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

Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome

academic.oup.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 520 posts

Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome

#351

Post by jabjq »

jedimastert wrote: post #326
zarzavat wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some bioethics experts are concerned I do have to wonder what goes on in the minds of these people. My sister-in-law has a child with Down's syndrome and the situation basically ruined her life. She can no longer work, so they now struggle on a single income, if her husband were to leave her she would be completely screwed. To what end is that in the continuance of ethics?

> She can no longer work, so they now struggle on a single income, if her husband were to leave her she would be completely screwed. This is not inherent to Down's syndrome, this is because we live in a society that could easily support people but doesn't.

It's very easy to ask everyone else to support your financial decisions.

Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome

#352

Post by deadbabe »

zarzavat wrote: post #83
SJC_Hacker wrote: post #57

It was well on its way to being eliminated in much of the First World through screening during pregnancy at around 2-3 months. Alot of mothers were electing to terminate the pregnancy and perhaps try again. Especially much of Europe which didn't quite have the moral objections against abortion that the US does, save for a few countries who still have substantial observant Catholics such as Ireland and Poland. Here's…

> Some bioethics experts are concerned I do have to wonder what goes on in the minds of these people. My sister-in-law has a child with Down's syndrome and the situation basically ruined her life. She can no longer work, so they now struggle on a single income, if her husband were to leave her she would be completely screwed. To what end is that in the continuance of ethics?

Why didn’t she get screened? She didn’t have to carry to term, she did it to herself.

Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome

#353

Post by go_elmo »

cornholio wrote: post #224
Daub wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I run the risk of being downvoted on this issue, but there is a personality type associated with downs syndrome. My experience of living in a community of down syndrome young people certainly supported this, but there has also been quite a bit of research on the matter... search Google Scholar and you will see a ton. In brief: very social, positive minded and very creative. Importantly, this seemed not to be effected…

[flagged]

Youre right, its a though question. Then again free will and the concept of "self" is an illusion.

Lets see where the world will go in this regard, only time will tell

Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome

#354

Post by altcognito »

Thorrez wrote: post #261
advisedwang wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Down screening is done at like 16 weeks. At 16 weeks that's hardly a life. Also you are being very dismissive by hand-waving away lifestyle. Quality of life is a significant factor in medical decisions. Many people choose short high-qol lives over longer low-qol lives.

>Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/

Just achieving the definition of alive doesn't grant you power over other human beings. It is not personhood.

Ethics are more complicated than a black and white definition of when a magical boundary has been achieved.

Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome

#356

Post by [deleted] »

lurk2 wrote: post #169
toomuchtodo wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that is a legitimate argument to make in a cruel, uncaring (most of the time) world. Lots of regretful parents out there who would take it back if they could. All life is temporary. Quality of life for all involved is a material consideration.

> Yes, that is a legitimate argument to make in a cruel, uncaring (most of the time) world. No, it isn’t. “I wish you didn’t exist because your existence inconveniences me,” is a step away from “I should be able to kill you because you inconvenience me.” You will likely think that I am being hyperbolic (“We’re just talking about if it was a good idea for these people to exist, not saying we should be able to kill the…

[deleted]

Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome

#357

Post by lo_zamoyski »

freilanzer wrote: post #333
exe34 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately I think lesbians are only "far more accepted" in the sense that they turn on straight cunts rather than repulse them. The objectification and othering is the same.

> Unfortunately I think lesbians are only "far more accepted" in the sense that they turn on straight cunts rather than repulse them. The objectification and othering is the same. "Straight cunts"?

[flagged]

Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome

#358

Post by sersi »

lo_zamoyski wrote: post #355

[flagged]

> the moral case against acting on same-sex attraction is strong

Explain to me exactly how the moral case against acting on same-sex attraction is strong without using religion (since not all people believe in religion).

You start off with premise that you expect everyone to agree "It's immoral" without explaining why exactly it's immoral.

Without justifying your point how can you expect "liberal spirited" people to discuss with you?

Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome

#359

Post by potato3732842 »

exe34 wrote: post #285
fennecbutt wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably in general, but not as much as you'd think. For example as a gay dude, people still hate gay guys (lesbians are far more accepted). But they're just much more quiet about it now, and even if they don't hate us we still "gross" many people out, which affects their decisions due to perception of us.

Unfortunately I think lesbians are only "far more accepted" in the sense that they turn on straight cunts rather than repulse them. The objectification and othering is the same.

How much of that is a reflection of or reflected in societal acceptance vs just a figment of differing societal attitudes and standards toward women and men?

Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome

#360

Post by shlant »

derektank wrote: post #176
kulahan wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's a form of eugenics, however far down the spectrum it may be. edit: I mean to imply here that the overton window is shifted, basically.

Correcting what is essentially a developmental defect (albeit a defect that occurs in the germ cells rather than in the womb) isn't eugenics. It's not caused by any genes carried by the parents, it's caused by a failure in the development process, specifically meiosis. Would preventing fetal alcohol syndrome be eugenics? It's caused by changes in gene expression from alcohol exposure after all.

people should stop accepting that all forms of eugenics is "bad" - it's become so morally loaded that people like you are afraid to bite the bullet. We should be ok with having discussions about whether avoiding bringing children into the world with greatly reduced quality of life (or even pain-filled existences) is something we should be doing even though it's "eugenics"
Post reply on HN