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

At Home with Down Syndrome (2008)

thenewatlantis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 155 posts

Re: At Home with Down Syndrome (2008)

#101

Post by Rule35 »

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #97
nemo44x wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the advantages (against the many disadvantages) of IVF is the available genetic and chromosome testing of a few days old blastocyst. It makes the decision of discarding much easier than if the screening is done in utero.

> One of the advantages (against the many disadvantages) of IVF is the available genetic and chromosome testing of a few days old blastocyst. Could you please expand a bit on that?

They can test an embryo before implantation which means you don't have to abort so it has much less emotional impact.

Re: At Home with Down Syndrome (2008)

#102

Post by BrandoElFollito »

dang wrote: post #65
blendergeek wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While you may find the statement humorous, it uses Down Syndrome as a form of an insult. This could be highly offensive both to people with Down Syndrome and to their friends and family.

It's a tradeoff. I get the intention, but in the long run this way of thinking does more harm than good. It compounds into the bureaucratic kind of discourse that tries to force people to be good, or to hide badness behind rigid rules. The heart doesn't function this way, and it's the heart that we need when relating to each other and when dealing with profound human issues like the ones in this thread. Trying to san…

That was quite a lot of work you did :)

Such articles always make me wonder about you, jumping from thread to thread to see what is going on with some "oh shit shit shit" looking at 5 places at the same time.

Good work as always!

Re: At Home with Down Syndrome (2008)

#103

Post by BrandoElFollito »

Rule35 wrote: post #101
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One of the advantages (against the many disadvantages) of IVF is the available genetic and chromosome testing of a few days old blastocyst. Could you please expand a bit on that?

They can test an embryo before implantation which means you don't have to abort so it has much less emotional impact.

Ah ok, so the test itself is the same, just one is done before implantation, and the other afterwards. Thanks.

Re: At Home with Down Syndrome (2008)

#104

Post by BobbyJo »

83457 wrote: post #78
Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They were amongst the most ... witty people We have to be careful about praising the disabled like this, because we risk being condescending. This is an age-old phenomenon – in Ulysses (published already a century ago), James Joyce has his protagonist muse on the fact that people are so quick to praise a blind person for his jokes not because the person is actually funny, but simply because people’s expectations to…

Is it wrong to say they look alike? There are just times where there is such commonality in a group due to genetic abnormalities and other factors that descriptions are more a fact than a stereotype.

Wrong? No. But definitely pointless and insensitive. Common genetic factors causing similar phenotypes isn't a novel, or even interesting, thought.

Re: At Home with Down Syndrome (2008)

#105

Post by DanBC »

scpedicini wrote: post #74
C06aka wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If eliminating greater than 90% of a group of people via genetic testing and systemic demonization isn't genocide, nothing is.

If it's performed as an abortion would that still be considered genocide? Isn't that implying that the fetus is a living person with all the rights accorded to them? That would seem to be going against the contemporary wisdom of abortion wrt women's rights.

> If it's performed as an abortion would that still be considered genocide?

People with Down's aren't a national, ethincal, racial, nor religious group so strictly speaking it doesn't count as genocide under international law. But it would meet less formal definitions.

Luckily individual women making a choice to have an abortion cannot be carrying out a campaign of genocide. But when a society pushes women in this direction by failing to provide support or by failing to provide accurate information that society is probably engaging in genocidal actions.

> Article 2 of the convention defines genocide as

> any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

[...]

> (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

Re: At Home with Down Syndrome (2008)

#106

Post by arkitaip »

hobbyjogger wrote: post #85
yhoneycomb wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious could you give examples of them being witty?

My uncle sometimes puts his shoes on the wrong feet and once managed to put his jeans on backwards (buttoned but not zipped behind him). As he walked past the doorway my mom (his sister) said, "Your pants are on backwards!" Without missing a beat, he countered, "Maybe I was going the other way..." and sort of moonwalked back the way he came.

That's hilarious!

Re: At Home with Down Syndrome (2008)

#107

Post by hycaria »

Why is everyone pretending Down syndrome is great ? Sure some people manage to live a pretty independent life but other are rather limited. I don’t understand why we should praise people that decide to raise handicapped children, considering how much care they require from society and the dramatic problems that will come with aging parents. There’s a reason for the 90%...

Also I am creeped out by the grunting almost non verbal ones, socially inapt sometimes to the point of masturbating in public. Not all are happy go lucky witty individuals like these comments seem to pretend.

Re: At Home with Down Syndrome (2008)

#108

Post by nemo44x »

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #103
Rule35 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can test an embryo before implantation which means you don't have to abort so it has much less emotional impact.

Ah ok, so the test itself is the same, just one is done before implantation, and the other afterwards. Thanks.

Yeah when the blastocyst is a few days old they can extract a few cells and cryogenically freeze the remaining blastocyst with minimal chance of having ruined it. Those cells are sent to a lab and screened for many chromosome and genetic defects.

In fact, ahead of time the IVF clinic will get blood from mom and dad as well as saliva swabs from their parents to build a model on genetic compatibility. For example, the mom and dad may both be carriers for a rare genetic disorder and this can be explicitly tested against each blastocyst to ensure a baby won’t be created expressing that gene which would lead to defect.

And of course the cells will be tested to ensure each chromosome is normal and blastocysts that are defective are discarded.

This isn’t a perfect science as they are slim chances the cells being tested somehow don’t have the right genetic information (this is called mosaicism) but that’s rare. So overall it gives mom and dad the assurance they are having a normal baby from a biological genetic and chromosome perspective. Because IVF is such a long process fraught with danger it’s something many IVF consumers opt for. Of course, there are ethical and moral concerns regarding this for some people so it’s their choice to not do it or do it and request the blastocysts be preserved and potentially implanted anyways. Now THATS an interesting debate.

Re: At Home with Down Syndrome (2008)

#109

Post by BrandoElFollito »

nemo44x wrote: post #108
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah ok, so the test itself is the same, just one is done before implantation, and the other afterwards. Thanks.

Yeah when the blastocyst is a few days old they can extract a few cells and cryogenically freeze the remaining blastocyst with minimal chance of having ruined it. Those cells are sent to a lab and screened for many chromosome and genetic defects. In fact, ahead of time the IVF clinic will get blood from mom and dad as well as saliva swabs from their parents to build a model on genetic compatibility. For example, the…

> Yeah when the blastocyst is a few days old they can extract a few cells and cryogenically freeze the remaining blastocyst with minimal chance of having ruined it. Those cells are sent to a lab and screened for many chromosome and genetic defects.

Would that part would be different from in utero tests? (short of the freezing of course) It has been 15 years that we did the tests (on amniotic fluid) so the world must have moved forward by now.

> to build a model on genetic compatibility.

I guess that this can also be done for "standard" to-be parents.

> or do it and request the blastocysts be preserved and potentially implanted anyways. Now THATS an interesting debate.

Oh yes - the debate on abort or not abort is already have-a-seat-and-get-popcorn worthy, adding to this a dose of "willingly implant a known defective blastocyst" turns that in to an action movie.

Re: At Home with Down Syndrome (2008)

#110

Post by objectivetruth »

blendergeek wrote: post #64
dang wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate the intention, but this thread is so full of good spirit that I don't think we need to worry too much about rules at that level. The comment was making fun of me anyhow and I laughed. Edit: incidentally, that account is banned so the comment was killed, but HN has a bug where flagging dead comments sometimes unkills them...how's that for irony.

While you may find the statement humorous, it uses Down Syndrome as a form of an insult. This could be highly offensive both to people with Down Syndrome and to their friends and family.

Just wanted to chime in that I agree with you 100% and was pretty disappointed to read the moderator's response.

Not surprised, though, since if there's one thing that the groupthink here usually reaches consensus on, it's that "cancel culture" as described by Fox News is totally real and a dangerous threat to discourse and that we should be able to say^H^H^H joke about whatever we want without regard for the feelings of others.

Post reply on HN