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

121–130 of 142 posts

Re: The Last Children of Down Syndrome

#121

Post by lostmsu »

Damorian wrote: post #112
Fumtumi wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You still can try to clarify what you are trying to say instead of being dismissive. Let me try to reword it: Yes it is a human fetus; Its not a human being.

There is a common theme among people who argue over abortion; they choose particular words that are either unscientific or misleading, in a disingenuous way, to promote their side as being more rational. My initial assumption is that you were doing this, and you may still be, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I feel it is very important that when we discuss abortion, we do so in a way that is scientific, ratio…

You insistence on using scientific terms is misplaced in this case, as definitions are imprecise. This is not axiomatic geometry we are talking about.

For example, by some definition of species, many people with Down Syndrome do not belong to homo sapiens or any species really, due to inability to reproduce.

The closest definition you seek is DNA matching arguably is not favorable either because the syndrome causes severe DNA structure difference.

Re: The Last Children of Down Syndrome

#122

Post by Damorian »

lostmsu wrote: post #121
Damorian wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a common theme among people who argue over abortion; they choose particular words that are either unscientific or misleading, in a disingenuous way, to promote their side as being more rational. My initial assumption is that you were doing this, and you may still be, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I feel it is very important that when we discuss abortion, we do so in a way that is scientific, ratio…

You insistence on using scientific terms is misplaced in this case, as definitions are imprecise. This is not axiomatic geometry we are talking about. For example, by some definition of species, many people with Down Syndrome do not belong to homo sapiens or any species really, due to inability to reproduce. The closest definition you seek is DNA matching arguably is not favorable either because the syndrome causes s…

Forgive me for thinking "kill" and "human" are grade school vocab words with clear definitions. I really don't feel like I'm being too pedantic here (maybe a little, but for good reason). I think the biased and incorrect way people speak when discussing abortion is ridiculous and isn't conducive to healthy conversation. If there were pro-lifers in this thread talking about a genocide two orders of magnitude bigger than the holocaust I'd be talking them down too.

Re: The Last Children of Down Syndrome

#123

Post by Supermancho »

Damorian wrote: post #119
Supermancho wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The scientific reality and proper usage of the English language is abortion is killing humans (human fetuses). This is not up for debate. Killing and killing fetus is not a an equivalence in animal medicine. https://www.merckvetmanual.com/reproductive-system/abortion-... I do not subscribe to your belief that there is no debate, with that assertion.

To kill simply means to put a living thing to death. A fetus (human or otherwise) is a living thing. I don't know what the purpose of your link was, or how it has anything to do with the misuse of words above. Unless you think I'm implying that all forms of killing are the same, which obviously I'm not. That being said "killing fetus" is merely a subset of "killing " by basic logic. Were you implying otherwise by cit…

> That being said "killing fetus" is merely a subset of "killing " by basic logic.

No, that is not logical. Killing a caterpillar is not killing a butterfly. Known forms of life are not absolute in classification. You have decided to classify a fetus as a subset and others do not. Good luck with whatever.

Re: The Last Children of Down Syndrome

#124

Post by Damorian »

Supermancho wrote: post #123
Damorian wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To kill simply means to put a living thing to death. A fetus (human or otherwise) is a living thing. I don't know what the purpose of your link was, or how it has anything to do with the misuse of words above. Unless you think I'm implying that all forms of killing are the same, which obviously I'm not. That being said "killing fetus" is merely a subset of "killing " by basic logic. Were you implying otherwise by cit…

> That being said "killing fetus" is merely a subset of "killing " by basic logic. No, that is not logical. Killing a caterpillar is not killing a butterfly. Known forms of life are not absolute in classification. You have decided to classify a fetus as a subset and others do not. Good luck with whatever.

They're still the same animal though (e.g. a butterfly caterpillar vs a moth caterpillar). The only distinction, which is specific to this case, is that the words caterpillar and butterfly imply a stage of development where the word human does not, making it a poor analogy. I just want people to stop trying to change the definition of words for the sake of perception.

Re: The Last Children of Down Syndrome

#125

Post by flukus »

xupybd wrote: post #43
tristor wrote: post #14

> Yet a gulf seems to separate the publicly expressed attitudes and private decisions. I would be more surprised if this were not true. It's not very PC to say, but quite simply being different is not inherently a moral good. Downs Syndrome in particular is more controversial, because people who have this disorder typically are happy in their lives. I've spent a not insignificant part of my life working with teenager…

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 really think people need to think long and hard before they take a side on opening the Pandora's box.

The box was opened 40 years ago at least, as a fetus I was screened due to a down syndrome older sister.

> This is far from a cure to genetic diseases it is removal of diseased individuals from the population

100% of down syndrome men and 30-50% of women are infertile. Throw in dating challenges and issue regarding consent and theses genes aren't going to last long anyway.

Re: The Last Children of Down Syndrome

#128

Post by Gibbon1 »

tokai wrote: post #23
chmod775 wrote: post #8

Prenatal testing is one of the few solutions to this "post-darwinian" world (not in the usual sense of the word) with its modern medicine that will result in mankind accumulating more and more genetic defects. Though slightly more ethical from my point of view would be gene-editing to remove those defects, instead of just terminating the fetus. Edit: Also I'm not talking about down syndrome specifically. There's a lo…

>will result in mankind accumulating more and more genetic defects. Is there any evidence that this is actually the case?

I read article that says most genetic defects get selected out in utero. Just managing to develop properly is the major test of fitness.

Opinion having read some eugenics books. The authors completely conflate developmental disorders with generic ones. And they also way over state the true amount of genetic diversity.

Re: The Last Children of Down Syndrome

#129

Post by kwhitefoot »

GordonS wrote: post #109
kwhitefoot wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's astonishing. I think every mother over a certain age is offered a test here in Norway as a matter of course along with genetic counselling to make sure that she is able to make an informed decision once the result is known. This was the case for my children decades ago in Norway.

Mothers in the UK get rough statistics based on their age (e.g. you're told you have a 1 in 8000 chance of having a kid with Down's), and have the option of an amnio, which is invasive and carries a risk of miscarriage, so many will go off the stats alone. NIPT has only been around for a few years, whereas amnio has been available for decades AFAIK, so I guess it's amnio that's been commonly been available in Norway…

Yes it was amnio.

Re: The Last Children of Down Syndrome

#130

Post by jlkuester7 »

bdamm wrote: post #22
michaelsbradley wrote: post #2

Special attention must be given to evaluating the morality of prenatal diagnostic techniques which enable the early detection of possible anomalies in the unborn child. In view of the complexity of these techniques, an accurate and systematic moral judgment is necessary. When they do not involve disproportionate risks for the child and the mother, and are meant to make possible early therapy or even to favour a seren…

Yet this attitude rarely comes with systemic care for those born with handicaps, so actually it is a form of classist cruelty. There is no shortage of suffering, we don't need to choose to create more.

Yeah, because the Catholic Church never did anything to help folks that are handicapped, sick, or poor....

> Next to the federal government, Catholic Charities is the largest US social-safety-net provider.

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

Post reply on HN