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

131–140 of 142 posts

Re: The Last Children of Down Syndrome

#131

Post by jlkuester7 »

Tronno wrote: post #36
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…

This may be controversial, but I don't believe an unborn fetus has any inherent value outside of whatever feelings of hope and excitement it elicits in the parents. If those feelings are instead of dread and anguish, it should be terminated for the benefit of all. The quote seems to imply there is value in the suffering of a disabled child and its parents - suffering for its own sake - which is absolutely horrific.

> The quote seems to imply there is value in the suffering of a disabled child and its parents - suffering for its own sake - which is absolutely horrific.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the quote is asserting that human life has great value _regardless_ of the amount of suffering involved. (Or put another way, the total value of someone's life is not a function of the amount of suffering they experience.) Certainly this is a challenging worldview since naturally everyone wants to avoid suffering (or at least avoid suffering that does not help them achieve some goal). But at the same time it is hard to make the general assertion that people who have suffered greatly would have been better of not existing.

I am reminded of the story about Johannes Steinhoff [1], a German fighter pilot in WWII. Apparently after witnessing another pilot die horribly in a fire, he asked his friend to just kill him quickly if he ever ended up in a similar situation. As it turns out, Johannes was later a victim of a terrible explosion (even his eyelids were burned off). His friend literally drove to the hospital to shoot him and put him out of his misery, but was prevented from doing so by the medical staff. Johannes ended up recovering and went on to become a key player in the post-war German Air Force and the German Military Representative to the NATO Military Committee.

I don't quite know what to think of this story because on one hand I would not wish his ordeal on my worst enemy. But, on the other hand, it is hard to say that anyone would have been "better off" if his friend had killed him. Life is often what we choose to make of it and it is impossible to avoid all suffering. It seems like the best we can do is play the hand that we are dealt and try to regard all things outside of our control with equanimity.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Steinhoff

Re: The Last Children of Down Syndrome

#132

Post by duxup »

schwartzworld wrote: post #127
duxup wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You wouldn't 'be glad'.

Sure, but the other guy would be.

You should check out the movie.

I think there's actually some legit questions about if we tailor folks to be X efficient or manage their potential and who they were made to be... that might have a profound impact on happiness and how we see ourselves, what freedoms we are allowed and etc.

Re: The Last Children of Down Syndrome

#133

Post by bdamm »

jlkuester7 wrote: post #130
bdamm wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Do you really want to do tennis with how much good/bad the catholic church has done? Good that they provide some hospitals, but not a replacement for good government policy.

Re: The Last Children of Down Syndrome

#134

Post by lostmsu »

Damorian wrote: post #122
lostmsu wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> To me, your posts are either dishonest, or ignorant.

> incorrect way people speak

You bubble about scientific definition, and call people. And yet pose no real argument.

Re: The Last Children of Down Syndrome

#135

Post by Fumtumi »

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…

"Foeticide (or feticide) is the act of killing a fetus, or causing an abortion."

Abortion stops a pregnancy and a pregnancy is the production of a human life.

You are also not killing sperm by using a tissue, neither do you kill an egg.

You also don't kill an embryo as those things are not alive.

Just because a biological mechanism started doing what it is programmed to do, doesn't make it alive.

Would you argue that a virus is alive?

When do you draw your line of a biological machine becoming alive?

Re: The Last Children of Down Syndrome

#136

Post by Fumtumi »

duxup wrote: post #132
schwartzworld wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but the other guy would be.

You should check out the movie. I think there's actually some legit questions about if we tailor folks to be X efficient or manage their potential and who they were made to be... that might have a profound impact on happiness and how we see ourselves, what freedoms we are allowed and etc.

When you refer to Gattaca: it doesn't reflect our society very well.

While i like that movie very much, he still got on a spaceship having much worse physical abilities than all the others of his crew.

Also in this specific topic, i'm not talking about a human who is able to overcome most/all of his obstacles given at birth. I'm talking about me and all other humans who are not able to do so.

I would also argue that on an ethical level, you would require to make sure that every new human being has the best chance our society can provide for him/her. Like if technology is so far advanced, that you can just scan an embryo, you see why it would become much smaller or way too tall which would lead to medical issues and you could fix it with a press of a button, you would need to do it.

I would argue that not doing this, is the same thing as denying a preterm baby an incubator.

Re: The Last Children of Down Syndrome

#137

Post by duxup »

Fumtumi wrote: post #136
duxup wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should check out the movie. I think there's actually some legit questions about if we tailor folks to be X efficient or manage their potential and who they were made to be... that might have a profound impact on happiness and how we see ourselves, what freedoms we are allowed and etc.

When you refer to Gattaca: it doesn't reflect our society very well. While i like that movie very much, he still got on a spaceship having much worse physical abilities than all the others of his crew. Also in this specific topic, i'm not talking about a human who is able to overcome most/all of his obstacles given at birth. I'm talking about me and all other humans who are not able to do so. I would also argue that…

>make sure that every new human being has the best chance our society can provide for him/her

And in doing so? Replace those that can't?

Re: The Last Children of Down Syndrome

#138

Post by davvolun »

striking wrote: post #97
lotu wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You seriously don't think "we should decrease the number of people born with Down Syndrome" is a morally defensible position either?

I don't think "we should decrease the number of people born homosexual" is a morally defensible position, but decreasing incidence of Down Syndrome, or autism, or Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, are absolutely morally defensible positions, and in fact, are regularly done -- people everywhere socially discourage pregnant mothers from drinking alcohol, for example, and I don't think the discouraging third-parties are the ones who are in the wrong in that situation.

I think having a child AT ALL, regardless of any other concerns, is an individual decision that should be made by mature, capable adults. I don't think it's necessarily a "morally defensible position" to have a third kid when you're struggling to take care of the previous two just because you belong to a religion that thinks prophylactics are immoral, and I would never, for example, judge a potential parent who decided to terminate a pregnancy because they were told it is unlikely their child will be born alive, and even if it is, would be unlikely to live for long.

Re: The Last Children of Down Syndrome

#139

Post by jlkuester7 »

bdamm wrote: post #133
jlkuester7 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Do you really want to do tennis with how much good/bad the catholic church has done? Good that they provide some hospitals, but not a replacement for good government policy.

Lol wut? Nobody is trying to go all John Stewart Mill here. Just observing that there are reasons to question the assertion that people who agree with JPII don't care about the sick, poor, and handicapped.... SMH

Re: The Last Children of Down Syndrome

#140

Post by Fumtumi »

duxup wrote: post #137
Fumtumi wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you refer to Gattaca: it doesn't reflect our society very well. While i like that movie very much, he still got on a spaceship having much worse physical abilities than all the others of his crew. Also in this specific topic, i'm not talking about a human who is able to overcome most/all of his obstacles given at birth. I'm talking about me and all other humans who are not able to do so. I would also argue that…

>make sure that every new human being has the best chance our society can provide for him/her And in doing so? Replace those that can't?

If 'those' you mean sperm, eggs, embryos or fetuses younger then 3 month, yes.

After that, of course not.

Post reply on HN