Should Trig Palin have never been born?

[Shodan]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

“Retarded” is not a slur.

Your post is very retarded.

Regards,
Shodan

[Kalhoun]

@Scumpup

These students use a highly disproportionate share of school resources, which are ultimately taxpayer dollars. Though it is not necessarily the case everywhere, in this case they they typically come from families with other special needs children. The parents, themselves, are neither of high intelligence nor are they high earners. They are, more often than not, receiving public assistance in various forms.
Where does our obligation to support retarded people end? I can see the compassion in “I’ll feed you because you can’t feed yourself.” Does that also mean “Go ahead and have children who can’t feed themselves either?”

I’d like to see a cite regarding incomes, public aid and educational background/intelligence as well as Downs vs. “normal” kids in the family (I assume you’re talking about families who actually give birth to the special needs kids vs. adopting them).

Are you really suggesting that people shouldn’t have a right to give birth to imperfect babies?

[brickbacon]

@Sarahfeena

I wanted to flesh out my answer to squeels just a little bit. Although I think it’s certainly unproductive and lacking compassion to condemn any individual for not carrying through with a Downs pregnancy, I do think it’s very sad commentary on our society that, by some estimates, as many as 90% of pregnancies where Downs is diagnosed end in abortion. That statistic is staggering, and I think it’s an indication that our society has become more selfish and less willing to extend ourselves beyond what is easy.

If anything society has become far more selfless and willing to extend ourselves beyond what is easy. This is true in almost every way possible. Not just American society, but around the world. Human rights abuses are widely condemned, and often combated with military force. We’ve made great attempts to afford minorities, women, disabled, and other groups equal rights and access. Your statement is hard to defend in any context.

Second, you seem to accept as a predicate that abortions are a bad thing in and of themselves. That’s fine, but don’t act as though you aren’t making a value judgment based on a system of ethics many disagree with. I don’t think anyone wants people to have abortions, but many of us don’t view it as a terrible thing either.

Lastly, unless you are willing to pay more in taxes or volunteer to help take care of all these special needs people, I don’t think you have a right to say society is wrong to judge a person who imposes on us. Bottom line is that the majority of parents in this situation cannot take care of their kid alone. Additionally, the child will on average add little to society. I don’t think it’s entire unreasonable to call a failure to prevent this series of events irresponsible. I don’t think it’s my right to force anyone to have an abortion, but people are judged on the consequences of their actions.

@Sarahfeena

I think there’s very little case to be made that a Downs person himself is better off not existing. And I also think that the opinion that it’s better to end these pregnancies due to the strain on society IS a form of eugenics…they aren’t perfect, they are too much trouble, so they cease to exist. Not an aspect of our society that I am particularly proud of.

What argument can you make that anyone is better off not existing? Honestly, if we go down this road where kindness, the sanctity of life, and other intangible things are given equal weight to more traditional measures, how could you argue anyone is better off not existing?

[Kalhoun]

@brickbacon

You make a good point. People with Down’s vary in their abilities, but a painting is of little value on a societal level if that person can’t actually support themselves doing that. The point I was making is that knowingly having a kid that burdens society is irresponsible.

I’m not sure amnio testing can determine the extent of retardation the child will have. Nonetheless, there are options built into our society that operate on private funds, or the families themselves foot the bill for the child’s care.

We can point to all kinds of stuff that some people might consider irresponsible. It doesn’t matter, though. Our society is imperfect. We’re not striving for “perfection.” We’re all about living our lives to the best of our abilities. If that includes raising a Downs baby or even giving birth to it and giving it up, then it is what it is. Raising and supporting these kids isn’t a huge impact on anyone outside the immediate family.

[Sarahfeena]

@Shodan

Or that people don’t take on burdens if they don’t have to. A hundred years ago, there was no such thing as prenatal testing. So parents really had no option - they had to roll the dice. Of course, to be fair, infants born with the kind of defects often associated with Down syndrome died anyway.
I think the key is your phrasing that “they cease to exist”. A pro-choicer would argue that DS fetuses that are aborted never existed (as humans) in the first place.

Suppose there were some technology that could examine a woman’s ova and painlessly destroy those that carried the genetic defect of Down syndrome. Thus no Down syndrome babies would ever be conceived. I am sure even pro-lifers would agree that this was a good thing. If you believe that a pre-viable fetus is not a separate human life, then you would tend to feel the same way about aborting a DS fetus.

If you do believe that, then of course your position follows logically. Killing babies out of convenience is morally offensive, just as it would be offensive to kill a Down syndrome baby after birth.

Regards,
Shodan

But there is a component to eugenics that is broader than avoiding the birth of individual children. Those who advocate this are talking about driving an entire class of people to extinction. And not by “curing” them, because there is no cure (even your example is faulty, because the preexisting ova and sperm don’t carry a genetic defect…the problem comes during cell division). So, some are making a statement that if people with this syndrome are not up to our standards, and the syndrome can’t be avoided in any other way other than extinction, then extinction is the proper solution.

[Kalhoun]

@Sarahfeena

Considering everything that has been said about the Palin family on this board, including opinions offered on this specific matter, I don’t see how this thread is particularly out of line.

Not to mention the fact that the Palin family made it a public discussion themselves.

[Marley23]

@Sarahfeena

Those who advocate this are talking about driving an entire class of people to extinction.

I hinted earlier that this debate isn’t just going on with regard to Downs, it exists regarding any number of genetic birth defects (or it will) and ailments, including deafness, to name one example that’s getting plenty of attention.

So to repeat the question I asked earlier, which you might not have seen: “does choosing to have disabled children make us better as a species, morally?”

Like I said- I don’t see how it does. I’m all for diversity, and usually I consider it a decent end in and of itself. But are we a better species for having deaf people or people with Downs? Do people with those conditions have some sort of right to have the continue to exist?

[Cat_Fight]

@brickbacon

I think (almost) everyone agrees that it’s solely the parents’ decision to have a child or abort it. That being said, I find it hard to defend the responsibility of a decision to knowingly have a child you cannot financially or emotionally support, regardless of their disabilities. It’s about being responsible. It’s not noble or brave to make decisions that burden other people. Particularly when the person has little ability to contribute anything of value to society.

I agree completely, except with the bit about ‘(almost) everyone’ agreeing that it’s solely the parents’ decision. If almost everyone agreed, pro-lifers would be few and far between.

[Shodan]

@Sarahfeena

But there is a component to eugenics that is broader than avoiding the birth of individual children. Those who advocate this are talking about driving an entire class of people to extinction. And not by “curing” them, because there is no cure (even your example is faulty, because the preexisting ova and sperm don’t carry a genetic defect…the problem comes during cell division). So, some are making a statement that if people with this syndrome are not up to our standards, and the syndrome can’t be avoided in any other way other than extinction, then extinction is the proper solution.

ISTM that extinction by “preventing from being born” is different than “extinction by killing after birth”.

even your example is faulty, because the preexisting ova and sperm don’t carry a genetic defect…the problem comes during cell division

Did you mean cell division after fertilization? I did a bit of Googling, and the consensus of the first few hits seems to be that it is a defect in the ovum (or sperm) -

Most of the time, the occurrence of Down syndrome is due to a random event that occurred during formation of the reproductive cells, the ovum or sperm.

Trisomy 21. More than 90 percent of cases of Down syndrome are caused by trisomy 21. A child with trisomy 21 has three copies of chromosome 21 — instead of the usual two copies — in all of his or her cells. This form of Down syndrome is caused by abnormal cell division during the development of the sperm cell or the egg cell.

If that is not what you mean, then I sit corrected.

Regards,
Shodan

[Scumpup]

@Kalhoun

I’d like to see a cite regarding incomes, public aid and educational background/intelligence as well as Downs vs. “normal” kids in the family (I assume you’re talking about families who actually give birth to the special needs kids vs. adopting them).

Are you really suggesting that people shouldn’t have a right to give birth to imperfect babies?

I am telling you that in my school district the situation is as I outlined above. You can believe me, or not, as you choose. I will not give any details in the interest of protecting both my job and confidentiality of the families involved. BTW, not all low-functioning people are Downs.

[Sarahfeena]

@Marley23

I hinted earlier that this debate isn’t just going on with regard to Downs, it exists regarding any number of genetic birth defects (or it will) and ailments, including deafness, to name one example that’s getting plenty of attention.

The debate about deafness is a little different, in that the argument is more about whether or not deafness should be “cured,” not whether deaf people should be eliminated through abortion. The deaf people would still exist, but they wouldn’t be deaf.

So to repeat the question I asked earlier, which you might not have seen: “does choosing to have disabled children make us better as a species, morally?”

I think that choosing not to have disabled children makes us worse as a species, morally.

Like I said- I don’t see how it does. I’m all for diversity, and usually I consider it a decent end in and of itself. But are we a better species for having deaf people or people with Downs? Do people with those conditions have some sort of right to have the continue to exist?

I don’t think the condtion has a right to exist, necessarily, but I think the people do. However, you can’t separate a person from his or her Down Syndrome, like you can with some kinds of deafness.

[Sarahfeena]

@Shodan

ISTM that extinction by “preventing from being born” is different than “extinction by killing after birth”. Did you mean cell division after fertilization? I did a bit of Googling, and the consensus of the first few hits seems to be that it is a defect in the ovum (or sperm) -If that is not what you mean, then I sit corrected.

Regards,
Shodan

My understanding of it is that the ovum and sperm are normal, but there is an error in the division of the zygote. If I am wrong about that, I’m sorry. But in answer to your question, I would not have a problem with eliminating the actual syndrome, necessarily. But, as I said to Marley23, we can’t separate the syndrome from the person…it is an intregal part of them (at least, for now). And, yes, I see this from a pro-life perspective…I believe that an in-utero individual is just that…an individual, and has a human right to exist.

[Kalhoun]

@Scumpup

I am telling you that in my school district the situation is as I outlined above. You can believe me, or not, as you choose. I will not give any details in the interest of protecting both my job and confidentiality of the families involved. BTW, not all low-functioning people are Downs.

Huh? Who said they were?

So you think that by posting public stats to back your statement you’d be putting your job in jeopardy? I assume the stats would have to be part of the public record if you’re talking about government and public schools and welfare and the like.

I don’t believe you. You’ll have to support it or back down.

[wonky]

@Sarahfeena

Although I think it’s certainly unproductive and lacking compassion to condemn any individual for not carrying through with a Downs pregnancy, I do think it’s very sad commentary on our society that, by some estimates, as many as 90% of pregnancies where Downs is diagnosed end in abortion.

This doesn’t make sense. Each of those cases was an individual making a choice. As I said upthread, people making choices can lead to results we don’t like (though I have no real quarrel with this result) but the alternative is not acceptable. What I want is for every pregnant woman to have an honest assessment of where they are resource-wise and what responsibilities they are willing to have. If 90% of women think they aren’t in a place that makes sense for bringing a Down baby into the world, then by god I don’t want them bringing a Down baby into the world. A few of the abortions would almost certainly be avoided by stronger programs to support pregnancy, childcare, and parental leave. If there’s any “sad commentary,” it’s that.

[Scumpup]

Are you really suggesting that people shouldn’t have a right to give birth to imperfect babies?

I am asking why we finance, and otherwise support, people who can’t take care of themselves having children. Do you believe people who are candidates for group home life are equipped to raise a child?

[brickbacon]

@Kalhoun

Nonetheless, there are options built into our society that operate on private funds, or the families themselves foot the bill for the child’s care.

But those private funds (family or otherwise) do not even come close to covering the costs to society.

@Kalhoun

We can point to all kinds of stuff that some people might consider irresponsible. It doesn’t matter, though. Our society is imperfect. We’re not striving for “perfection.” We’re all about living our lives to the best of our abilities. If that includes raising a Downs baby or even giving birth to it and giving it up, then it is what it is. Raising and supporting these kids isn’t a huge impact on anyone outside the immediate family.

But it does have an impact. We point out irresponsible behavior is so that people will think twice about their actions and the effects they have on others. Why is knowingly having a kid you cannot take care different when the kid is disabled? People become enraged when they read of these “welfare queens” with tons of kids, yet the parents of disabled kids get a pass? I understand the reluctance to cast stones at people that are already suffering, but it doesn’t mean we need to create this fiction that their choices were responsible. We can be compassionate, and reserve the right to appropriately judge their actions. Few are suggesting a society where people don’t have the right to make irresponsible decisions, but don’t call me our for calling a duck a duck.

[wonky]

@Sarahfeena

My understanding of it is that the ovum and sperm are normal, but there is an error in the division of the zygote.

Doesn’t that error come about because of the egg? I know that age of the mother is a very significant factor and I assumed that was an egg-age issue.

[Scumpup]

@Kalhoun

Huh? Who said they were?

So you think that by posting public stats to back your statement you’d be putting your job in jeopardy? I assume the stats would have to be part of the public record if you’re talking about government and public schools and welfare and the like.

I don’t believe you. You’ll have to support it or back down.

In the end, I don’t care what you believe. I am certainly not posting data from district files on a public discussion board for your sake.

[Sarahfeena]

@jsgoddess

This doesn’t make sense. Each of those cases was an individual making a choice. As I said upthread, people making choices can lead to results we don’t like (though I have no real quarrel with this result) but the alternative is not acceptable. What I want is for every pregnant woman to have an honest assessment of where they are resource-wise and what responsibilities they are willing to have. If 90% of women think they aren’t in a place that makes sense for bringing a Down baby into the world, then by god I don’t want them bringing a Down baby into the world. A few of the abortions would almost certainly be avoided by stronger programs to support pregnancy, childcare, and parental leave. If there’s any “sad commentary,” it’s that.

I don’t disagree with your last statement, here, not at all. That’s part of my point. All of those individuals are making choices, but not in a vacuum. And my anecdotal observation of people I know who have made that choice is that they weren’t in a position of not being able to handle it resource-wise. As far as responsibilities they are willing to handle, that’s my point about the sad commentary…not too many people ARE willing to handle more than what’s typical, and that’s too bad.

[Sarahfeena]

@jsgoddess

Doesn’t that error come about because of the egg? I know that age of the mother is a very significant factor and I assumed that was an egg-age issue.

Yes, it does have to do with the egg, but I always thought it was from a deterioration standpoint, not that the egg was defective to begin with (accounting for the age risk that you mention).