Thread: Downs Syndrome

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 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.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

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.

I wasn't talking about evolution, I just meant for reducing suffering in general.

Originally Posted by 27

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

Yea, you're right. Reproduction by definition involves other people however. That's how I rationalize that.

Lots of people follow their instincts without thinking, that is a lot of the problem with the world.

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.