NBC's Nancy Snyderman: It's 'Pro-Science' to Abort Children With Genetic Defects
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."
Earlier in the discussion, advertising executive Donny Deutsch raised the possibility of parents using the genetic information to abort children based on superficial preferences: "Look, I'm a pro-choice guy, but at the end of the day what's stopping people, "Oh, my son is going to be blonde, I want..."
Snyderman largely dismissed such concerns: "I get the genetic engineering issue. But the reality is we've already jumped out of that with amniocentesis. So, the science is there. The problem is that science goes faster than we have these societal questions. And that's exactly why we should have these societal questions now."
While Snyderman sounded briefly open-minded on the issue, she soon made her "pro-science" declaration and later completely rejected any legal argument against selective abortions.
Attorney Star Jones raised the possibility: "...at what point will the courts step in and say, 'No, this is too late in the gestation process'?" Snyderman asserted: "They won't. They won't. They won't." Jones responded: "Well, we'll see what's happening in the next presidential election." Snyderman insisted: "Not if you can save a life and prevent a disease. You can't make a case for that."
Later on the show, Snyderman suggested Saudi Arabia had a better record on providing equal pay for working women than the United States.
Here is a full transcript of the June 8 exchange:
9:10AM ET
SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Genetic testing breakthrough. Nancy, this one's coming to you. There's a new study that shows there could be a simple noninvasive test, that it's a blood sample from the pregnant mother, saliva from her man, and would give a full genetic profile. What would you learn about the fetus?
NANCY SNYDERMAN: Well, you might learn that a child has a severe genetic problem. It gives parents a chance to decide whether they're going to continue that pregnancy or not. This is the science of today. It is running fast into the future. And 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 of having a healthier-
STAR JONES: When will you know about this?
SNYDERMAN: Well, it's out there now but it's too expensive.
DONNY DEUTSCH: But obviously there's another flip side guys, there's another flip – Look, I'm a pro-choice guy, but at the end of the day what's stopping people, "Oh, my son is going to be blonde, I want-" You've got to do it for the reasons your talking about, but-
SNYDERMAN: I get the genetic engineering issue. But the reality is we've already jumped out of that with amniocentesis.
JONES: Correct.
SNYDERMAN: So, the science is there. The problem is that science goes faster than we have these societal questions. And that's exactly why we should have these societal questions now.
GUTHRIE: Do you think it raises ethical issues? I mean a what point, if you have information that your child is going to have a genetic problem, and then you're posed with the question of whether to go forward with the pregnancy?
SNYDERMAN: Well, I'm pro-science, so I believe that this is a great way to prevent diseases.
DEUTSCH: I agree, I agree.
JONES: And my only question is, legally, at what point will the courts step in and say, "No, this is too late in the gestation process"?
SNYDERMAN: They won't. They won't. They won't.
JONES: Well, we'll see what's happening in the next presidential election.
SNYDERMAN: Not if you can save a life and prevent a disease. You can't make a case for that.
DEUTSCH: I agree, I agree.
- Kyle Drennen's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
What's that, friend? You've
Submitted by Kubrickfilmfan73 on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 5:10pm.
What's that, friend? You've got the hiccups, and they just won't go away? Don't know what to do? Well, lucky for you, I'm pro-science, and I've got the perfect cure. It's called a post-birth abortion. Now just stand still while I load my .38 revolver. What's that? NAHHH, won't hurt at all. I'll be fine--thanks for asking.
Stan-Fan
Submitted by CO2Maker on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 5:42pm.
Did Obama actually say that? If so, he may be the least deserving of the award, except for Algorithm. And what has he done since November 2008, besides increasing the use of drones, personally approve the kill list, order the Bin Laden hit, etc.?
CO2
Submitted by TempusFugit on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 5:49pm.
Yes he said it. It's in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/president_obama_nobel_accepta...
Eugenics
Submitted by CO2Maker on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 5:23pm.
Nancy Snyderman is no different from Margaret Sanger. This is the "gateway" arguments for eugenics, selective pregnancies, and targeted abortions.
Too bad??
Submitted by KornKing on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 5:26pm.
We're stuck with Snyderman's chronic stupidity
Master Race
Submitted by HudsonRiverGirl on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 5:33pm.
Hitler is here!
Joseph Mengele's long lost
Submitted by angus young on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 8:11pm.
Joseph Mengele's long lost daughter has been found !!!
now now.....
Submitted by Paarl on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 7:12am.
mengele was a scientist...he was more advanced in his thought than us mere regamuffin citizens..
paarl of rhodesia
rhodesia...where only terrorists were aborted !!!!
Actually he's in the White House.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 8:14pm.
!
Golly! When NBC's chief
Submitted by neutron on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 1:17am.
Golly! When NBC's 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, she said a mouthful!
By her logic, people like Stephen Hawking, a British theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and author, should have been aborted by his Oxford educated parents. Hawking's key scientific works to date have included providing, with Roger Penrose, theorems regarding gravitational singularities in the framework of general relativity, and the theoretical prediction that black holes should emit radiation, which is today known as Hawking radiation (or sometimes as Bekenstein–Hawking radiation).
Hawking suffers from Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) which is tied to genetics, and so Snyderman would have had no problem killing the unborn child that would become Steven Hawking. She would have used her "science" to kill the greatest physicist of the 20th and 21st Centuries because she could not imagine that anyone other than a perfect genetic specimen could possibly have anything to contribute to society.
Wow neutron
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 7:40am.
You picked a great example!
Libs would have killed off Hawking, for the good of society, and we would have missed his great brain!
What dopes!
Ms. Snyder
Submitted by Netstatter on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 11:32am.
Well, perhaps Ms. Snyder is like Joy Behar in at least one respect. Joy Behar, when hearing about C. S. Lewis, said "Doesn't he write children's books?" Yet C.S. Lewis was one of the great thinkers of the 20th century. Ms. Snyder probably doesn't know who Stephen Hawking is.
Hitler had the same thinking
Submitted by Bettendor on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 5:23pm.
Hitler had the same thinking as this woman, but he expanded it to Jews and other non-Aryans.
In addition, there are a number of pro-choicers who believe that being female is a genetic defect, so they abort them as well. Kind of self-defeating, if you think about it.
Pro what?
Submitted by bmacdmac on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 5:24pm.
How about it's playing God like and it fits right in the liberal way of thinking.
Great, Nancy!
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 5:36pm.
Can't wait to isolate that homosexual gene the left seems to think exists.
I agree
Submitted by Russian55 on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 5:37pm.
I mean, shouldn't parents be warned in advance that their unborn child is so severely brain damaged that the only possible future for it would to become a Democrat?
---
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will end up plowing for those who kept their swords in the first place!
Devil's Advocate
Submitted by BuffNBone on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 5:40pm.
So if the genetic tests reveal the little booger will have gay tendencies what should the parents' decision be?
(For the sake of discussion we need to assume there is a detectable gay gene.)
Let him fly F-15's
Submitted by ex buff e-dub on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 8:34pm.
Let him fly F-15's
MiG-15
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 9:30pm.
Don't you mean MiG-15s?
:)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Heh....
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 9:33pm.
.
Dead Ends...
Submitted by Netstatter on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 11:26am.
Also, since gays don't procreate, they should be considered dead-ends and therefore "cleansed" from mankind. Maybe we can say that.
And Conservatives
Submitted by Calypso Jones on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 5:55pm.
are the vampires.
What's scary is how easily
Submitted by celator on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 5:56pm.
What's scary is how easily these words slip out from Snyderman's mouth, how casual she is about it, how very modern she is about slaying these innocent human beings who don't meet her definition of perfection. May God have mercy on her soul.
I agree it should give a
Submitted by Sude23 on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 7:04pm.
I agree it should give a little hope that the rest of the people there were resistant to her thinking at least. And besides the best chance for a child is to be born other wise we can say what if all we want.
Physician, Screw Thyself.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 5:57pm.
Why do I get the feeling that Snyderman would rather take in a good abortion than a movie?
It's the "science" of
Submitted by robert108 on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 6:05pm.
It's the "science" of eugenics.
Only in a world where there
Submitted by rbosque on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 6:13pm.
Only in a world where there is no God can a person entertain such monstrous thoughts. These people are leading us back down the slippery slope of mass murders like Hitler, Mao, and Stalin. As long as there is a "justification" whether it's "science", national, or economic, then the killing will start and will only end with millions dead. Same de-huminization occurs with abortion (53 million dead), no one on the left gives it a second thought. This is why it's important these people never reach seats of power and influence.
This is one ignorant female
Submitted by locomotivebreath1901 on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 6:35pm.
NBC's Snyderman: It's 'Pro-Science' to Abort Children With Genetic Defects
Wrong.
It's pro-eugenics to abort children with genetic defects. Eugenics is the brutal, morally repugnant 'race cleansing' philosophy embraced by Margaret Sanger and Adolph Hitler as a solution to those 'inferior' races or those deemed 'unfit' through segregation, sterilization, birth control and abortion.
These people make me sick. And Snyderman is one ignorant female.
*****************************************************
So Nancy is now playing God(ess)?
Submitted by drsamherman on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 6:43pm.
The presence of a genetic marker for a disease does not guarantee the child will get the disease or provide any useful prognosis. You end up with a "Gattaca" culture of supposedly genetically perfect robots. That's what Nancy Snyderman is proposing, and that's what she would have you think the medical profession recommends.
She may be "pro-science", but she does not apparently keep up on the literature regarding huge gaps in genetic knowledge regarding such everyday problems as heart disease, type 2 diabetes or a multitude of mental illnesses which are nearly impossible to predict if they will manifest or not.
I want no part of her Genetic Utopia, thank you. Many of the patients who I have treated for severe mood disorders and schizophrenia had no discernible genetic concordance in their histories. Equally, many who have children do not pass any of these diseases on to their progeny.
If she wants to push eugenics, then she should seriously consider the ramifications that advocacy of such an extreme position would have.
Brave New World
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 9:32pm.
Oh brave new world with such creatures in it...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Dr. Snyderman
Submitted by djwolf12 on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 6:43pm.
Someone needs to remind Nancy Snyderman that Joseph Mengele was a "Pro Science" Doctor too.
Just one problem...
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 9:33pm.
Do you think Snyderman knows who Mengele is?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Probably not
Submitted by djwolf12 on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 10:03pm.
All Marxists, Socialists, Progressives, Liberals and Communists ONLY believe that history begins at the moment a Democrat gets elected to office.
Science and morality are
Submitted by rbosque on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 7:09pm.
Science and morality are mutually exclusive but when it comes to (selective) abortions, morality should thriumph. You cannot divorce yourself from humanity and make sterile decisions that end human life, that would make you a monster.
Where
Submitted by grammajane on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 7:30pm.
does this so-called doctor have her practice? Most Dr's take an oath of helping people. Maybe she is so busy making money and spreading her BS on nbc that she quit medicine. Let's hope so, for the sake of any person going to her for medical reasons. She is pathetic and giving her "advice" on the worst net-work in history, is a disgrace. Worked in a hospital for 30 years and never met a Dr. as repulsive as she is
translation help, please
Submitted by mom_rox on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 7:43pm.
Snyderman: "Well, I'm pro-science, so I believe that this is a great way to prevent diseases."
Since when is a genetic disorder a disease?
Save a life by killing it
Submitted by koorangkoo on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 8:09pm.
This quote embodies the culture of death:
Snyderman insisted: "Not if you can save a life and prevent a disease." So we can "save a life" by killing it! What impeccable logic. And to their disgrace, no one in the media challenges such logic or statements.
NAZI eugenics at it's finest.
Submitted by Soldat44 on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 8:15pm.
NAZI eugenics at it's finest.
Whatever happened to ...
Submitted by Newsbubba on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 8:19pm.
... first do no harm?
This bitch needs to forfeit her licence.
Ultimate defect
Submitted by Tjexcite on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 8:32pm.
And it is fatal 100% of the time. It is called life so let abort everyone so that death never happens again.
If someone may get cancer at 50 they too should be aborted. If someone will need a heart because of a defect that will only show when they are in high school and on the track team they should just be aborted. If some one has the genetic defect that they will have type 2 diabetes they should just be aborted. If someone has a genetic defect that they will have high blood pressure they should just be aborted. All this will be found by sooner of later with one test at 1 months after conception so you can abort right away with a pill too, regardless of size and development.
Somewhere Margaret Sanger is loving the heat, and all the worship she gets.
Man, don't give them more ideas.
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 8:50pm.
They'll be thinking of post-birth solutions to their other problems, like conservatives, children, old people.
So should we find genetic markers & abort homosexuals?
Submitted by DaMav on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 8:51pm.
Ask and watch the meltdown & backpedaling begin.
They will claim it is different
Submitted by octavioj on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 9:19pm.
DaMav,
they will say homosexuality is not a burden on society and the families as birth defects are. I find the logic flawed in many levels but that is what they will claim.
How long before 'genetic defects' morph into...
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 10:06pm.
...political unreliability.
Somewhere in Hell, Joseph Mengele is smiling.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
You stated it better than I
Submitted by nixon on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 10:09pm.
You stated it better than I could have . Gives me the chills .
Hitler was 'pro-science' too.
Submitted by mattm on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 1:31am.
Hitler was 'pro-science' too.
Tell you what, Nancy
Submitted by panzerakc on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:55am.
Let's take that to its logical conclusion. Everyone should be tested for any type of genetic marker that could potentially cause a disease. And even, as Dr. Sam mentioned above, IF that marker is present, it's still no guarantee of a disease developing, let's not take any chances. Snuff 'em at once. And I propose the first person to have this genetic testing should be . . . .
You.
I also think that even if you test clear, you should be forcibly sterilized. Because you might decide to have a child fathered by a man who hadn't been through all the thorough medical screening. This potential father might unknowingly carry a gene that, paired with yours, could produce a child with some type of disease.
We just can't chance that.
Racially Cleansed Nazi Style Eugenics
Submitted by Blue Collar Todd on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 4:50am.
It is a brave new world and Liberals have embraced eugenics. Liberalism has reached a moral depth lower than the Nazism. Instead of dehumanizing a group like the Jews like the Nazis did, Liberals are dehumanizing all of humanity in order to gratify their lust for power. The power to decide whose life is worthy of life. This has always been most evident by the embrace of an abortion policy that is willing to tolerate infanticide and “gendercide” here in America.
http://bluecollarphilosophy.com/2012/06/nbc-analyst-embraces-nazi-style-...
You articulated the truth
Submitted by ChestertonGK on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:11pm.
very well. Tragically, the sheeple have played right into their hands by first embracing the use of contraceptives which gave women (and men) the false sense they could control human life without consequences. The slippery slope to this woman's way of thinking was inevitable. Science has become merely a tool to eradicate those humans whom the left doesn't believe hold any value.
Perfection!
Submitted by LaVallette on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 6:49am.
Ah the usless search for human perfection.
Since no human being is perfect (they get sick, they get old, they get injured, they have low intelligence, they commit crime, they are politically incorrect, they are social misfits, they vote for the wrong party, some even believe in God and religion instead of being a Porgressive Atheist Bright, they use too much of the earth's resources etc etc etc) why do we not kill everybody and eliminate all human problems from the face of the earth.
It is very scientific!!!
More proof that eugenics are of the Left
Submitted by PopPop on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 8:22am.
Her statement is just about the most direct pro-eugenics (or infanticide, call it what you will) argument I've heard in many years. This is what all the Lefties have wanted for a century now: the right to mold humanity into THEIR image. How can anyone vote their line? This fails to register with me, except to raise flags of alarm: Hitler was a eugenicist, too. The only difference is that his selections were performed long after birth. But there isn't that much difference, when you get right down to it. And her association with the Demokrat Partie Left makes me wonder if my suspicions haven't been right all these years: they've been trying to abort the Negro (forgive me the non-PC name for it) race into oblivion for years now, never mind "engineering a better human being with science". I am not a black man; but man, am I pi$$ed off that someone would kill any other human being for such reasons as the way they were (or would be) born.
Excuse me, I need to go puke now.
.....and this creature......?
Submitted by Herbster on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 9:31am.
......And this creature calls herself a "Doctor?" I assume she did not take, or understand the Hippocratic Oath? She needs to change her name to Margaret Sanger Mengele. Does she forget what happened to the Jews - and others - when people who think like her have power? If this "Doctor" claims to be Jewish, I beg to differ with her. Her true faith is extreme feminist liberalism, not Judaism. The Sixth Commandment states, "Thou shalt not murder." She probably places the Ten Commandments (Not the "Ten Suggestions") in the same category that she would place the Constitution----outdated, etc. This person is a disgrace to medicine and to the human race. I better stop here.......
Those who forget history are doomed to relive it.......
Can we call Snyder a Nazi?
Submitted by Netstatter on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 11:22am.
Snyder sounds like a Nazi. After all, weren't they all in favor of the same things? Should we then openly call her a Nazi? I think it is fair; after all, the shoe fits.
I cringe when I hear people go all-in for aborting babies because tests indicate they might have a defect. I have personally heard many times stories where parents-to-be were told that tests indicated their unborn child had a plus-90% chance of some type of defect. Yet, when the baby was born, it was perfectly fine. This has happened over-and-over again.
I also wonder, don't people like Ms. Snyder have any compassion for the less fortunate? A baby might be born with already one strike against it. Now some people think it should be killed? What next - killing those already born who have some kind of defect? Those of us without any defects have an even greater moral responsibility to care for those less fortunate.
The Snyderman Dogma.......
Submitted by Herbster on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 1:59pm.
Kill 'em in the womb,
Throw 'em in a tomb.
Late term abortion? Born alive?
Just vacuum out their brains,
to a dumpster with the remains.
It's just a protoplasm lump,
...so easy to dump.
Planned Parenthood is there,
ready to offer "Care."
Inconvenient? The "Wrong" sex?
Potential "Genetic defect? No problem,
just push the button that says "Reject."
If Mrs. Beethoven knew little Ludwig would go deaf...she could have "Dumped" the boy. .....and the world would have no "Ode to Joy."
The Snyderman creature is an arrogant eugenecist who wants to "Get rid" of the halt and the lame before they "Infect" her small world of the religion of abortion. This creature is a blot on mankind. She must have a picture of her heroine, Margaret Sanger, hanging in her office.
She is merely
Submitted by ChestertonGK on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:04pm.
exposing the truth being the ideology of the left who believe in their superiority and have always wanted to eliminate human beings who do not comport to their views. Their success in convincing millions of people that murdering the unborn is not comparable to other types of murder was merely the first step in their quest of designing the perfect human being, i.e., those made in their image.
She is merely.......
Submitted by Herbster on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 5:08pm.
We are all created equal.......it's just that some (Liberals) are more equal than others.
Genetic defect?
Submitted by Fredy on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:43pm.
Someone on that panel should have asked how aborting Stephen Hawking, who has a genetic defect that can now be tested for, will be 'for the greater good'?
Aborting unwanted offspring
Submitted by MelvinBonzarelli on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 5:45pm.
Liberals should be glad that Kenya did not have laws permitting abortion on demand back in the Fifties and Sixties. Momma was only 16 years old, single, and not exactly rowing with both oars in the water, if you know what I mean. And the baby-daddy was already married and twice her age. We might not have had the All-Wise and All-Seeing Community Organizer-in-Chief sitting in the White House today if either had opted for abortion.
Jimmy the Greek got fired for his views one Genetics
Submitted by Terra Red on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 6:27pm.
Wikapedia
On January 16, 1988, Jimmy the Greek was fired by the CBS network (where he had been a regular on NFL Today since 1976) after commenting to WRC-TV reporter Ed Hotaling in a Washington, D.C. restaurant that African Americans were naturally superior athletes at least in part because they had been bred to produce stronger offspring during slavery:
"The black is a better athlete to begin with because he's been bred to be that way, because of his high thighs and big thighs that goes up into his back, and they can jump higher and run faster because of their bigger thighs and he's bred to be the better athlete because this goes back all the way to the Civil War when during the slave trade'n the big… the owner… the slave owner would, would, would, would breed his big black to his big woman so that he could have ah, ah big, ah big, ah big black kid see…[1]"
According to the New York Times obituary, Snyder expressed regret for his comments, remarking: "What a foolish thing to say." While his CBS co-workers supported the theory, they couldn't admit it and decided it was best for CBS to fire him, Irv Cross said in the "30 for 30" documentary about Snyder that he worked alongside Jimmy for a long time and never heard any racist comments nor detected any racist attitudes from him.
Huh
Submitted by LoneRanger on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 11:21pm.
I thought the "science" of eugenics was dead. I guess Hitler and Margaret Sanger were right after all.
So much for Evolution.
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 06/10/2012 - 12:27pm.
"There's a new study that shows there could be a simple noninvasive test, that it's a blood sample from the pregnant mother, saliva from her man, and would give a full genetic profile."
There goes the entire theory of Evolution, wiped away in a single sentence. According to a "new study," no genome is ever unique. Things like random mutations never occur. You are an exact copy of both your parent's genome. To bad that doesn't work for things like organ transplants. If it did, there wouldn't be a need for immuno-supressents. Your immune system would be an exact copy of at least one of your parents, as would the markers on every one of your cells. There wouldn't even be a need for tissue typing. But, of course, we all know that isn't true.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Death Panels Snyderman
Submitted by djwolf12 on Sun, 06/10/2012 - 4:02pm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Snyderman#cite_note-4
Yeah, she is PERFECT for M-BS-NBC.
The PC angle
Submitted by Model850 on Sun, 06/10/2012 - 5:28pm.
Was anyone else struck by Guthrie's oh-so-politically correct framing of the genetic test?
"There's a new study that shows there could be a simple noninvasive test, that it's a blood sample from the pregnant mother, saliva from her man, and would give a full genetic profile."
Saliva from "her man?" Not "her husband." Not "the child's father." Just her "man."
Don't know about anybody else but to me that sounded almost as creepy as the so-called doctor's whole premise.
"Her man"
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 06/10/2012 - 5:35pm.
When I was in the service, I had a girlfriend make the unfortunate decision to describe me to someone as "my man." That was the last time she ever saw me. Every time she called, I would tell her: "I'm sorry, your man isn't here" and hang up. She eventually got the hint.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Read Ross Douthat in today's NYT
Submitted by CO2Maker on Sun, 06/10/2012 - 10:49pm.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/opinion/sunday/douthat-eugenics-past-a...
Here's a sample:
"From a rigorously pro-choice perspective, the in utero phase is a space in human development where disease and disability can be eradicated, and our impulse toward perfection given ever-freer rein, without necessarily doing any violence to human dignity and human rights.
But this is a convenient perspective for our civilization to take. Having left behind pseudoscientific racial theories, it’s easy for us to look back and pass judgment on yesterday’s eugenicists. It’s harder to acknowledge what we have in common with them.
First, a relentless desire for mastery and control, not only over our own lives but over the very marrow and sinew of generations yet unborn. And second, a belief in our own fundamental goodness, no matter to what ends our mastery is turned."
He gets it right in the last sentence: Self-congratulations that mask evil.