuary tables and endless forms.

reply to post by dreamingawake


Yep. Eugenics policies are making a comeback big time. Visible differences come first - including obesity. Next? How 'bout asthma, ADHD...

Thing is, such genetic "defects" are part of adaptation and evolution, and we really do NOT know where they lead, or which ones might prove to be beneficial down the road.

Great work. S&F&
...and great response Maxmars

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by beezzer

 

Which is why IMO it's wrong to judge people in those situations because of the myriad of variables that go into making such a decision.

I think were on the same page

~Tenth

I think you gravely underestimate the speed in which this entire phenomena would turn into a bastardized "Gattaca without the veneer" situation.

I agree to a certain extent that someone should "abort" if they feel they must do so, under varying circumstances. But "selective breeding" is where this is going. That *IS* what you are doing if you choose to abort a child, and attempt for another. It's inevitable that defects/traits once deemed trivial or of no significance would start to be scrutinized and "weeded out" as we are able to advance methods of earlier testing.

How, and where, would you draw the line when this starts? Even when it could actually be one of the most destructive practices mankind could ever face. When we think we have it figured out.. when we don't even know what "Junk DNA" is.. We're just going to start pushing to that?

reply to post by beezzer


Noo noo noo, see the beauty of selective breeding means, as long as you select those qualities to breed, you end up with em!

reply to post by TrueBrit

Eugenics is bloody horrible, and everyone who practices it ought to be vilified in the strongest possible terms.

Is this not a form of eugenics?

You are deciding a particular trait or belief to be undesirable and seeking its neutralization/elimination?

Crufts types, dog breeders with obsession over the "purity" of a species, are killing entire branches of domestic dogs, by breeding IN genetic deformities, for their own amusement, for their own gain.

Dogs, themselves, are a result of eugenics programs applied to canine subspecies over thousands of years.

Granted - I don't see the point in breeding dogs to have dysfunctional characteristics... but there is a funky line involving the treatment of animals and laws/rights. Animals are, legally, regarded as property for the most part (there are just laws involving the treatment of that specific type of property).

all this and the murder of uncounted myriads of people in the forties,are the ONLY thing that Eugenics has EVER achieved, and I hope to God they are all it EVER achieves.

Depends upon what you interpret to mean eugenics.

Quite bluntly - the ability to reproduce does not of itself establish a good reason to reproduce. People with genetic disorders that cannot be corrected through gene therapy in their offspring should seriously consider abstaining from reproducing in a biological sense.

Now - if you want to start trying to craft a certain "breed" of human - the more power to you if you can find the volunteers to participate. I don't think it will meet with much success - but if people want to get together and try to work out how to breed and form a race of their own designation... why not?

I do not, however, think it is a good idea - or acceptable - to decide to start eliminating undesirable genetic traits involuntarily (IE - "nazi" eugenics).

But if people want to voluntarily participate in programs - that's their call.

Personally - I'll be looking for my wife to be not just a good person I love and get along with - but a good candidate for producing healthy and adept children.

I want kids to train to survive the apocalypse and rebuild society. They've got to be smart, tough, and vision that can see into the infra-red spectrum (and venom-laced canine teeth).

I'm jesting a little bit - but I want my kids to be equipped to be greater than myself if they so choose to be. And I would hope they do the same for their kids.

And not just in terms of biology - the home environment is pretty crucial to how the early body develops. It plays a huge role in developing and reinforcing an individual.

reply to post by SyphonX


It's a matter of working with what we know. Fear of the unknown is not a reason to forgo progress.

Yes of course there will be problems, nothing is perfect, nothing will ever be.

We as a society must simply be vigilant, be willing to accept other people's decisions and respect them ( so long as they are within the realm of acceptable in a moral sense, which is hard to quantify I'll givey ou that) sot that we can move forward as a society.

Take the ban on stem cell research, that put the modern medical world behind by about a decade, when we could have developped hundreds of new treatments and potential cures so that abortion for the reasons listed in the OP or otherwise would be really silly considering we could fix it.

Fear of things going in the "wrong" direction, and doing nothing, is just as dangerous, sometimes more so than doing it.

~Tenth

reply to post by dreamingawake


Nothing wrong with it. Nothing.