Killing 'Defective' Pre-born Babies Said to Be 'Scientific' (drugs, school, elect)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nancy Snyderman, the chief medical editor of NBC’s Today Show, “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.’”
Good stuff. If my wife was pregnant and we found out it had, for example, Down syndrome, we'd surely abort it.
When Conservatives come out in favor of national health care and thereby make sure that millions of Americans don't drop dead because they lack access to health care then conservatives can think about lecturing us about their belief in the sanctity of human life.
Nancy Snyderman, the chief medical editor of NBC’s Today Show, “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.’”
There appears to be a quotation within a quotation there.
The thing that Snyderman appears to have actually said is 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."
The part that reads say she "explained to viewers that it’s just good science to abort an unborn child that may have a genetic disorder" appears to be a quotation from somebody else entirely... but who? The question is significant because these are two very different statements.
The actual quotation says simply that this is "the science," and it gives parents a chance to make a decision." It makes no value judgement of "good" or "bad" at all. Who could possibly argue that it is simply true?
As such, the thread title appears to be (surprise, surprise) a lie.
A lot of women enjoy having abortions. It's kind of like donating money to Al Gore, or driving a Prius.
It's kind of cool.
A lot of them, huh?
How about your provide some stats on this, articles that have footnotes, etc?
Otherwise, it's always enlightening to read your opinions, because that's the best you ever offer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1
When Conservatives come out in favor of national health care and thereby make sure that millions of Americans don't drop dead because they lack access to health care then conservatives can think about lecturing us about their belief in the sanctity of human life.
A woman has the right to whatever reproductive choices she desires.
Be that abortion, it's none of your business.
It's up to the woman and her doctor.
You don't get to push your "morality" on others.
Good stuff. If my wife was pregnant and we found out it had, for example, Down syndrome, we'd surely abort it.
And some people (my sister for example) would choose to keep it. The science merely provides the opportunity to make an informed choice. Seems to work just fine as far as I can tell.
When Conservatives come out in favor of national health care and thereby make sure that millions of Americans don't drop dead because they lack access to health care then conservatives can think about lecturing us about their belief in the sanctity of human life.
This is about abortion choice, not national healthcare.
Two Goodwins on one page. Great job...not paying attention?
This isn't a "master race" issue. It's a "society has no input here" issue, meaning society isn't going to absorb everyone and take care of them their entire lives. There is no benefit to that. There is a downside to that in fact. But the job usually falls on the family, so the the decision.
Tell me the impact of someone else having a genitically defective child on them, you, your family, your life, your social group, your work, your community and society in general...and accentuate the positives please.
Two Goodwins on one page. Great job...not paying attention?
This isn't a "master race" issue. It's a "society has no input here" issue, meaning society isn't going to absorb everyone and take care of them their entire lives. There is no benefit to that. There is a downside to that in fact. But the job usually falls on the family, so the the decision.
Tell me the impact of someone else having a genitically defective child on them, you, your family, your life, your social group, your work, your community and society in general...and accentuate the positives please.
You just don't get it! First off, it's Godwin's Law, not Goodwin's Law. Secondly, Nazi Germany's practice of executing mental patients and those with perceived disabilities is a valid point to make in such a topic because it is a point of reference from history of how something like this can get out of control. They had hospital staff as policy kill those deemed deformed or mentally unstable. It was practiced so often that some hospitals in Germany continued the practice even after the war. This topic is an evolution of Nazi Germany's program.
The doctor lady who said this surely must be different in thinking than many of us who are not crazy about abortion for any reason. It appears to me that she really believes, as many liberals do, that humans have a right to play God when they feel the need. She doesn't work for Fox News so she has a right to believe like that but I question where they will stop at determining what fetuses are fair game. First I see that there is a possibility that some people are aborting fetuses according to sex and then that some doctors think it is scientific to abort certain others.
Nancy Snyderman, the chief medical editor of NBC’s Today Show, “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.’”
Aborting a fetus that will be born with an illness that would only lead to a short life full of pain and a very early death is a the parents choice, and FYI all fetuces are fair game in the first couple of months, both of which bother you, so trying to make this into something it is not is a Failure on your part.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
