Speaking of Nazi's: Iceland is 'Disappearing' Down Syndrome children

[Belsnickel]

(08-21-2017, 01:11 PM)PhilHos Wrote: True, but based on what I've heard the last 2 weeks, anything similar to Nazis automatically qualifies you as being a Nazi.

I would disagree with that. The only ones I would call Nazis are the ones shouting Nazi slogans, wearing Nazi symbols, carrying Nazi symbols...you get the point. There were people like that in among the bunch, and what makes it difficult is when they are in among a bunch of other racist groups, it can be hard to really distinguish between them. It's why we have a hard time coming up with a good umbrella term and why I refer to them collectively as racists or bigots, usually with another colorful adjective thrown in for good measure.

I mean, Hitler liked cake. We could say everyone that likes cake is a Nazi and then birthday parties would forever suck because cake is delicious.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-20-2017, 09:25 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Test is only 85% accurate and it tells you if you are low or high risk. Not to mention they push the test on the mother.

It's Barbaric. And the only reason they are doing it is so the government doesn't have to pick up the lifelong medical bills.

Pretty sure no one wants a child with issues but you do not kill your children.

This is one step closer to a GATTACA scenario.

(08-21-2017, 11:58 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So after reading the source, the screening test used to determine risk is what was 85% accurate, but CBS didn't go any further in detail. What they were focusing on in their reporting, though, was the children that slipped through in the screening because the parents were deemed low risk. What they weren't discussing was the possibility of pregnancy terminations that did not involve children with the syndrome. So the CBS reporting is not inaccurate, but the Daily Wire decided to editorialize the CBS piece based only on that information and not actually looking into any further detail.

Definitely one of those situations where you need to check your sources, and is a good reason why aggregate sites like the Daily Wire where they editorialize on news stories are a horrible source, because they don't do any actual investigation into the story and so don't understand the whole picture.

Just wanted to point out more misinformation

1) Lucie claimed the test determines who is low or high risk. Incorrect. The doctor determines who is high risk, not the test. High risk mothers are encouraged to get the test. The screening test results are used to determine who should have additional testing.

2) Lucie claimed the test is forced on women. If that were true all women would be forced to get the screening test and all women would be forced to undergo amniocentesis against their will. The reason screening tests are used is to identify who needs the more invasive and riskier amniocentesis. The reason they don't do the more accurate amniocentesis on all patients is because it carries a greater risk of abortion (one abortion for every 200-300 amniocentesis procedures.) Thus screening tests reduce the number of unwanted or iatrogenic abortions.

3) The accuracy of amniocentesis is 99.5% which is significantly different than the figure the Daily Wire reported to deliberately dumb down their readers. This is the test result used to counsel parents about the the possibility of terminating the pregnancy, NOT the 85% figure the Daily Wire used. (Chomosomal mosaism and contaimination of the sample with blood from the mother account for the other 0.5%.) The number of affected kids slipping through the cracks would be 0.5% if this testing was forced on the mothers.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-21-2017, 12:36 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The original source is CBS News.  I'd say they qualify as reputable.

The original poster is Lucie. The original post contains an article from the Daily Wire, not CBS. The Daily Wire article is full of misinformation, if not out right deliberate lies.

[Aquapod770]

(08-20-2017, 09:39 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: I'm pro-life, Derpy McDerperson. Not fake pro-life like Republicans who no longer care about that life after birth though, I stick with them until the end. Nice assumption though?

Still, equating families making incredibly tough decisions to end the life of the embryo because of a massive birth defect that would cause a lifetime of heartache for the parents to nazi behavior is nuts.

It's especially nuts considering we have actual nazi behavior in this country, and all that some can manage is "...yeah, but".

Eugenics was a thing though 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-21-2017, 12:56 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: You do realize you are not limited to only the story posted. You are able to click the link in the story that refers back to the original story.

Correct, I'm not limited to just one article. Which is why I'm giving you the benefit of my education and educating you that article is complete BS. I don't need to read other articles to know the one you posted is BS. Reading other articles will indicate the DW is BS. Also, if I'm supposed to read another article every time you post a DW article, what is the point of reading the DW if I have to read another article, too?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-21-2017, 12:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Euthanasia is not equivalent to abortions. If you were to say this was eugenics program, that is correct. And the Nazis did utilize eugenics in their policies. However, eugenics programs do not immediately qualify one to be a Nazi.

Oh, gawd. That brings up another BS point the author made about people committing suicide to escape chronic pain and disease.

My mother would have chosen assisted suicide last year when she died of lung cancer, but there are two reasons why she didn't.

1) It is illegal thanks to conservative politicians.

2) Insurance policies don't pay in many cases involving suicide.

Another stupid point in a long litany of stupid points.

So instead she was forced to suffer until she could no longer even recognize who I was while I listened to her drown from the fluid in her lungs. I could literally see the fluid in her mouth move back and forth with each inhalation and exhalation during the two hours it took for her to succumb to acute respiratory failure.

[GMDino]

(08-21-2017, 02:24 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Oh, gawd. That brings up another BS point the author made about people committing suicide to escape chronic pain and disease.

My mother would have chosen assisted suicide last year when she died of lung cancer, but there are two reasons why she didn't.

1) It is illegal thanks to conservative politicians.

2) Insurance policies don't pay in many cases involving suicide.

Another stupid point in a long litany of stupid points.

So instead she was forced to suffer until she could no longer even recognize who I was while I listened to her drown from the fluid in her lungs. I could literally see the fluid in her mouth move back and forth with each inhalation and exhalation during the two hours it took for her to succumb to acute respiratory failure.

My god that's awful and sad and awful.

It would be more respectful to allow people to end their own lives than to suffer.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-21-2017, 01:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would disagree with that. The only ones I would call Nazis are the ones shouting Nazi slogans, wearing Nazi symbols, carrying Nazi symbols...you get the point. There were people like that in among the bunch, and what makes it difficult is when they are in among a bunch of other racist groups, it can be hard to really distinguish between them. It's why we have a hard time coming up with a good umbrella term and why I refer to them collectively as racists or bigots, usually with another colorful adjective thrown in for good measure.

I mean, Hitler liked cake. We could say everyone that likes cake is a Nazi and then birthday parties would forever suck because cake is delicious.

I get that and even agree with you EXCEPT I've seen people call Trump a Nazi and I've seen many a Facebook post try to equate things to being a Nazi (i.e. if you said "both sides" were bad in Charlottesville, you were a Nazi); then of course there's the litany of political figures who get accused, directly or indirectly, of being a Nazi (think of any Godwin's Law examples).

[Vlad]

(08-21-2017, 12:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Euthanasia is not equivalent to abortions.

Just keep in mind that Trump isn't equivalent to a Nazi either.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-21-2017, 12:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Euthanasia is not equivalent to abortions. If you were to say this was eugenics program, that is correct. And the Nazis did utilize eugenics in their policies. However, eugenics programs do not immediately qualify one to be a Nazi.

Eugenics and the Nazi's are one in the same. The Nazi's were a major part of the eugenics movement.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-21-2017, 02:24 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Oh, gawd. That brings up another BS point the author made about people committing suicide to escape chronic pain and disease.

My mother would have chosen assisted suicide last year when she died of lung cancer, but there are two reasons why she didn't.

1) It is illegal thanks to conservative politicians.

2) Insurance policies don't pay in many cases involving suicide.

Another stupid point in a long litany of stupid points.

So instead she was forced to suffer until she could no longer even recognize who I was while I listened to her drown from the fluid in her lungs. I could literally see the fluid in her mouth move back and forth with each inhalation and exhalation during the two hours it took for her to succumb to acute respiratory failure.

Assisted suicide should be allowed. The patient should get the choice to end Their own life.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-21-2017, 01:49 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Just wanted to point out more misinformation

1) Lucie claimed the test determines who is low or high risk. Incorrect. The doctor determines who is high risk, not the test. High risk mothers are encouraged to get the test. The screening test results are used to determine who should have additional testing.

2) Lucie claimed the test is forced on women. If that were true all women would be forced to get the screening test and all women would be forced to undergo amniocentesis against their will. The reason screening tests are used is to identify who needs the more invasive and riskier amniocentesis. The reason they don't do the more accurate amniocentesis on all patients is because it carries a greater risk of abortion (one abortion for every 200-300 amniocentesis procedures.) Thus screening tests reduce the number of unwanted or iatrogenic abortions.

3) The accuracy of amniocentesis is 99.5% which is significantly different than the figure the Daily Wire reported to deliberately dumb down their readers. This is the test result used to counsel parents about the the possibility of terminating the pregnancy, NOT the 85% figure the Daily Wire used. (Chomosomal mosaism and contaimination of the sample with blood from the mother account for the other 0.5%.) The number of affected kids slipping through the cracks would be 0.5% if this testing was forced on the mothers.

Everything I claimed and cited is actually from the CBS original report on the topic. This is a follow up piece to that story from the DW. As I and others have told you and others... you are more than welcome to go to the original CBS story and haggle with the writer of that story.

But we all know the only reason you are haggling here over nonsense is because I posted the thread. This has been proven time and again on these boards. We know who acts like a bunch of stalkers when I post. Other posters have posted the same threads with the same sources and there has been civil discussion.

You need to have a word with yourself. If you can not help yourself then maybe you should just block me.

[Vas Deferens]

Classic deflection. Can't argue valid points because one does not understand the science and logic substantiating them... STALKING!

Maybe people have a distorted view of others activity when they spend extended periods in time out.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-21-2017, 03:21 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Classic deflection. Can't argue valid points because one does not understand the science and logic substantiating them... STALKING!

Maybe people have a distorted view of others activity when they spend extended periods in time out.

What valid points? That the facts cited were from the cbs original reporting?

Let's not kid anyone here..... the next hill for my stalkers to die on is complaining about Daily Wire.

[Belsnickel]

(08-21-2017, 02:49 PM)Vlad Wrote: Just keep in mind that Trump isn't equivalent to a Nazi either.

I've never called him one.

(08-21-2017, 02:54 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Eugenics and the Nazi's are one in the same. The Nazi's were a major part of the eugenics movement.

The Nazis were major proponents of eugenics, but to be a proponent of eugenics does not automatically make one a Nazi. Eugenics were around before Nazism, and the US was at the forefront.

[GMDino]

(08-21-2017, 02:49 PM)Vlad Wrote: Just keep in mind that Trump isn't equivalent to a Nazi either.

Nope.  But the Nazis fully support him and his policies.

[Belsnickel]

(08-21-2017, 03:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: Nope.  But the Nazis fully support him and his policies.

I wouldn't say fully. They aren't happy his son-in-law is a Jew.

[GMDino]

(08-21-2017, 03:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I wouldn't say fully. They aren't happy his son-in-law is a Jew.

Purely politically, I meant.

btw, has Trump tweeted his condemnation of those comments about him "allowing" his beautiful daughter to marry a Jew?  Maybe I missed it in between the "fake news" tweets and the "we're doing very important work" tweets.  

[*PhilHos*]

(08-21-2017, 03:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: Nope.  But the Nazis fully support him and his policies.

Which of Trump's policies are Nazi-esque?

[GMDino]

(08-21-2017, 04:08 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Which of Trump's policies are Nazi-esque?

Don't know.  I just know he has the full support of Nazis.  They love him.

I keep hoping Trump will make it clear he does not want their support....