A person’s worth is a combination of many things. Fun is great relationship material, but I don’t really choose my doctor, for instance, on how fun s/he is.
Okay. So how would you choose a person’s worth when considering whether to abort a pregnancy?
You’re comparing a medical condition that can be detected through prenatal testing to a bunch of general problems that can’t. So the comparison is pointless- actually, it’s ridiculous.
Assuming that I wouldn’t abort a pregnancy*, I would want a baby without serious problems, one that would not need accommodations for his/her whole life. And Downs syndrome is indeed a serious problem, IMO.
*I have several medical conditions which are genetic, or have a large genetic component. Plus I never wanted to be a mother. I got lucky, my daughter is only mildly dyslexic. She doesn’t need any sort of accommodations.
Well, no, it’s not the least bit ridiculous. You just haven’t thought about it yet.
The only reason the prenatal testing matters to you is because it exists. If we invent a test for drug addiction or criminality, and you could abort a baby you know will be a child molester or whatever, would you?
And that’s fine. My point is that it’s more complicated than that. People with Down Syndrome are not nearly as helpless or in need of accomodations as we used to think, and this is not very predictable either. And plenty of people without it end up needing accomodations. Having a child is a risk. I think people who would so easily consider aborting a pregnancy due to Down Syndrome may not be ready to handle all the other problems life can throw at a child. Would giving up a child for adoption because he develops a serious disease or disability after birth be an option, for instance?
So let me put it this way - if your daughter had developed more severe problems requiring accommodations, would you regret having her and wish you had aborted had you just known in advance about them?
(And I promise to have a respectful adult conversation about this - I’m not trying to troll. This is a very personal issue so it’s easy for either of us to get mad, so please rest assured that I’m just trying to have a conversation, not be accusatory etc.)
Sure. I see babies as products of biology, and I don’t see a fetus as human. So if I tested and found Down Syndrome, axe murderer-itis, no-face-itsis, some disorder that caused morbid obesity, etc., I would abort.
Addiction is an interesting one, because it can be avoided with proper preparation, and if it happens it can be overcome (albeit with difficulty). I also wouldn’t get hung up on things like eye color. But I might think about getting an “upgrade” (say, for intelligence) if it was well-proven science, no risk for the fetus/me, and non-invasive.
Why not try to have the best human animal that you can?
If you want a perfect child, you’ll have to abort them all though.
Same goes for the problems that many people with Down syndrome have.
Wow.
Well, what’s your IQ? Better check before you answer.
My point is that if you want the “best” human you can get, you are likely to be disappointed no matter what. And if you have a long list of reasons for being disappointed in your child, it means you don’t love the child unconditionally, and that’s not a good thing either.
Who said perfect? There’s a rather large excluded middle between “perfect” and “Downs Syndrome”
But in general, a person with Downs will never be “cured” or “clean” or however you want to put it. There will never be a time that those problems will not have to be dealt with in a real way, as opposed to good mental health practices in a recovered addict after many years of being clean. It’s tricky to be sure, but with Downs it’s never.
What, specifically, did you want to address with this?
Is this a response to my question? I think that’s a fair question, so do you have an answer?
Well, yes. My point is that this middle is pretty much everything.
Well, no, actually, many problems that people with Down syndrome have, medical or behavioral, can be treated or cured outright too. And many drug addicts never recover and die due to their addiction.
You didn’t get it?
Be careful when you ask for the “best human animal” because you might not make the cut yourself.
The reason the prenatal testing exists is because raising a child with a profound disability like Downs is very, very, VERY expensive and time-consuming and emotionally difficult. Raising a child is already very expensive and time-consuming and emotionally difficult. What gives you the right to negatively judge someone who would rather not (for whatever personal reasons) raise a child with a chromosomal deformity that will nearly always make them at least partially- (if not fully-)dependent on their parents or other caregivers for the rest of their life? A child who is doomed to have an IQ between 35 and 70, averaging around 50 for all people with Downs (instead of 100 for people without it)? A child with a condition that is highly comorbid with devastating conditions like a congenital heart defect, increased susceptibility to infection, respiratory problems, gastrointestinal disorders, and childhood leukemia?
It’s pretty nervy of you to judge someone who would rather not give birth to a child with a huge strike against them right out of the gate. If you can’t take a look at all these risks and understand that there’s a whole host of legitimate reasons to minimize or eliminate those risks from a potential child (that a mother wants ONLY the best for), you are blind. Every family has a finite set of resources–time, money, and effort. It’s not fair of you to judge another person’s choice because they would rather spend their time, money, and effort raising a child *without *Downs.
Now of course, if the genetic testing fails to catch Downs and the child is born with it anyway, I think that the vast majority of people would still love the child and raise it well. But there’s no reason not to avoid this, if it is at all possible. And I’m not the only person who thinks so. According to Wikipedia, 90+% of fetuses diagnosed with Downs are terminated. Are you going to argue that those women all made the wrong decision?
I get the sense you think people in this thread are making a lot of judgments about people with Down syndrome that they are not actually making. We can test for Down syndrome with almost 100 percent accuracy because it’s a chromosomal disorder. You know that. Some medical conditions are like that. “Just plain loser” is not a medical condition, it’s a vaguely defined personality flaw that can have an almost unlimited number of causes, some of which are medical (in which case it may be unfair to call the person a loser) but most of which are probably not genetic or medical. You’re never going to be able to predict most people’s problems because a genetic or biological component may make a contribution, but it’s probably a small one, and at the end of the day we are who we are because of genes, our environment, and our experiences in general. You can’t test for most of that prenatally. Over time we’ll be able to test for more medical conditions, some of which are serious, and parents will make decisions based on that. But most of that stuff will be about genetic predispositions to medical conditions and serious diseases, not general personal failings. There’s a difference, and you’re not doing your argument any favors by treating them like they are the same thing. And like I said, I think you’re making assumptions about people that are inaccurate.
I only know what has been posted.
It was just a suggestion.
I think some people with Down syndrome are better people than those I consider just plain losers, that’s all.
That’s my point - why is there a difference? Other than you can test for some of them.
Yes. Read both of those statements together again.
I’m not judging.
See, that’s part of the assumption I’m trying to deal with - not all people without Down syndrome are certain to have an IQ of 100 or more. Any problem that a person with DS can have, someone else could have too.
LIFE is comorbid with all those things.
And most are treatable.
Again, I’m not judging. I’m trying to offer perspective.
Again, not judging. Just saying that most people, including you, don’t have a really solid understanding of DS, or have stopped to think this like I have, let alone experienced it.
But let’s talk about that some more.
Why?
If you have a child you wish hadn’t been born, what makes you love it anyway?
I’m aware of the stats, thanks. I’m not here to say any decision is wrong.
OK. So what? This isn’t a debate about who is a good person.
That IS the difference. Why does there have to be another one?
Leaving aside the fact I wouldn’t have aborted, I agree that a lawsuit is warranted. Raising a child with a disability is a tough road to hoe, and I’ve seen it firsthand, and as an outsider with my mom’s friends. If you think you’re going to have a healthy baby, and it turns out you don’t you’re caught completely unprepared, in every sense of the word.
I know, it’s a debate about why to abort. That was just a conversation starter.
Why is it the difference though? Explain why you think it is.
I’m not judging either, but the stat rachel mentioned depressed me greatly.
Because we’re discussing a case about medical testing, not a case about knowing someone will be a loser or a criminal because we have psychic powers.
I am discussing what one does with the results of the test, which is a legitimate question.
I’m simply adding some perspective. I believe in informed consent.
What if you did have psychic powers? I think one reason people considering genetic defects to be worth aborting over is because they can, not because it’s a good reason. What if all reasons were on the table, would this one really be the worst?