08-21-2017, 04:17 PM
(08-21-2017, 03:07 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: 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.
Show me where this is found in the CBS article:
Quote:Now read this paragraph closely, embrace the monstrous subtext:
When Thordis Ingadottir was pregnant with her third child at the age of 40, she took the screening test. The results showed her chances of having a child with Down syndrome were very slim, odds of 1 in 1,600. However, the screening test is only 85 percent accurate. That year, 2009, three babies were born with Down syndrome in Iceland, including Ingadottir's daughter Agusta, who is now 7.
Oops. Sometimes one gets through!
Moreover, based on odds — ODDS! — babies are being exterminated, and how many of those "terminated" babies would not have been born with Down syndrome? Why doesn't CBS News even raise that possibility?
Answer: it isn't in the CBS article. Why? Because it is a lie. The screening tests are used to identify who needs more definitive testing: amniocentesis. Why doesn't the DW explain that? Or that amniocentesis is 99.5% accurate compared to the screening test? Because facts trump propaganda.
