Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Last Children of Down Syndrome

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 142 posts

Re: The Last Children of Down Syndrome

#91

Post by Damorian »

Fumtumi wrote: post #88
Damorian wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Posts like this confuse me. It is absolutely killing a human. This is a scientific fact. The moral question is whether or not they are a person, or otherwise, whether or not they deserve rights, at various points of development, and apparently, any medical conditions they have or may have in the future, based on probabilities from current medical research.

its not. You can think you define it like this, but our society is not killing humans when we abort. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus " The other question related to the beginning of human life is even more difficult to answer. It is the fertilization of the egg cells; but a conglomeration of cells in the early phase of pregnancy can hardly be characterized as a human person.…

Except those links are exactly my point. "Human" is a species of intelligent animals. "Person", is an entity typically associated with traits humans have. They are different things and the distinction is important. The purpose of your "dehumanizing" language is to detract from the "personhood" being debated.

Re: The Last Children of Down Syndrome

#92

Post by tosseuthansia »

matchbok wrote: post #89
tosseuthansia wrote: post #84

I find it fascinating how many comments argue that these lives aren't worth living in a forum that just a few days ago had a (albeit unscientific) poll that said that most of you are currently depressed. 55-45 when I checked it. I was surprised it wasn't higher. This despite being a population that largely skews young, educated, healthy, high earning, highly sought after. We hold the power to insist that ours are the…

That’s not what anybody is saying. Are you offering to pay for the extra millions in lifetime care and need for those children?

"That’s not what anybody is saying."

Read the comments carefully

" Are you offering to pay for the extra millions in lifetime care and need for those children"

Where in my comment do I suggest that I wouldn't support the Billions (with a B in the US, you're off by three orders of mag) needed? Yes. I believe that a healthy, just society that has any semblance of a future has a moral obligation towards its needy.

Question. Where does your prejudice (i.e. pre-judging) that I wouldn't support extra Billions come from?

Re: The Last Children of Down Syndrome

#93

Post by mordechai9000 »

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #50
mmastrac wrote: post #12

Having a child is terrifying enough. Some folks might be up for the challenge of supporting a child with special needs for their entire life (or a good chunk of it), but I'm not afraid to say that it was a huge relief to know that my son had no known genetic abnormalities before he was born. There's nothing to be ashamed of here.

Seriously. I've seen several families destroyed by the challenges involved in raising children with special needs, or rare diseases. Having a nuero/genetically-typical child is a challenging full time job. Add in the prospect of it being a full triple-time job for their entire life, whether that's six years or 130 years and it's not likely to be remotely possible for the vast majority of families to sustain. Between…

I had a coworker with a child with severe cerebral palsy, and the evident strain on him and his family was enormous. I couldn't believe they were effectively thrown on their own resources. I came to the opinion that people in that situation deserve all the help society can give them, including caregivers and even special living situations.

Anyone who has children runs that risk. And society needs children, unless you believe the human race should let itself die out.

Re: The Last Children of Down Syndrome

#94

Post by sgt101 »

GordonS wrote: post #85
sgt101 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that there are two tests. First there is a non invasive test that can be done to evaluate if the foetus is "at risk" of Downs. Then there is a sampling one that is very specific. Basically counting the chromosomes. But the catch is that the specific test carries a risk to the pregnancy - so it's not applied without cause. As well as the sensitivity issue in the article there is also a specificity issue. My da…

There is a newer type of test, only very briefly mentioned in the article, and strangely not even by name: NIPT (Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing). It works by testing tiny amounts of the baby's DNA that can be found in the mother's blood. It is close to 100% effective for detecting Down's Syndrome. It needs only a blood sample, so carries no meaningful risk for mother or fetus, but it's more expensive than the older am…

Thanks - that's really informative, it's great that things move on.

Re: The Last Children of Down Syndrome

#95

Post by CarelessExpert »

bennettfeely wrote: post #64

They mention it in the article but we should really be calling this what it really is, 21st century eugenics. It's not "changing who gets born and who doesn’t", it's killing the weak, the unwanted, the vulnerable. It's saying that our lives have meaning and worth and dignity only so long as we are wanted and not a burden to others. Few minds and opinions change on HN but I encourage anyone viewing this as a positive…

> They mention it in the article but we should really be calling this what it really is, 21st century eugenics.

No, we shouldn't call it that because that's not what it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

> In this period, people from across the political spectrum espoused eugenic ideas. Consequently, many countries adopted eugenic policies, intended to improve the quality of their populations' genetic stock. Such programs included both positive measures, such as encouraging individuals deemed particularly "fit" to reproduce, and negative measures, such as marriage prohibitions and forced sterilization of people deemed unfit for reproduction. Those deemed "unfit to reproduce" often included people with mental or physical disabilities, people who scored in the low ranges on different IQ tests, criminals and "deviants", and members of disfavored minority groups.

The key element, here, is that eugenics involves the state controlling the rights of the individual to reproduce in the first place.

In this case we're dealing with the exact opposite: providing additional information in support of a person's right to make a decision about whether they shouldn't reproduce.

I would make the claim that, given a positive test for a genetic disorder, forcing a person to bring that fetus to term is in fact far closer to the troubling elements of the eugenics movement--a direct intervention by the state in a person's reproductive decisions--than the current situation.

Re: The Last Children of Down Syndrome

#96

Post by duxup »

Fumtumi wrote: post #62
duxup wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to imagine any kinda of gene editing doesn't inevitably lead to Gattaca type situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP1cCjBkWZU The doctor's "best of you" argument ... it's hard for that not to be appealing.

I would be glad. It doesn't make me special or a more valuable individual that i have sleeping issues and nerve issues.

I'm not sure you would have been 'selected' then.

Re: The Last Children of Down Syndrome

#97

Post by striking »

lotu wrote: post #75
xupybd wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difficulty I have with this is we are now actively choosing who gets to live and who doesn't. Yes it's at a very early stage of pregnancy but it may have a profound impact on the future of all human societies. The morality of such actions should be examined thoroughly. This is far from a cure to genetic diseases it is removal of diseased individuals from the population. Any selective removal can be dangerous. If…

I think there is a pretty clear distinction, in that wide spread sex selective abortion results in a skewed gender population which causes obvious negative long term problems. It is very reasonable for a person to look at a society and say “we need increase the number of girls born”. We might have to discuss what is the best way to reach that goal but it is a reasonable goal to have. While I think saying “we need inc…

I don't think anyone's arguing "we need increase the number of people born with Down Syndrome". It's instead asking ourselves if we intend to consciously terminate the lives of those who could still live meaningful lives regardless of whether or not they have it. I don't think "we should decrease the number of people born with Down Syndrome" is a morally defensible position in and of itself either.

Re: The Last Children of Down Syndrome

#98

Post by Fumtumi »

Damorian wrote: post #91
Fumtumi wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

its not. You can think you define it like this, but our society is not killing humans when we abort. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus " The other question related to the beginning of human life is even more difficult to answer. It is the fertilization of the egg cells; but a conglomeration of cells in the early phase of pregnancy can hardly be characterized as a human person.…

Except those links are exactly my point. "Human" is a species of intelligent animals. "Person", is an entity typically associated with traits humans have. They are different things and the distinction is important. The purpose of your "dehumanizing" language is to detract from the "personhood" being debated.

Nope; I don't need to discuss the 'personhood'.

I'm clearly fine with abortion before the 3th month.

And no if you wanna have it clarified: I think a human being is more than just a small or big blob of cells

My opinion did not change after we lost our 'fetus' in the 3th month. And no seeing a small body lying there was not a nice experience.

Re: The Last Children of Down Syndrome

#99

Post by Fumtumi »

duxup wrote: post #96
Fumtumi wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be glad. It doesn't make me special or a more valuable individual that i have sleeping issues and nerve issues.

I'm not sure you would have been 'selected' then.

It wouldn't matter to me as i would not exist. So what?

Re: The Last Children of Down Syndrome

#100

Post by xupybd »

dogma1138 wrote: post #90
xupybd wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difficulty I have with this is we are now actively choosing who gets to live and who doesn't. Yes it's at a very early stage of pregnancy but it may have a profound impact on the future of all human societies. The morality of such actions should be examined thoroughly. This is far from a cure to genetic diseases it is removal of diseased individuals from the population. Any selective removal can be dangerous. If…

This isn’t new, either nature took care of things in the past or people did... We’ve essentially only had a few decades when it was not possible to identify these conditions in the womb and society was able and willing to support these individuals and allow them to live on. Realistically in the past these children would’ve been killed by their parents either directly or through abandonment and those who weren’t often…

Yes some Greek societies left the weak babies to die from exposure others put their children on the alter in the hopes of better crop yields. Because it has been done in the past doesn't justify it now.
Post reply on HN