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

121–130 of 155 posts

Re: At Home with Down Syndrome (2008)

#121

Post by byset »

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.

I would think that's more of a cognitive thing where if you don't normally spend time around people with Down's syndrome, the particular physical features that characterize Down's syndrome really stand out in a way that makes you perceive them as looking less distinctive as individuals. But once you get used to it, it becomes apparent that they look as different from one another as anyone else does.

Re: At Home with Down Syndrome (2008)

#122

Post by nemo44x »

nemo44x wrote: post #112
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I’m not sure on the first question but I imagine that yes, the same types of tests are conducted. As for any to-be parents - yes and I’d recommend it. You may find you both carry a relatively rare recessive gene that would give your offspring a 25% of having a certain disorder. This can guide your decision on if you want to go forward with natural fertilization and risk it (and make the choice after testing the cells…

I should add - for men with poor count and/or quality there is a product called ICSI which involves the IVF clinic inspecting sperm cells and finding “the best” one and injecting it into the ovum.

To me it’s spectacular how involved we can be in the natural selection process due to our brains evolving so much. I can’t wait to see how we further this.

Re: At Home with Down Syndrome (2008)

#123

Post by lupire »

jxramos wrote: post #116
Daub wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Always wanting to subvert serious situation. For example... me being in a bad mood having to get up at 5.00am to milk the cows, and this Downs boy looking up at me with a crazy big-ass grin that would completely wipe all sour thoughts from my mind. They play with language in a very disarming manner. Not highbrow, but will find compelling nicknames for their loved ones and deliver them in a way that is difficult not t…

I've always pondered the "genetic utility" if you will of downs folks. I could imagine they play a real "symbiotic relationship" with their familial cohorts bringing lighthearted joy and other social softeners that add brightness to a group. It does come with costs however like people say with lifetime care, but the fact that these loving genetic subpopulations persist makes me wonder if they are not in fact anomalie…

You are suggesting that a parent who has an offspring with Down Syndrome is likely to have more survining descendants than the average human?

Re: At Home with Down Syndrome (2008)

#124

Post by lupire »

83457 wrote: post #113
BobbyJo wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is it pointless and insensitive for a scientific manual to indicate that all individuals with a certain genetic disorder look incredibly similar across races and genders? My point is that there is a difference between stereotyping races/cultures/disabled and indicating highly correlated attributes in individuals with specific genetic/chromisonal abnormalities.

They don't look incredibly similar. They have common features that are not seen in the vast majority of others, which tricks your brain into not looking at their other features. It's the same as thinking Han Chinese people or Irish people look incredibly similar.

Re: At Home with Down Syndrome (2008)

#125

Post by h2odragon »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #66
Daub wrote: post #11

I worked in a residential community consisting of many young people with various disabilities. Most of these had Down’s syndrome. From the OP... > Individuals with Down syndrome generally have outstanding social skills... Dam right! They were amongst the most compassionate, loving and witty people I have ever met. I remain humbled at their extraordinary humanity. Other things the articles mentions are also true. Cert…

> 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…

He spoke of personal experience of people he knew; and you're lecturing about proper language.

"We shouldn't praise because we risk condescending" ... whuf. and people call me crazy.

Re: At Home with Down Syndrome (2008)

#126

Post by mlyle »

lupire wrote: post #123
jxramos wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always pondered the "genetic utility" if you will of downs folks. I could imagine they play a real "symbiotic relationship" with their familial cohorts bringing lighthearted joy and other social softeners that add brightness to a group. It does come with costs however like people say with lifetime care, but the fact that these loving genetic subpopulations persist makes me wonder if they are not in fact anomalie…

You are suggesting that a parent who has an offspring with Down Syndrome is likely to have more survining descendants than the average human?

Probably not... but ancillary benefits like this can lower the selective pressure against trisomy 21, so that it's less likely to go away.

That's the thing. Something rare like Down Syndrome only has a very small selective pressure against it, and it's really easy for other effects to remove a fraction of it.

So things that seem ridiculous like this assertion or the "super uncle" theory about homosexuality are not so easily dismissed when one really thinks about them. Of course, there can be selective benefits from genes with a propensity for (forming trisomy 21, having homosexual individuals, etc) when the specific condition doesn't manifest.

Re: At Home with Down Syndrome (2008)

#127

Post by mlyle »

watwut wrote: post #118
gadders wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always thought there was a certain tension between being against aborting babies with Downs Syndrome but being OK for healthy babies being aborted for lifestyle reasons. [Not OP specifically, just something I have observed]

That is because what you call "lifestyle reasons" as if we talked about slight unimportant change in lifestyle are actually massively life changing limitations. With lifelong consequences you won't ever be able to avoid and oftentimes literally end of your life as you knew it.

And having a special needs child can be massively life changing, too.

Re: At Home with Down Syndrome (2008)

#128

Post by mlyle »

C06aka wrote: post #79
dang wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You're just biased" is the first retort of every troll. Actually my bias is closer to your view than to the opposite. That's not the issue here. The issue is that you're coming in with guns blazing, lashing out and firing condemnations at the side you have a problem with. Not only is this not helpful, it does violence to the thread. You're coming in to a room (let's call it) of human beings who have dealt with, and…

Then be specific in your criticism. There is a very clear sugar coating of terminology that I think is worth pointing out. There are no guns blazing. I struggle to understand what you take issue with, if not my point.

Just to augment or explain in a slightly different way: Coming in with the most abrasive terminology you can, and being aggressive convinces no one. People who disagree don't read what you say. And it can even upset people who agree with you. It just destroys communication.

I hate it when people do this. When I agree with them, I cringe, because it means my milder argument will not be heard. When I disagree, it has its intended effect and provokes me and leaves me angry.

Re: At Home with Down Syndrome (2008)

#129

Post by skissane »

meepmorp wrote: post #54
rory wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I clearly stated I'm not diagnosing any conditions, so the accusation is uncalled for. Neurotypical is hardly a scientific word, but to the extent it applies to anyone, you'd have a hard time convincing me it applies to RMS.

The term neurotypical doesn't have to be scientific to have meaning. The term is very strongly associated with autism and ASD, and that's the context in which the term was used here. Using an existing, loaded term in reference to a person's behavior, prefixed with a "I'm not diagnosing any conditions," fig leaf is disingenuous.

Personally I am inclined to avoid the term "neurotypical". Although the term is popular, it is unclear what exactly it means, and the scientific basis behind the term is questionable.

That said, RMS clearly displays traits consistent with the broad autism phenotype (BAP). That's not a diagnosis because BAP is by definition not a diagnosis – it is defined as a subclinical condition, and by definition you don't diagnose subclinical conditions.

Re: At Home with Down Syndrome (2008)

#130

Post by BrandoElFollito »

nemo44x wrote: post #112
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I’m not sure on the first question but I imagine that yes, the same types of tests are conducted. As for any to-be parents - yes and I’d recommend it. You may find you both carry a relatively rare recessive gene that would give your offspring a 25% of having a certain disorder. This can guide your decision on if you want to go forward with natural fertilization and risk it (and make the choice after testing the cells…

> For the last one I err towards it being a personal liberty to decide what life you do and do not bring into the world. But it does get more hairy when you start discussing public support in terms of resources to support the child/family. Then it is everyone’s business imo. But I’d imagine people that can afford IVF don’t rely on government programs to finance their life.

It certainly is a personal liberty. I am French, atheist, and I am very much attached to that freedom.

Having healthy discussion about this is good as it is an eye opener for all the sides involved.

Now, there is the general population part: someone who willingly decides to have a sick child that will cost more to the society must be ready to bear all the costs, including the ones after their death.

On the other hand, this should also apply to people who smoke, are overweight etc. and though this choice are also a burden for the society, financially speaking.

The last part (money) is not an easy one. The first one (morality) is much easier as everyone is an expert in the subject :)

Post reply on HN