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

When they warn of rare disorders, these prenatal tests are usually wrong

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–176 of 176 posts

Re: When they warn of rare disorders, these prenatal tests are usually wrong

#171

Post by tagoregrtst »

SkittyDog wrote: post #119
rayiner wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why stop there? It can be a challenge to have a kid who is ADHD, or is susceptible to depression or mental illness, or a different sexual orientation, etc. It’s not wrong to abort those children either, right?

Wait, are you objecting to the abortion specifically? Or does it just bother you that people could have a conscious influence on the kind of children they do/don't get? If this is just a coded abortion debate... Count me out But if it's the latter... Parents have been "selecting" children of the "right" race, eye color, height, etc for millenia... It's called "being attracted to certain physical characteristics over…

They haven't been consciously selecting for traits, have they? Not with the certainty of a 1% false positive test.

This is eugenism, with its adherents lacking the moral clarity of the of early 20th century eugenists - at leasts they honest about what they were doing!

Re: When they warn of rare disorders, these prenatal tests are usually wrong

#172

Post by tagoregrtst »

honkycat wrote: post #106
tagoregrtst wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative is loving a human being and playing the cards you’re dealt

No. I think this is a cruel and ignorant thing to say. Wanting to have a child who is not special needs is not an evil thing. Choosing to not bring a a child with special needs to term is not evil. Having a special needs child can dominate your finances, your life, and the lives of your family members and already existing children. People have a right to choose what what they want out of life, especially in the conte…

“ Wanting to have a child who is not special needs is not an evil thing. ”

No its not.

“Choosing to not bring a a child with special needs to term is not evil.”

A huge evil. Just consider your next paragraph explaining why its not evil; it centers around how having a disabled child affects you and others. I do apologize, but I find your last paragraph frighteningly narcissistic .

Re: When they warn of rare disorders, these prenatal tests are usually wrong

#173

Post by JamesBarney »

honkycat wrote: post #159
rayiner wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The mother, exclusively, can decide whether or not she wants to proceed with the pregnancy through to birth, and she doesn't need a reason other than "I don't feel like it". The morality of that is quite vigorously contested. And even in places that have elective abortion, it’s often only available in the first trimester, while many of these tests are performed after that. But even if we accept the notion of electi…

Moral and legal are two different classifications. I think it should be LEGAL to have an abortion no matter your reasoning. The reason for this is we need to preserve the bodily autonomy of people who can become pregnant. Weather or not it is MORAL is another question. It is LEGAL to protest outside of a veteran's funeral. However, I would argue it is not a MORAL thing to do.

There are plenty of ways we don't protect people's bodily autonomy though. For instance it was illegal for anyone to take Paxlovid until FDA approval.

If we can ban someone from taking a potentially life saving drug it doesn't seem crazy to ban someone from taking what half the population believes is a life ending drug.

Re: When they warn of rare disorders, these prenatal tests are usually wrong

#174

Post by honkycat »

tagoregrtst wrote: post #172
honkycat wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I think this is a cruel and ignorant thing to say. Wanting to have a child who is not special needs is not an evil thing. Choosing to not bring a a child with special needs to term is not evil. Having a special needs child can dominate your finances, your life, and the lives of your family members and already existing children. People have a right to choose what what they want out of life, especially in the conte…

“ Wanting to have a child who is not special needs is not an evil thing. ” No its not. “Choosing to not bring a a child with special needs to term is not evil.” A huge evil. Just consider your next paragraph explaining why its not evil; it centers around how having a disabled child affects you and others. I do apologize, but I find your last paragraph frighteningly narcissistic .

I can see from your comment history you are catholic. I don't see any point playing the "yes" "no" game with someone. I doubt you are going to convince me of your ethics, I doubt I will convince you of mine.

Re: When they warn of rare disorders, these prenatal tests are usually wrong

#176

Post by SkittyDog »

tagoregrtst wrote: post #171
SkittyDog wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, are you objecting to the abortion specifically? Or does it just bother you that people could have a conscious influence on the kind of children they do/don't get? If this is just a coded abortion debate... Count me out But if it's the latter... Parents have been "selecting" children of the "right" race, eye color, height, etc for millenia... It's called "being attracted to certain physical characteristics over…

They haven't been consciously selecting for traits, have they? Not with the certainty of a 1% false positive test. This is eugenism, with its adherents lacking the moral clarity of the of early 20th century eugenists - at leasts they honest about what they were doing!

Well, solely with respect to skin color, which is arguably THE single biggest physical characteristic of concern... Yeah, I'd say >95% of Americans consciously select their mates with skin color in mind. Google the rates of interracial marriage if you don't believe me.

And yes, the skin/eye/hair color of the parents is probably about 99% determinant in the perceived race of the children... There are always exceptions, but two random people who are "white passing" are overwhelmingly likely to have children who are also "white passing".

You can call this behavior "eugenism" or even just racism, and I'm not saying your terminology is wrong... But I dare you to start going around telling people that to their faces.

Post reply on HN