Posted on 06/08/2012 8:18:53 PM PDT by chessplayer
On Friday's NBC Today, chief MEDICAL editor Nancy Snyderman 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." [Listen to the audio or watch the video after the jump]
Snyderman then predicted: "I think the future will be such that you'll find out that your child may have a genetic hit. You can fix that genetic problem, and improve your chance, a child's chance..." When co-host Savannah Guthrie raised ethical questions about aborting children under such circumstances, Snyderman matter-of-factly replied: "Well, I'm pro-science, so I believe that this is a great way to prevent diseases."
would Nancy have tried to abort Stephen Hawking?
So Hitler was just a poor, misunderstood, pro-science kinda guy.
Scratch a liberal......
However, it is pro G_d to let them be born.
Science is a neutral thing like fire or water. It can be put to evil or good uses. In this case the use being proposed is evil.
Ok one last post. Two days ago I took baby girl in for her 9 month appt (and argument about us not using vaccines with aborted human tissue) and there was this lively 16 month old running around. He was perfect. He had not a single defect. His parents told the waiting room that at 18 months pregnant they had been told to abort. Mom could not carry to term and baby had spina bifida. The blood tests said so. There you go.
Let’s see, Nancy. Homosexuality is genetic, isn’t it? That is one of your fundamental assumptions. So if we test and see that gene you’re OK with an abortion on that basis?
For that matter, race is genetic so that would be a good basis as well! Oh, wait, that’s already happening at Planned Parenthood, and with your blessing!
And you get a G_d awful stench.
would Nancy have tried to abort Stephen Hawking?
Yes.
Getting a bit overripe in there? (badoom tish)
Of course you mean 18 weeks. Anyhow isn't that far enough along that the unborn can be physically scanned? Even if spina bifida was feared and abortion (perish the thought) were countenanced? Without corroboration, I would trust most of these genetic tests as far as I could throw the centrifuge.
This desire for “perfect “people! Fact is that Hitler’s ideas were consistent which much of elite thinking of his time. Only his militarism and thuggery were “out of line,” because even then the elites preferred a “soft” tyranny. Even in Hitler’s Germany, of course, the people were won over more by propoganda and bread and circuses than by brute force. Goebbels learned a lot from Hollywood and Madison Avenue.
I was gonna say, at 18 MONTHS you had more than twice the time needed!
18 weeks sounds more like it.
The probability of error is great, but doctors want to play it safe. Spina bifida is often diagnosed but the body repairs itself.
The probability of error is great, but doctors want to play it safe. Spina bifida is often diagnosed but the body repairs itself.
They just never change do they?
Just so there’s no confusion - is a “gay” gene considered a genetic defect?
Dr. Memgele’s illegitimate daughter???
I could see to warn the parents to be ready for a possible challenging situation.
But to just out and recommend abortion... that’s cold.
Nobody’s ever isolated such a thing.
I know a couple that aborted a baby that every test showed would lead a life with horrific disabilities. The mom was a devout Catholic. That was 15 years ago and she has never been the same. Limbs never tell that side.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.