But you believe choosing to abort makes us worse as a species, morally, so this is just another facet of that belief since you don’t believe curing the disabilities is immoral. In other words, it’s the abortion you’re objecting to, not the elimination of the disability.
Time, mental stamina, and ability to deal with certain limitations ARE resources. The lack of these means that I know of myself that I don’t want children and that’s trebled when we talk about a disabled child. I’ve got a disabled “child” already (well, he acts like a child, so I think that counts! :D)
I don’t think I’ve denied that anywhere. But as I’ve pointed out, there is no way to eliminate the disability any other way. I believe that people have a right to be born, even if they aren’t perfect, and even if there’s nothing we can do about it.
And if they weren’t deaf, the deaf culture (which is the key concern in that debate) would no longer exist. There does seem to be a small minority of deaf people who feel that curing deafness is an attempt to eradicate them, or their culture.
How?
I don’t see how any group of people has a right to exist, pre-birth.
I’m not arguing that we need to maintain Down Syndrome, or the culture of Down Syndrome (assuming that there is probably such a thing). I’m aruging that it’s wrong to eliminate PEOPLE based on having been diagnosed with such a syndrome, which is irreversible and part of their genetic makeup.
I think it is morally problematic to decide that some people don’t have a right to exist, based on the circumstances of their birth. Don’t make me bring up Hitler! 
Legally, they don’t.
But again, that’s an abortion debate, not a Down Syndrome debate. I didn’t think this was supposed to be a general abortion debate.
If you’re against abortion, you’ll be against DS abortion. That’s pretty logical. But saying that you’re against DS abortion because people have a right to be born is not anything new or different than being against abortion in general.
My reaction is “Duh! Of course you’re against DS abortion. You’re against abortion.” What does DS bring to the argument that is any different for you than general abortion?
I didn’t say that…I said I didn’t want to debate legalities, only philosophies, and I stated from the OP that I am looking at this through the lens of being pro-life.
I think that many people are more nuanced about the morality of abortion than “it’s always OK” or “it’s never OK,” and that’s what I thought we were discussing. Personally, I lean more towards “it’s never OK,” but there are situations where I think that it’s more justified than others.
It doesn’t, for me, because I tend to think that Downs is not a situation where it’s more justified. But it’s a debate…I’m taking my own side, and I assumed from the blogs I cited that there would be people who have a different POV, and there are. That’s why it’s a debate, right?
Well, Eunice Kennedy Shriver and Ted Kennedy also helped make it a public discussion - in very large part because of the experiences of their sister. I really don’t know why this is a problem in any way.
I’m hardly an expert on this topic, either through study or through experience, but I do have one observation to share…
I had a cousin with Down’s syndrome. He died accidentally at the age of around 2. His parents (my uncle and aunt) are absolutely convinced that having him was the correct decision, they’d do it over again if they had the choice to make again, and if one even whispers something like “it’s just as well for all concerned that he died when he did” they would rip your head off. And who am I to tell them they’re wrong? I didn’t live their lives or make their choices.
However, 3 or 4 years after he died, they had another baby, who is now a super awesome fun happy normal young adult. We could argue all day about the extent to which a DS baby has the same rights and/or potentials as anyone else, but I have to wonder whether, if my DS cousin had still been alive, his parents would have made the decision to have his sister; and/or whether they’d have been able to devote the energy to raising her.
One of the ugly truths of this whole topic is that the people most closely involved in it (the parents) are the least objective observers. If someone devotes incredible amounts of resources of time, emotion and money raising a “special” child, and you ask them “was it worth it? Would you do it over again?” how on earth are they ever going to be able to answer honestly?
I want you to think this through.
You can’t feed yourself, and neither can I. Unless I’m missing something, neither of us lives self-sufficiently on a farm. We are dependent on others for our food, and for the energy and chemicals to grow the crops, and for the transportation infrastructure to bring it to us. We have an interstate highway and rail lines - the navy keeps the sea lanes open.
Not a mystery - the costs we bear for much of what we need are socialized, and most of us would agree that this is a good thing. So if certain of us require more - whether charity or government provides it, conservative and liberal alike would agree that their needs ought to be met and might disagree over the best manner to make that happen.
Again, not a mystery, and we’re right in the mainstream of political and social thought so far. So I don’t understand what would cause someone to reject this thought - which, frankly, works pretty well right across the West with differing degrees of balancing private and public costs - and head right into the treacherous territory of not supporting these people in some misguided attempt to improve our species.
What’s the alternative? Forced sterilization? Our society helps all kinds of people who are in one way or another unable to care for their children. None of our situations are the same across the board.
I thought that the trisomy defect that causes most Down Syndrome cases was acquired, and the reason that older mothers were more likely to experience the defect was that their ova had had a longer time to be exposed to mutagenic factors.
In any case, this is a hijack, and not relevant to the discussion. My apologies for the distraction - we agree that some way of eliminating Down syndrome other than abortion would be preferable.
I agree with this, although perhaps not for the same reasons you might.
I believe that mental defects strike much more at the heart of what makes one a person.
The ability to think is what makes us human. Thus it is possible (in my view) to be subject to other kinds of limitations and still be fully human. Mental retardation, much less so. And I am not talking about infants and children here - they may not be able to think as clearly as adults, but certeris paribusthey will develop such that they will be able to in the future. DS babies, much less so.
Note that this a diminishment of their status as humans, not a denial of it. Thie moral status as humans is less, not other. Thus one can argue that other kinds of defects that also require above-average amounts of resources to survive do not affect the status of the person in question as much as a mental defect would do. The problem with Terri Schiavo was not that she required 24 hour nursing care, but that there was no human mind in the body being cared for, and no reasonable change that one would return. IYSWIM.
Regards,
Shodan
“Irresponsible” doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone. You can call it whatever you want to call it, but others would say that not caring for an “imperfect” child is the ultimate act of irresponsibility. Those who are unable to abort, for whatever reason, have a number of choices. The child either moves into foster care, lives in a group environment, or lives with the family. If they need assistance, we give it to them because that’s what a compassionate society does. We want people to live up to their potential, and for some, it takes extra effort to uncover that potential.
Right or wrong, Shodan, I am confident you are the first person to quote Latka in a Great Debates post. I didn’t want to let that pass unnoted.
[Shodan w/Latka accent]Thank you very much[/Shodan w/Latka accent]
I’m not Scumpup, but -
What you say is quite true - we don’t raise our own food, build our own houses, or even do our own police work. But we live in a society where we make use of media of exchange, mostly money, to obtain the thousand and one artifacts on which we rely.
The question does not seem to me to be, “Are you a subsistence farmer who can build his own car?”, but “can you, with no more assistance than the average adult, support yourself by earning your own keep?” If I can earn $100K a year, it doesn’t matter if I know how to farm, because I can hire someone else to farm my food for me, and that’s more efficient.
People with serious mental defects, by and large, have a lot more trouble doing that. I mentioned that my nephew has DS, and works a minimum wage job. I have never done the math, but I suspect that he consumes considerably more resources than $7.50 an hour will pay for. His housing is subsidized, as is his medical care, and so forth. And there is essentially no prospect that this will cease to be the case - despite (as mentioned) considerable effort in education he is never going to be any smarter than he is already. This does not mean that he should have been drowned at birth. However, I think it legitimate to ask the question if there are steps that might be taken to reduce the problem in the future.
It was the one where he marries Simka, IIRC.
Regards,
Shodan
What are facilities like for someone with Down’s in America, both as children and adults?
While I spent much of my childhood with friends who had mental and physical difficulties, I never questioned who was paying for their schooling (beyond Make a Wish, which was pretty present int heir lives). I definitely understand that IQ is not the be-all and end-all of humanity, but find it odd when the mentally disabled are given the Magical Negro treatment (as in one of the OP’s links). As if they’re eternally happy and their smiles pay the bills.
The facilities I’m familiar with are pretty good. I don’t have a lot of first-hand experience with these places, so I don’t know if they are generally considered snake pits or if people are actually happy there. My friend’s brother was not “eternally happy.” He had a range of emotions just like the rest of us. My ex and my best friend worked at a facility and reported the same for their charges.
I guess what I’m getting at is my earlier point. “Irresponsible” is defined in many ways. If you feel you must go through with a pregnancy, that’s your right and your moral duty. I don’t believe anyone has the right to make that decision for anyone else.
I also don’t know where you draw the line, specifically. Do you give everyone an IQ test? What do you do with people who are 5 points above the line? What do you do with people who are capable of a certain level of function but live beneath it out of laziness or some other health reason? We don’t have forced abortions, forced sterilization or forced amnio in our society. We don’t murder those who are a burden to society. We include them – in theory, anyway. We generally don’t consider caring for disabled people to be a “burden.”
It wouldn’t be in district files. It would be a public record.
No one is eliminated by abortion. They never exist in the first place.
And I think that choosing to have disabled children is unethical. An act of ruthless self indulgence at best.
The typically ruthless attitude of the anti-abortionist. An insistance that the parents to bear the burden, and no concern for the quality of life of the child. Inevitable, really; the flip side of regarding a mindless fleck of meat as a person is that anti-abortionists tend to regard actual people like they were so many hunks of meat. Unworthy of compassion or consideration as long as more human meat gets pumped into the world, and uncaring of any qualities above the meat.