Thread: Downs Syndrome

I would tend to agree. Its an ethical issue however as well, one has to compare human rights and "the greater good."(for the lack of a better term)

Our continuation of our species, our survival, is one of our most basic instincts. But we as humans have adapted, and evolved differently than other creatures on this planet. We've advanced, we've not only advanced ourselves but advanced our creations. We've evolved by creating things and letting them evolve.

Allowing the creation of a damaged species, only will result in the ultimate destruction of humanity as a whole.

However, if we could find some "cure" it'd be a whole different story.

Wait im confused, isint downs syndrome a extra chromosome (or a missing one, dont remember which) dident know it was a recessive gene. or wait, im getting myself all mixed up, blarg.

Curing is an option, but a solution to removing an extra chromosome would be quite difficult.

I think downs syndrome has to be contained instead of allowed to expand. Now that people are forming their own societies, they are entitled to claim rights, and this is just allowing them to move on and expand. In theory, eventually their population could get so big that there are not enough carers to go round which could lead to a downfall in the defective gene. Of course it is only theoretical, maybe even very unlikely.

Where do you draw the line with human rights, but it will eventually hold us back in a way. Without care and protection, people with downs syndrome would likely die early. But because of all the latest technology and more we are allowing them to escalate and carry on.

People could pull the whole "imagine how they feel" card, but to be honest, i don't know how they feel, i don't have downs syndrome, i have an overall outside perspective and i think that the situation needs to be implanted into everyone with downs syndrome.

Whats the point in conitnuing something that could lead to the end of our own existence?

Volcon - Its an extra chromosome. It is a recessive gene as it causes negative effects if you compare it to the norm set of genes that everybody has. People can be carriers of the gene and not have downs syndrome. It depends on the persons genetic makeup.

I would agree with LS and EB.


However someone may argue that they love their spouse, and have as much a right to their own child as anybody else; and you are in a sense denying them of having a child because it is considered "weak" by the population as a whole; is this not facism or elitism? What about the emotions of the parents who want their own child; put yourself in their position.

Hm?

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

I would agree with LS and EB.


However someone may argue that they love their spouse, and have as much a right to their own child as anybody else; and you are in a sense denying them of having a child because it is considered "weak" by the population as a whole; is this not facism or elitism? What about the emotions of the parents who want their own child; put yourself in their position.

Hm?

You could call me a Social Darwinist, but i'm not, i generally believe that the future is the most important thing and we need to work now to ensure a better future.

The fact is Carou, i am not in their position so i cannot relate. I would not have a child if it was beneficial and the best for the future of our species. And i'm saying that in all seriousness. And, i'd imagine i'd be in some discomfort if i had downs syndrome, and i would not impregnate a woman knowing that a child of mine would go through the same thing.

Its a very controversial issue.

Progression of our species, or decline?

People who have down syndrome should be sterilised. You never what they get up to when you're not watching. My mom knows this lady with down syndrome or something like it, she got together with onother guy who has the syndrome and they did it and had a kid.

The thing is the kid is normal, but hes got two retards for parents. He is being raised by his grandparents though. poor guy.

In the wild, if an animal is born defective or retarded, it is more than likely killed by one of the parents.

I don't think its a big deal. Its not like defective people are creating armies of defective children that could potentially damage our gene pool. Their numbers are few.

It does make you think, however. Is technology making it easier for people who would have died in the wild to pass on their defective genes?

Well we won't be able to cure Down's without somehow altering the process of meiosis, and that's not going to happen any time soon, unless you want to scan every single embryo every concieved, which would be ridiculously expensive if not impossible.

Most people with Down's just have lower intelligence and some physical defects. This is all dangerously close to eugenics.

I don't think people should ever be told by the government that they may not have sex or children, unless they are in prison or something. Reproduction is a right, but I also think a child is a parent's responsibility. People with Down's Syndrom have no right to reproduce and then demand that the government take care of the baby. You reproduce, you produce.

However, I do believe in encouraging consentual sterilization. There are lots of people out there who would help the world by not reproducing. That includes major drug addicts, homeless people, and other parents who will not be good providers and guides to life. Since it would be unethical to force them to be sterile, it makes sense to offer them money or welfare checks or whatever if they willingly become sterilized. Most of them would take such an offer in a second. That's the way to handle things.

its pretty simple in my eyes. If two people want to have sex and have a baby, nobody has the right to tell them no. The baby with Downs might not even get a mate. As someone else said, its not like they will create an army. Eventually, the downs problem will fizzle out like other defects due to there just not being enough people with the gene to make more people who hold the symptoms.

This subject is touching on the idea of eugenics. Which I believe in certain cases, is a good idea.

Someone could always use the slippery slope argument that if you disallow people with this particular characteristic, then pretty soon people will be terminating pregnancies that are natural for fear of having "normal/average" kids and we could end up in a Gattaca style world. I personally thought Gattaca was cool. It wasn't like people were cold emotionless robots or anything. They were just bent on progress of the species, which I think is a good thing.

Therefore, personally I feel that we shouldn't allow them to have the child. Instead, you should allow them to adopt. The reason being, it is a burden in an already over-populated world. It's the same thing with having more than one child, in my opinion. I can't believe in this day and age with limited finite resources, and melting ice caps, and what not that people feel it their right or obligation to pop out 3-4 children. Most of the time they turn out to be underprivileged families that become deadweight to society, as well. There is a reason China disallows a family to have more than one child. I think that system is great. In the 21st century with over 6 billion people having a child simply isn't a right anymore, it should be a privilege that is earned through showing society your potential.

So keep drinking your fluoridated water and aspartame diet drinks, there's nothing to see here...

Originally Posted by SolSkye

This subject is touching on the idea of eugenics. Which I believe in certain cases, is a good idea.

Someone could always use the slippery slope argument that if you disallow people with this particular characteristic, then pretty soon people will be terminating pregnancies that are natural for fear of having "normal/average" kids and we could end up in a Gattaca style world. I personally thought Gattaca was cool. It wasn't like people were cold emotionless robots or anything. They were just bent on progress of the species, which I think is a good thing.

Therefore, personally I feel that we shouldn't allow them to have the child. Instead, you should allow them to adopt. The reason being, it is a burden in an already over-populated world. It's the same thing with having more than one child, in my opinion. I can't believe in this day and age with limited finite resources, and melting ice caps, and what not that people feel it their right or obligation to pop out 3-4 children. Most of the time they turn out to be underprivileged families that become deadweight to society, as well. There is a reason China disallows a family to have more than one child. I think that system is great. In the 21st century with over 6 billion people having a child simply isn't a right anymore, it should be a privilege that is earned through showing society your potential.

So keep drinking your fluoridated water and aspartame diet drinks, there's nothing to see here...

wait a tick are you saying that people with down syndrome should be able to adopt normal healthy children?

Oh ya and the china 1 child rule is pretty interesting,India should adopt it to. But isn't the 1 child per couple rule only applicable to han chinese and not to any other ethnic group?

The people into eugenics are also some of the people who want to wipe out 80% of the world population. A lot of the stuff there is digusting and you really don't want to get into it.

Anyway to the question. I think the parents should avoid having a child, but I dont believe they should be forced into not having one. It never should be forced. To me the 'good' of the society doesn't mean anything if individuals don't have rights.

True. I've only been speaking hypothetically, of course. I don't actually condone forcing anyone into doing anything, either.

The nazis were the first to actually start to implement eugenics. However, believe it or not, they got their initial ideas from those floating around the academic discipline at many colleges and universities at the time. Funding for that was provided by prestigious sources such as the Rockefeller Foundation. Go figure.

*cough* flouride *cough* aspartame *cough... Sorry, it's this damn cold. If only my immune system weren't weakened by the powers that be.

Down's syndrome is not a good example. It is usually a random error in the offspring, not having to do with the genetics of the parents and not predictable (except as a prenatal test). There are other conditions that fit your example however, and I think it is immoral for people to have babies knowing that they will be genetically messed up.

I think people ought to have a license before they breed, getting permission only if they prove they can and will take care of it, including paying for what it needs and not expecting other people to do it.

I realize that will never happen.

First, I just want to say that the first few posts were Comedy Gold (tm) From the profound misunderstanding of every concept involved to the casually shallow delivery of this ill-founded thought experiment on eugenics, it had the studied naivete of satire, yet appears quite sincere.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam;

I think people ought to have a license before they breed, getting permission only if they prove they can and will take care of it, including paying for what it needs and not expecting other people to do it.

As the offspring of a flat-broke teenage mother, I want to thank you for the vote of confidence.

Also keep in mind that if we vetoed genetically defective embryoes, Stephen Hawking would have been torpedoed in the womb.

Stephen Hawking's genetic thing didn't start showing itself until around the time he was in college, anyway. I don't think any sort of test would have predicted it... (Could be totally wrong here.)

Omg I agree wholeheartedly that people need to adopt, adopt, adopt. Have a kid or two, that's fine. But if you're gonna have 5 kids, at least two of them better be adopted.

Is eugenics not just the improvement of the human species by removing genetic diseases and the like?

Why is it perceived as bad? Is it because of the way the Nazis got into it?

Originally Posted by Liquidnine

Is eugenics not just the improvement of the human species by removing genetic diseases and the like?

Why is it perceived as bad? Is it because of the way the Nazis got into it?

The improvement part isn't bad, its the major ways they talk about doing it. Such as forced sterilization, and mass removal(murder) of all the 'bad' people of a society. It starts with saying we should sterilize people with genetic problems like downs but most of them think being poor is a genetic problem as well. Yes, they want to get rid of you if your poor too.

There has been forced sterilization programs in places like africa as well. They want to kill huge sections of the people there because they think they are all useless.

I remeber it was in the news awhile back, some scientist was giving a lecture and said we needed to wipe out 95% of the world population and everyone in the room was cheering him on, like it was the greatest thing ever. Its actually a serious movement in the world today, where they want to kill you.

Yes they want to kill YOU. They start off small where they dont think anyone will notice but they want to kill off you as well. Theres a big stone monument outside some state building(I am thinking texas but I cant remeber) that even says right on it they want to work towards a world where the population never exeeds 20 million. Of course the world population is over 6 billion now, nearly 7 billion.

Anyway, its evil. Its really that simple.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

As the offspring of a flat-broke teenage mother, I want to thank you for the vote of confidence.

I can't help it, I'm a Libertarian. No offense to you personally, but those offspring of flat-broke teenage mothers cost everyone else a lot of money, the way the system is set up now. Not to mention often sentencing the mother to a life of poverty and dependence as well. Would you like your own daughter to have the same experience as your mother?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Also keep in mind that if we vetoed genetically defective embryoes, Stephen Hawking would have been torpedoed in the womb.

90 - 95% of cases of ALS are sporadic, not hereditary.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

90 - 95% of cases of ALS are sporadic, not hereditary.

My point here is that we don't know what we're doing nearly well enough to take the reigns of evolution, if it's even a good idea in abstraction. We don't know what's adaptive and what's defective except on the level of emergent consensus, where we're already taking care of it. We have very little idea what kind of world we'll be living in 5 years from now, much less a generation, so I'd say it's a little premature to assume we know what kind of human being should be living in it. Not everything is best decided through conscious deliberation.

Hmm... would you guys have killed Stephen Hawking in the womb, knowing that he would become a 'burden'?

Originally Posted by Lucid Seeker

I personally think that people should not be able to have sex fully knowing that the child would have downs syndrome, it is wrong and i think that carrying on a recessive gene is in effect slowing us down. More money is required to look after people with downs syndrome and it is very time consuming, i am not saying we should get rid of people with downs syndrome by not taking care of them, but i think we should not embrace the recessive gene and let downs syndrome continue in such a way.

You are aware that you are proposing fascistic eugenics?
And it's called Down Syndrome and it's not a gene mutation but a chromosomal one. You can't change anything about people being born with it.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I can't help it, I'm a Libertarian. No offense to you personally, but those offspring of flat-broke teenage mothers cost everyone else a lot of money, the way the system is set up now. Not to mention often sentencing the mother to a life of poverty and dependence as well. Would you like your own daughter to have the same experience as your mother?



90 - 95% of cases of ALS are sporadic, not hereditary.

Aren’t libertarians supposed to support personal freedom above all else? I'm not sure, just asking.

Anyway, I agree that when you start talking about who can and can't have children you're getting into Nazi territory. If a couple can have genetic testing done and find that the risk of having a child with a genetic condition or birth defect is high, then they should adopt, but it shouldn't be forced on them. Less government is always better.