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

481–490 of 520 posts

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

#481

Post by somenameforme »

shafyy wrote: post #394
Thorrez wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most communist countries haven't been such a utopia as you describe. >He told his fellow Russians in his entourage that if their people, who often must wait in line for most goods, saw the conditions of U.S. supermarkets, "there would be a revolution." https://www.chron.com/neighborhood/bayarea/news/article/When...

I am not talking about communism. Nobody on today's political left spectrum of is seriously talking about communism. This is about socialism, or social capitalism.

I think this is an example of the creeping effect though. Socialism isn't some grand cure for things. There'd still be countless problems in society (and arguably even more than today) and so you'd have some people claiming then that the solution is to go even more leftward towards communism (as indeed some want to start with today) while others would be arguing for more privatization, as is again already happening in most/all countries with various large scale social programs.

The most fundamental problem we haven't isn't the system, but the people. It seems that all electoral systems are unable to avoid putting people in power that shouldn't be there. Look at basically every Western country and we all seem to be ruled by idiots who have no real vision for anything besides being in power. And so it's not exactly a shock that you get 'systemic' failures.

The same was true in the ancient empires with their dictators and emperors. During the time of enlightened and wise leadership they've have remarkable cities and justice that are inspiring even today. But then of course during times of power hungry hedonic idiots ruling, the societies would crumble and injustice would be ubiquitous. It was never about the system - it was always about the people. The goal should be to have a system that picks great people, but we seem yet to have discovered that. And indeed it may not exist. People that want to be in politics are the last people that should ever be allowed in politics, which poses quite the dilemma!

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

#482

Post by ookdatnog »

Thorrez wrote: post #478
ookdatnog wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That does not resolve your problem, it only shuffles it around. You are defending the case that personhood begins at conception, and your argument supporting this case is "It's a unique living organism. A life. Different from a skin cell which isn't a unique organism." If I get a kidney from someone else, and that person dies, according to your own argument, that kidney is a person. These cells are metabolizing and d…

Does the kidney meet the scientific definition of an organism? If we were to survey those biologists, what would they say? Same regarding an infertile person, and cancer. I think scientists have already resolved the questions you're posing. BTW, I don't think the nervous system argument is very common. Pro life people won't use it, because it means early abortions would be ok. Most pro choice people won't use it, bec…

> If we were to survey those biologists, what would they say? Same regarding an infertile person, and cancer. I think scientists have already resolved the questions you're posing.

If a definition exists that avoids all these edge cases, please provide it. I am not aware of a definition of "organism" that would resolve all the problems in your stance.

> Most pro choice people won't use it, because it means abortions would have to be very restricted.

The most common pro-choice argument is based on bodily autonomy, for which the personhood of the fetus is irrelevant. It suffices to observe that there is no other situation where the law prioritizes one's duty to care for another over one's bodily autonomy, so even if the fetus is a person, the state cannot force you to carry them to term.

So you are technically correct in stating that it is rarely used as a defense for the pro-choice position, but not "because it means abortions would have to be very restricted". In the bodily autonomy argument, the personhood of the fetus is irrelevant.

I agree with the bodily autonomy argument and the broader pro-choice position, but in this case I'm not really making a political argument, but a philosophical one, which is: it's a mistake to strongly identify personhood with the property of "being an organism" / "being alive".

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

#483

Post by BriggyDwiggs42 »

smeej wrote: post #475
BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In both cases I don’t think the plug should be pulled. In the first case, someone already had a complex experience with memories and dreams and whatnot and you’re contributing to them never waking up. The existence at some point in the past still matters. In the second case there’s no reason at all to do something so drastic. Abortion is acceptable only because the mother’s body is being used and damaged, and she sho…

Are you genuinely not already aware of the biological difference between a (haploid) gamete and a (diploid) organism? This is like 7th grade science stuff, so I want to understand if you're questioning whether there is a difference or whether the difference matters. Zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, adolescent, and adult are all different stages of the life cycle of a human organism. Gametes are not. Before fer…

Yes, I took high school biology like anyone else. I’m surprised you don’t get my point. What I’m getting at is that in a zygote, we can easily understand that the machinery is all there to lead with probability to the later development of a multicellular human. My contention is that this is no less true for a sperm and egg in close proximity. All the machinery is there. Shouldn’t preventing fertilization be equally monstrous to destroying the zygote, since both lead to the potential person never coming into being?

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

#484

Post by BriggyDwiggs42 »

Thorrez wrote: post #477
BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In both cases I don’t think the plug should be pulled. In the first case, someone already had a complex experience with memories and dreams and whatnot and you’re contributing to them never waking up. The existence at some point in the past still matters. In the second case there’s no reason at all to do something so drastic. Abortion is acceptable only because the mother’s body is being used and damaged, and she sho…

Previously you said "I think what we should care about isn’t human life, but human consciousness." Now you're saying something different about past memories, and I think even that an unconscious preemie shouldn't be killed, as long as it's not harming/damaging anyone. So I think you've changed your position. Regarding your new position: if someone's body was being used and damaged, would it be ok to kill the unconsci…

Sorry I see why it’s confusing; I had assumed by it being able to survive outside the womb that it was relatively far along in development. By unconscious I don’t mean asleep, I mean the lights aren’t on and they aren’t experiencing from a perspective. There’d no longer be a moral issue if you magically knew this about the preemie, but we can make a reasonable best guess as to when such a thing becomes possible based on all current knowledge of the brain, and this is where I’d want abortion methods to switch to nonlethal. I don’t see a big difference between killing a fetus that’s incapable of consciousness and preventing the reproductive cells from uniting; they’re the same from the nonexistent perspective of the fetus.

The memories thing is different. Fundamentally, you’re not causing immediate suffering if you kill someone and they never know. The problem is that you can know they likely want to continue to live and you're violating their agency. The key difference with the fetus is that it has no and never has had the ability to want.

> Regarding your new position: if someone's body was being used and damaged, would it be ok to kill the unconscious preemie to prevent that?

I hope I’ve made clear why it’s not a new position. I presume we’re talking about a fetus fairly far along in development, such that we can have doubts about its possession of consciousness. In this case it’s a matter of triage, you do the least harm you can with the tools you have. Abortion methods should be nonlethal when possible out of an abundance of caution. Beyond that, mostly defer to what the mother wants and what risks she’s willing to take.

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

#485

Post by ryandv »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #441
ryandv wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems to me there are two types of conservatism: concern about a change to society that does not have a clear evidential basis (which I'll call "small-c conservatism"), and a desire for other people to not have nice things (which I'll call "capital-C Conservatism"). False dichotomy [0]. Basically a bunch of sophistry to say "all conservatism is bad." > the existence of trans people "erases differences" (Galatian…

> You can't just quote the Bible without providing a translation, The quotation was from Pope Francis. The Bible reference (one of Saint Paul's letters) was me being facetious. Same with the Genesis reference: transphobic Catholics cite Genesis 1, but if you try to interpret Genesis 2 by the same logic, it says the opposite (and more definitively): the bigoted reading is eisegesis, and not even particularly good eise…

I don't take medical or vaccination advice from layman podcasts on X; nor will I accept your eisegesis as anything other than incoherent, unless you happen to have a degree in theology with fluency in most of Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.

>> Apply principle of charity

> That is me being charitable. There are harsher ways to apply "the purpose of a system is what it does", here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith

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

#486

Post by xupybd »

munksbeer wrote: post #463
xupybd wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My friends baby tested positive for down syndrome in one of the early screenings. They suggested termination. When my friend asked what the chances were they said on that test they had a 1 in 100 chance of down syndrome. That baby did not have down syndrome and is now a happy seven year old.

How early was this screening? I've not heard of a 1 in 100 chance, and I really struggle to believe medical practitioners would be suggesting termination. I suspect something was lost in translation when you were told the story.

It's a 13 week scan here. This is seen as a low chance result. When the father asked what were the options they said they had three. First termination, second additional monitoring and finally ignoring the result and carrying on. He asked what would be the options if further monitoring found down syndrome. They said the options would be to terminate or not. He said in either case they would keep the baby so no further testing was required.

I think the doctor felt that early termination was a better result than later termination.

When he told me this story he was confused as to why they didn't start by finding out if the parents would keep the baby regardless. He saw it as a waste of resources as in their situation termination was never on the cards.

https://healthed.govt.nz/products/antenatal-screening-and-te...

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

#487

Post by xupybd »

SecondHandTofu wrote: post #251
xupybd wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My friends baby tested positive for down syndrome in one of the early screenings. They suggested termination. When my friend asked what the chances were they said on that test they had a 1 in 100 chance of down syndrome. That baby did not have down syndrome and is now a happy seven year old.

What is your point, that variance exists? I'm not sure I'd play Russian roulette even with a 100 chamber cylinder. 99 people might come away with an anecdote though.

My point is simply to tell an anecdote that illustrates the different views on down syndrome babies.

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

#488

Post by JesseMReeves »

JesseMReeves wrote: post #390
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?

It is always about exerting control over female bodies. Not rational, but evolutionary residue.

..and as expected, men here fail to get it.

Their compulsive erasure of female voices across the internet is just the same impulse of control.

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

#489

Post by [deleted] »

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/

[deleted]

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

#490

Post by Thorrez »

ookdatnog wrote: post #482
Thorrez wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the kidney meet the scientific definition of an organism? If we were to survey those biologists, what would they say? Same regarding an infertile person, and cancer. I think scientists have already resolved the questions you're posing. BTW, I don't think the nervous system argument is very common. Pro life people won't use it, because it means early abortions would be ok. Most pro choice people won't use it, bec…

> If we were to survey those biologists, what would they say? Same regarding an infertile person, and cancer. I think scientists have already resolved the questions you're posing. If a definition exists that avoids all these edge cases, please provide it. I am not aware of a definition of "organism" that would resolve all the problems in your stance. > Most pro choice people won't use it, because it means abortions w…

>If a definition exists that avoids all these edge cases, please provide it. I am not aware of a definition of "organism" that would resolve all the problems in your stance.

One way to define a human is any living entity that is either an adult human, or will/would grow into an adult human as long as no problem has happened or will happen to the entity.

> It suffices to observe that there is no other situation where the law prioritizes one's duty to care for another over one's bodily autonomy

The draft. And a lot of other military rules.

Another example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_captain_goes_down_with_the... . The captain has a duty to save passengers first before saving self.

>In the bodily autonomy argument, the personhood of the fetus is irrelevant.

I don't think that's right. Let's say there are 2 people: A and B. Both are innocent. Person A has some bodily suffering. The only way to solve it is to kill person B. So the options are to restore person A to full bodily health and completely destroy person B's bodily health (violating person B's bodily autonomy completely) or to leave the situation as-is, where person A has has only partial bodily health but person B has full bodily health (violating person A's bodily autonomy partially). I think the correct option is to leave the situation as-is, because that violates bodily autonomy the least.

Of course even better is for other people to give aid to person A to reduce the suffering as much as possible without hurting person B.

Post reply on HN