Thread: Downs Syndrome

hmmm

I wonder who's really holding humanity back, people who are born with genetic disorders - or people who think those who are born with genetic disorders shouldn't be born

the evolution of humanity is already beyond physical evolution. what needs to evolve is our consciousness. do you really think its morally right to decide who can have children and who can't? is one human worth so much more than another that they have the right to make this decision onto another?

is a disabled human worth less?

Well then you have to ask, if we are capable of calculating the likelyhood of two people having a mentally disabled child by mapping their genetic structure, is it wrong to ignore it and let people bear children as they would normally? At what point does our control over others reproductive habits and desires become oppressive, and how far should we go in order to cleanse the world of 'undesirable' genetic traits? Who, for that matter, should get to decide exactly which traits are undesirable?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Well then you have to ask, if we are capable of calculating the likelyhood of two people having a mentally disabled child by mapping their genetic structure, is it wrong to ignore it and let people bear children as they would normally? At what point does our control over others reproductive habits and desires become oppressive, and how far should we go in order to cleanse the world of 'undesirable' genetic traits? Who, for that matter, should get to decide exactly which traits are undesirable?

Okay Xaqaria, heres what. You see, you talk about which traits are undesirable, but were not taking about traits in the sense how good looking you are or what not. Downs Syndrome is a mental disorder, and as a result, people who get downs are not as intelligent as someone who was born without the disorder. People need to realize that its not cleansing the world of undesirable traits, its holding back a disorder that is being allowed to be passed on to children. But people need to realize that it is a defect that we could really use to be without.

Some people forget that its not the whole eugenics by trying to stop downs syndrome, because if people say "where do you draw the line" and all that, what is the point in this species even existing if we cannot make rational decisions in order to better our future as a whole?

Oh, and i think that if some people have too much freedom, it can lead to chaos. If we all have different views and we have the right to express them, then aren't we going to come across conflict with each other? Freedom is good to a degree, but some people take it right out of context and render it useless.

Yeah, tough look to the couple but I would definetaly say no. I would also hope they had the decency not to bring a child in the world with a mental disability. I mean asbergers syndrome or something is OK but this is chuffin downs syndrome we're talking about.

As already mentioned, DS is not predictably hereditary, nor is it running rampant. This thread is completely founded in ignorance.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

At what point does our control over others reproductive habits and desires become oppressive, and how far should we go in order to cleanse the world of 'undesirable' genetic traits? Who, for that matter, should get to decide exactly which traits are undesirable?

That's why it can never really happen*. Some disease-causing traits are clearly undesirable, however. (I'm not saying kill all the people who have them; just to use birth control--potential people are prevented all the time like that, and only the most fundamentalist freaks worry about the potential people we are losing to birth control.)

In the best of situations, people with heritable genetic conditions would realize that since there are enough people already on this planet, and maybe they shouldn't breed. It seems like a small sacrifice in order to prevent having kids with some sort of horrible disease.

I think it is part of progress to realize that we don't all need to breed like animals, up to and beyond the carrying capacity of the environment. Obviously this is true; the more developed the country is, the lower the birth rate.

*Edit for clarification: As an enforced government policy.

So basically you would have killed Stephen Hawking.

Originally Posted by Xei

So basically you would have killed Stephen Hawking.

Yeah, lets kill people because their different!!! *Sarcasm*

I think that these disorders should be monitored and controlled, we should work against them and try to rid them from society instead of embracing them. Not killing people, but reducing the amount of people that are born with such a defect that could affect them at any point in their lives. And at the end of the day, it was not ALS that made Stephen Hawking brainy. Your just taking things to the next extreme for the sake of arguing when you know damn well that it would be done via a birth control related method.

Originally Posted by Xei

So basically you would have killed Stephen Hawking.

Are you talking to me? I guess you didn't read anything I said, especially the part where I said I didn't want to kill anybody, and would advocate the use of birth control, which is pretty much a good idea anyway.

Originally Posted by Xei

So basically you would have killed Stephen Hawking.

Are you responding to Moonbeam? If so, is that seriously what you got out of it?

Edit: oops moonbeam already responded

Fine, aborted Stephen Hawking or stopped Stephen Hawking's gametes from... meeting.

To me the dividing line is so fine that it's pretty much non-existent anyway but fine, if you want to split hairs about terminology...

What I'm saying is that under your regime you could potentially be 'preventing the existence of' (which is equal to killing as far as I see it, in fact killing is a little better because you allowed the person to live for at least a little while) people who could potentially be brilliant. We know hardly anywhere near enough about genetic diseases to start trying to exterminate various 'defects' from our society.

And where's the dividing line? Where do you stop? Disease which causes pain to the recipient? Or which cause discomfort to families? How about people with high cancer risks, I reckon they should go too. Oh and those with high risks of obesity, that's hereditary often. And let's not forget those with relatively low IQs, much better for humanity if we breed geniuses only, as far as I can see it. Oh, and what about those with blonde hair and blue eyes? Much more asthetically pleasing, definitely, I think we should only keep them.

There is no such thing has having to much freedom. There is such a thing as being to stupid though. If your going around killing people that obvious some problem with you, not a problem with freedom. Freedom doesn't cause people to hurt each other, so theres no such thing as to much freedom. Yea if everyone disagrees and are left free to argue about it there will be conflict, but who cares? Whats a little conflict?

As for where you draw the line, there shouldn't be a line. No one should ever be deciding who can or can not have children.

I think the child should be allowed to live. After all it is still a life regardless of mental health and disability.

At my work, I have seen children with downs syndrome and autism ect, the parents adore them.

There is no way I could see them, if given the chance, letting the child not be born.

Okay, so do some of you agree that we should allow this disorder to thrive and carry on throughout our community, do you think we should allow it to grow and expand. Parents may adore their kids because they have downs syndrome, maybe. But at the end of the day what goes first, the progression of our species or the freedom of being able to have a child with downs syndrome?

I may be talking a bit too over the top, but at the end of the day they will likely have to go, they have integrated, but they will always need care, and that is something that comes at a cost, the government i believe is paying for this. When what we could do it reduce through birth control the numbers and that would save money in more areas. Nobody is dying here either, i think that people with downs should adopt because spreading this disorder unfortunately is a bad way to go. Though its not a big issue now, i can imagine it being something we have to make our minds up about sooner or later.

Originally Posted by Xei

Fine, aborted Stephen Hawking or stopped Stephen Hawking's gametes from... meeting.

So I take it you are against birth control.

Originally Posted by Xei

What I'm saying is that under your regime

I'm not proposing a "regime"; I even said you couldn't possibly do something like make people get licenses to reproduce. I just said it because people seem to put so little thought into something so important (which is natural, I know, but I think people should try to control their natures sometimes), especially if there is a reason--like they are producing babies doomed to suffer and die, or even just suffer, or even just suck up excessive resources from the rest of us which their parents can't provide, when there are so many healthy babies and people already doing that because of over-population. (Not starting a debate about that; I don't care if it's a distribution problem, whatever, it's happening for some reason.)

(For the record, I'd start with not issuing licenses to anyone in my own family--not that I don't like existing, now that I already do.)

Originally Posted by Xei

you could potentially be 'preventing the existence of' (which is equal to killing as far as I see it, in fact killing is a little better because you allowed the person to live for at least a little while) people who could potentially be brilliant.

So...birth control is worse than murder? A strange way of looking at things, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Xei

We know hardly anywhere near enough about genetic diseases to start trying to exterminate various 'defects' from our society.

There are many genetic diseases about which a lot is known, there are many about which little is known. I actually knew a woman who had two sons with muscular dystrophy; she had to watch them deteriorate and suffer for twenty years before they died. Of course she loved them and took the best care of them that she could, but do you think she would have been wrong to not have those kids if she had only known she was a carrier? You are condeming a lot of people to a lot of pain, not just the kids, but the parents as well.

(The common form of muscular dystrophy a genetic heritable disease, and is a problem with the X chromosome, so only boys are severely affected--the mother didn't know she was a carrier, having another X chromosome to cover it up.) Because the boys die before they reproduce, it can be passed thru the female line unknown until a male is born, or it can be a spontaneous mutation in an individual woman and then passed onto her sons. The sons have a 50/50 chance of inheriting it from her; the daughters have a 50/50 chance of becoming carriers.)

In case you didn't know, prenatal genetic testing is done all the time, to detect things like Down's Syndrome, which would be sporadic but is common, and genetic defects which the parents know their children are at risk for, if they happen to be carriers. There's really only one reason to do it, and that's to abort the pregnancy if the fetus is affected. This is not some dystopian future I'm talking about, it's commonly done right now. As more is learned and the testing process for other genetic diseases is figured out, it will happen more and more frequently. That's just the way things are going, like it or not.

Originally Posted by Xei

And where's the dividing line? Where do you stop? Disease which causes pain to the recipient? Or which cause discomfort to families? How about people with high cancer risks, I reckon they should go too. Oh and those with high risks of obesity, that's hereditary often. And let's not forget those with relatively low IQs, much better for humanity if we breed geniuses only, as far as I can see it. Oh, and what about those with blonde hair and blue eyes? Much more asthetically pleasing, definitely, I think we should only keep them.

It doesn't have to come down to being a Nazi. Like I said, it's already happening, and I guess you would like to take away the rights of people to determine if their offspring will live a horrible life. Luckily, you're not in control of that, so people can continue to do it. Myself, I'd just say to them to forget the breeding, their genes aren't really that important, and tell them to just adopt if they must have a baby.

Edit: I kind of wish this hadn't started out about Down's syndrome; I realize the OP was just using that as an example, but like NeAvO I know that there are many happy retarded people who have people who love them. I don't think they should be neglected--just not allowed to breed like rabbits, which most people recognize and take care of if they have such a family member.

I rather agree with moonbeam so I don't want to restate her arguments...

But Xei: the "slippery slope" argument is pretty weak. Denouncing a very valid and logical concept because of what it "could become" is a rather poor argument, if you ask me. Yes, there is a vague dividing line... I doubt moonbeam disagrees with that (at least, I don't, I don't want to speak for her). But we are not addressing that, more we are addressing the basics of the concept. Surely if such a "policy" in society were to develop regarding this subject such a dividing line would be established and some sort of moral agreement among participants would be agreed upon. But regardless, I think your point is rather unimportant to what we are talking about. It is certainly relevant, but I think that is another topic (where we would "stop").