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.
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.’”
Well birthing babies with genetic disorders isn't exactly a positive. Depending on the problem it could mean certain death, a lifetime of care, a difficult and limited life and the possibility of birthing MORE babies with MORE genitic disorders.
This is the logical position but the choice isn't mine to make. If it was nobody else better be trying to tell me what I had to do.
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.’”
Seems like a no win situation in as much as those who elect to terminate a fetus with a genetic malfunction are to be vilified for said choice and if they elect to carry the baby to term then ask the government for assistance in taking care of what could be a very expensive baby with many special needs that the parents cant afford they get vilified again,seems to me they cant win either way.
So terminating the pregnancy becomes the easier option
Right wing nutjobs have a fit when you talk about birth control.
Not all drug addicts need to be sterilized, I'm sure some are shooting blanks, look at Limbaugh.
Wouldn't it be nice if you had some idea about the topic of this thread? Of course, all you need to do is read the link.
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.
