Absolutely. That was my point a few posts ago. Still, the decisions of future mothers will take into consideration the prevailing attitude of society towards DS or any other “imperfections”.
I understand that a Downie has less chance to be a part of our superproductive society. That doesn’t make them any less, though. We, as a society, have moved beyond the survival stage where every hand counts. We can afford non-productive members. They add something to our lives that cannot be substituted by “normal” members.
And saying that unborn babies are not people and not deserving our protection as weaker members of society only places an undue burden on those who did make it through (for whatever reasons) or that acquired their handicaps after birth. If DS before birth is something to “be taken care of”, those who are birthed are then failures of society. A problem that was not corrected in time.
If Downies are in any way lesser than “normal” people, then what is our judgement of people who develop mental handicaps after birth (autism, cerebral palsy, head trauma, etc)? What about physcial handicaps that likewise prevent people to be productive members of society?
It is true that only the mother can decide whether a Downie will see the light of day but if she does, she has the right to make that decision without the stigma of “having let one through”
And once again, I will ask you for a cite of those cases wherein an individual born with Down Syndrome had average, or as you put it, “GENIUS LEVEL IQs!” Too, are you referring to Trisomy 21 or Mosaicism?
The difference here is that the “contraband” is information about one’s own body. Why should such information, if obtainable, be denied? It’s a pointless regulation forcing one segment of the population to jump through a hoop so another segment of the population can feel better about itself and nothing else. Drug use has a negative effect on the surrounding community, justifying regulation. It’s entirely unclear to me how obtaining a medical test does the same.
Besides, it always comes back to the initial position: to be pro-choice means the only relevant criterion is that the woman have a choice. She doesn’t have to justify that choice to anyone. Trying to bias her choice by putting regulations on what information she has access to is pointless interference. I see it as comparable to a doctor denying me the results of my own medical tests because they might lead me to make decisions that make others uncomfortable (i.e. the doctor says I have inoperable cancer, so I start getting my affairs in order, which freaks some people out because I’m being “morbid” or not putting myself in God’s hands or whatever - it’s my right to tell these people to mind their own business).
Selective abortion for gender has certainly had an effect on the surrounding community, primarily evidencing as a lack of females for marriage and the attendant problems with unattached young men.
But I can’t really think how a lack of people with Down’s Syndrome, blue eyes or red hair really would have any such effect. Is it *nice *that we have variety? Sure. Is it essential? Absolutely not, after a certain gene pool is maintained for evolution’s sake (and even that’s questionable for humans - we’ve sort of removed ourselves from that process already by mucking about saving all those genetically “unfit” preemies and sick people, not to mention IVF.)
What’s so wrong with cloning, anyway? If you want to create a clone and abuse it, we already have laws against child abuse and we take children away from unfit parents.
It’s pretty clear to me that if a fetus is not a person, and a mother is perfectly justified in aborting one with genetic defects, than there is no rational argument against aborting a fetus with genetic ‘gayness’, if such a thing ever proves to exist. Or, like was said above, aborting a left-handed or brown-haired one, for that matter. If you’re going to stipulate that abortion is morally neutral, the reason just doesn’t matter. So I don’t see the problem with Sullivan’s observation.
The current legal status in the U.S., though, is that restricting abortion rights has a worse effect on the individual, over-riding societal claims.
Though I am pretty curious how China and India will end up in 30 years. With both of them overpopulated already, tolerating abortion of females might actually help them in the short term. Ideally, I guess, there’d be a societal shift from disparaging women to valuing them, but that’d be fighting thousands of years of history and I’m not hopeful. Misogynist/racist/short-sighted cultures get what they deserve.
Thank you for saying what I think but better than I could express.
If it makes any sense to you I am anti-abortion but staunchly pro-choice. In a perfect society women would have heaps of options that would stop them from ever needing, or wanting an abortion. That is unfortunately not the case, and if we ban abortion based on one set of beliefs we are getting themselves on a slippery slope that can only lead to a ban on *all *abortions.
I had a screening when I was pregnant. Much as I wanted that child (we had been trying for years), and much as I adore her now, I still think I would have aborted. Take into consideration that I live in a country with a total ban on abortion, luckily most (a lot?) ob-gyns think that women’s rights trump (in many cases) what the law says. Still, even if my doc hadn´t been amenable to performin a certainly-illegal abortion I would have travelled abroad to do it. I am the one who knows what’s best for us.
Interesting. Do you have any further cites on this phenomenon? I’ve always wondered about it. There is an Argentinian alternative band whose drummer has Down, and he seems to be making out more than all right.
When I originally typed this and was going to submit it, just before the hamster* had a heart attack and had to be replaced, I was going to ask what your condition was, if you didn’t mind sharing–it was a real “duh” moment after I noticed your username.
*Why do we always seem to think there’s more than one hamster?
In North America, likely the most visible high-functioning Down sufferer is actor Chris Burke, who played a main character in the 1989 TV series Life Goes On and has had occasional acting gigs since.
No, they don’t. A normal person can do everything they can and more; that’s why it’s a defect.
Hardly. Defining a fetus as not a person is a sign of respect for what makes us people; our minds; our emotions, self-awareness, memories and consciousness. Regarding a fetus as a person show a basic contempt for humanity; it shows that you regard people as nothing more than so many lumps of flesh. Which in my opinion is why anti-abortion groups and people tend to be so sociopathic; their basic philosophy is amoral; sociopathic; it reduces people to objects.
That they need help, of course; they do not deserve to be used as political tools in an ideologically motivated attempt to pretend that all people are biologically ( as opposed to legally ) equal.
No, she does not. People have a perfect right to judge one another’s actions, and if she can’t stand the disapproval of some people ( few of whom will say anything about it even if they do disapprove ), then I seriously doubt she has the character to raise a disabled child.
Nothing. Well, there is one good objection; that the present state of the art isn’t safe enough to be used on humans, but that’s more a technological problem than a moral one. Cloning is just artifical twinning, and if you ban one you should ban the other. Most people oppose it because they are ignorant, fools or would-be tyrants.
Normal? By whose standards and/or parameters? Even “normal” people have defects. Some “normal” people can hide them while other “normal” people can’t. So the ones who can’t hide their defects should not exist because they’re not as productive? I know some smart but unmotivated “normal” adults that are less productive than some of the adults I know with DS. So, who’s “normal” here? Maybe judging normalcy based on productivity is not a good way of determining what’s “normal”?
Maybe in your eyes, you see the poster as devaluating people when in fact they may be elevating the fetuses as a potential person which you find offensive. I think your answer is too judgmental based on your quick assumptions.
Everyone needs help in their lives, even “normal” people. They are either all equal (that we all need some type of help) or they are all unequal (because of each person’s combination of mental and/or physical defects) at some point in our lives. Nobody should/can set standards on normalcy, they can only generalize…and what are generalizations?
First, I never said a word about productivity, nor do I care much about it. I consider phrases like “productive member of society” an example of how warped America has become.
Second, I do think that those people with defects should not exist, because those defects should be eliminated, one way or another. Preferably via genetic engineering; abortion is unpleasant for the woman, inefficient, and far harder to get her to agree with.
Third, what makes you think I care about “hiding defects” ? They are bad because they are defects, not because they are obvious.
It is possible for those with Down syndrome to have IQs extending into the low normal range. Cite:
“Developmental delay – All children with Down syndrome are delayed, although this may not be apparent until the child is beyond infancy. IQ scores range from 20 (severe mental retardation) to 85 (low normal). Overall learning abilities are usually equivalent to a 6 to 8 year old child without Down syndrome.”
Mean IQs for Down syndrome fall somewhere in the lower to middle portion of that range, so it is quite exceptional for someone with this disorder to have anything approaching a normal (much less genius) IQ.
And of course the defects associated with this chromosomal disorder are far more than cognitive, including a 20-fold risk of leukemia, hearing and eye defects, heart malformations etc.
Holding out hope to parents that a Down’s fetus will develop into a child with normal intellectual capacity is not justified, in my opinion.
I’m still not sure if it should be denied. I’m mostly trying to say that if society feels certain information should be denied, then society can go ahead and make that a law.
Nothing wrong with that. Society does it all the time. Using marijuana in moderation seems pretty harmless to me. In fact, taking its production and distribution out of the hands of crime lords would probably benefit society. It’s my body, I’m not hurting anyone and it doesn’t harm society. Why should they butt their noses into my business? Well, they do. Society makes me jump through hoops. Either I break the law on my own soil or I go to a country where it legal and wade through some murky legal waters as an American.
I can’t go to the doctor and ask, “hey doc, what’s the quickest, easiest and most painless way to kill myself?” ::bzzzt:: Sorry, doc probably isn’t going to help me out with that one because society says they’d rather she didn’t. It’s just information and it’s my body.
Depends on what you’re planning to do with the drugs, and what you’re planning to do with the test results.
I guess I don’t understand the harm in denying people a particular test result if we as a society deem that test result irrelevant during the first trimester as a basis for making the decision whether or not you want to be pregnant.
Can men opt out of a pregnancy & parenthood during the first trimester? No? Isn’t that society trampling all over a person’s liberties and making them jump through hoops just to make itself feel better?
Cloning is probably closer to reality than screening for gay babies and all we’re doing in this thread is talking about hypotheticals anyway.
Sooner than later society is going to stick its nose into people’s personal business about it. Either we’ll say it’s okay, or we’ll say “sorry, you’re going to have to jump through hoops.” Society does have a right to do that.
I’m hard pressed to think of a relevant precedent. Confidentiality laws exist to protect personal information from getting to third parties. Under what circumstances can a competent adult be denied information about themselves?
In this case, what the pregnant woman may be planning to do is obtain a perfectly legal abortion. Are you seeking to make this more difficult?
Then imagine yourself being denied important medical information about yourself, say by a religious doctor who won’t tell you how to treat a venereal disease because he considers your suffering to be the wages of sin.
I’m not even touching this one, as it drags the discussion even further afield.
Screening for homosexuality is currently hypothetical, but all checking for a duplicated 21st chromosome needs is an amniocentesis needle and a microscope. That technology has been available for decades (though it has in recent years been replaced by less invasive and more accurate procedures).
And fortunately most civilized nations have constitutions and courts to keep society (or more accurately, control freaks within society) at bay most of the time.
Thank you for saying what I think but better than I could express.
If it makes any sense to you I am anti-abortion but staunchly pro-choice. In a perfect society women would have heaps of options that would stop them from ever needing, or wanting an abortion. That is unfortunately not the case, and if we ban abortion based on one set of beliefs we are getting themselves on a slippery slope that can only lead to a ban on *all *abortions.
I had a screening when I was pregnant. Much as I wanted that child (we had been trying for years), and much as I adore her now, I still think I would have aborted. Take into consideration that I live in a country with a total ban on abortion, luckily most (a lot?) ob-gyns think that women’s rights trump (in many cases) what the law says. Still, even if my doc hadn´t been amenable to performin a certainly-illegal abortion I would have travelled abroad to do it. I am the one who knows what’s best for us.
We’re not denying people information about themselves. A person has a perfect right to know whether or not she’s pregnant.
What we’d be denying is information about the fetus. We already stick our noses into fetuses’ business. We’re limited in the ways we can play around with embryonic stem cells from aborted and/or cloned fetuses, for instance.
No. I what way am I making an abortion more difficult?
What I’m theoretically saying is if you want to abort the gay ones go to a country where it’s legal to screen for that. Jump through a hoop, if it’s that important to you.
Well, it’s really more about what society thinks than what my doctor thinks. If I live in a society which feels I should be denied information about my venereal disease so I can suffer than it sucks to be me, in that society. There are certainly countries in which it really sucks to be gay and HIV positive.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t. Gay marriage, anyone?
On the other hand, how did they “count” DS cases? Was it just obvious cases, or ambigious cases? My own syndrome, which is a chromosome abnoramlity itself, had REALLY bad statistics up until recently, b/c scienctists thought that ALL kids with autosome disorders were very extremely affected. Til recently, I wasn’t even classfied as havign it b/c I’m so mildly affected. Compare the Lit Review stats and the research findings: You are being redirected...
Until recently only the worst cases were labeled. Like a kid who might have hypotonia/LD/ hearing loss as manifesation of Down’s probaly wouldn’t have been labled as having Trisomy 21, but just have been labled as very ambigious.
as for the cite…I’m looking for the cite right now. I know I read it on a Down’s syndrome site.
Which is stupid and evil. Just because stupid and evil laws are past doesn’t make them right.
Stupid and evil, again. Such laws have no moral force; “An unjust law is no law at all”. A law like that should be resisted by any means necessary up to civil war, not followed.