Downs Syndrome

Hey guys,

I was thinking today about downs syndrome. And i thought about something.

Is it right for a couple who both have downs syndrome to have a child whilst knowing that the child will have downs syndrome?

Is it right to allow two people to bring a child into the world knowing that it will have a mental disability?

Is it right to allow the continuation and extension of the life of a recessive gene?

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.

What are your thoughts?

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?

Quote:

---

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... :D :thumbup:

http://www.teachwithmovies.org/guide...a-DVDcover.jpg

Quote:

---

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... :D :thumbup:

http://www.teachwithmovies.org/guide...a-DVDcover.jpg

---

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) :D 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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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'?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 :P

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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").