The "Disappearance" of Down Syndrome Kids

Great Debates
101

[QUOTE=levdrakon]
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.
[/quote]

The fetus has no rights to medical confidentiality. A test exists, a pregnant woman consents to undergo it and pays for it and she wants the results of it. What justifies anyone trying to stop her?

Isn’t that the goal of anyone who requires the woman have a good reason (by their standard) for seeking an abortion?

Well, you don’t live in such a society currently, I assume, and neither do pregnant women in the United States. Why encourage a reversion to a period of relative ignorance?

Also irrelevant, though I’m personally hoping the Americans will follow the example of Canada and some of their more liberal states and slide toward equitable legalization. The position you’re arguing is more in line with a future where gay marriage already exists and you being okay with society rebanning it with a casual “sucks to be you” to any individuals affected.

102

It is pre-breakfast morning here again, and again I am creeped out by this. Some posters seem to be advocating therapeutic abortion for the imperfect. I am pretty well imperfect (talk to my ex!), and I like being alive.

But as Gerry Brown once said, problems with no solution are not problems. There is no solution to this but to build a society that values every person, even the imperfect ones. We must raise our children to make moral decisions.

103

[QUOTE=Paul in Saudi]
Some posters seem to be advocating therapeutic abortion for the imperfect. I am pretty well imperfect (talk to my ex!), and I like being alive.
[/quote]

No one is suggesting that you should be aborted. Your statement makes no sense because the discussion is about preventing a person from being born in the first place. I mean, my ten hypothetical future children would probably like being alive; does that mean I’m harming them if I decide not to have kids at all? No, because they wouldn’t exist.

104

If a woman doesn’t want a child with DS, and she is prevented from getting an abortion and has the child, do people think that’s actually a good outcome for the child? Dealing with a disabled husband makes me very aware that I’m in this voluntarily.

105

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Also irrelevant, though I’m personally hoping the Americans will follow the example of Canada and some of their more liberal states and slide toward equitable legalization. The position you’re arguing is more in line with a future where gay marriage already exists and you being okay with society rebanning it with a casual “sucks to be you” to any individuals affected.
[/QUOTE]
Check it. Hypothetically, it’s terrible to tell a woman what she can or can’t do with a lump of more or less sorta kinda yeah mostly differentiated cells in her gut. Oh noes, can’t do that!

But in reality, you can tell me, an 42-year-old man, than I can’t marry another 40-year-old man. Because, you know, society is a bit undecided about that.

Please don’t talk to me about back-sliding into hypothetical future-past alternate sci-fi universes. I live in a fucked up real one already.

106

And by “don’t talk to me” I don’t really mean “don’t talk to me.” I appreciate the conversation we’re having.

107

[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Check it. Hypothetically, it’s terrible to tell a woman what she can or can’t do with a lump of more or less sorta kinda yeah mostly differentiated cells in her gut. Oh noes, can’t do that!
[/quote]

No, not hypothetically. Abortion rights are important and I’m arguing not to casually curtail them because an application of those rights, either now in the near future, makes people uncomfortable.

In reality, I’ve never said anything like this. It’s just not relevant to this particular topic. If you want to discuss gay marriage, there are no end of threads to do it in, where you might easily find me arguing in favour of it as I have in many past threads. I just don’t want to discuss it in this one.

Besides, you’re demanding a freedom be given to you while simultaneously one is removed from others. That gotta be… ironic, or something.

108

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
No, not hypothetically. Abortion rights are important and I’m arguing not to casually curtail them because an application of those rights, either now in the near future, makes people uncomfortable.
[/quote]
Yes, information about whether your fetus is gay or not is hypothetical. I’m not talking about curtailing anyone’s right to an abortion. Have at it. Go for it. You can have an abortion. I’m not stopping you. Please. Have an abortion.

In the future, you can still have an abortion. I’m not stopping you. Abort, abort, abort. Go for it!

You just can’t abort based on this one little bit of test result. Didn’t change your mind about abortion before, why should it now?

I’m not trying to hijack the thread but c’mon. A woman has all sorts of rights over a mass of cells in her belly but I don’t have rights over my 42-year-old fully developed and functioning self. You have to admit, that sucks. Furthermore, you have to admit society does indeed have the right to butt its head into places you might feel it doesn’t belong.

I’m not demanding any such thing. Knowledge about your fetus’ gender preference doesn’t exist. When and if it does, that’s an additional freedom to be granted by society, not a removal of an existing freedom.

109

[QUOTE=levdrakon]
You just can’t abort based on this one little bit of test result.
[/quote]

I can’t see any reason to make that concession because it simply encourages demands for other concessions.

Yes, it sucks. For the purposes of this thread… so what?

By your own words, society is butting its head into places you don’t feel they belong. Anyway, while I recognize the need for rule of law, I’d prefer society’s role be minimized and in cases where harm to society can’t be proved, the individual wins.

Full access to one’s own medical file is, as I understand it, a right. What you’re proposing is that if there comes a time when certain additional tests become available, that right should be limited.

Anyway, I don’t care if the fetus is gay. There’s a greater issue at hand. Hell, I’ll concede all kinds of stuff about gay rights and drug legalization. I consider abortion rights to be at least as important as either of those, though.

110

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
I can’t see any reason to make that concession because it simply encourages demands for other concessions.
[/quote]
It’s not a concession, but if you see it that way then I understand why you’d see it as a wily guise to demand further concessions.

Okay fine. For the purposes of discussing something hypothetical which has no precedence - don’t use analogies.

Cool. What’s that got to do with this thread?

Nope. Just your fetus’ medical file.

Really? I don’t. I’m a fully functioning adult and I think my rights trump some mass of cells any day. If you don’t value yourself more highly than that - it’s cool.

111

[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Really? I don’t. I’m a fully functioning adult and I think my rights trump some mass of cells any day. If you don’t value yourself more highly than that - it’s cool.
[/QUOTE]

You seem to be reading it backwards. Abortion rights are the rights of a fully functioning adult.

112

[QUOTE=levdrakon]
It’s not a concession, but if you see it that way then I understand why you’d see it as a wily guise to demand further concessions.
[/quote]

I don’t see how else to define it. “You can have an abortion, but not under condition X.” If a woman takes such a test (and you can’t argue against it in your posts and then call it merely hypothetical when I mention it in mine) and illegally gets the results and then aborts because of these results and freely and publicly admits the test played a part in her decision, what legal penalty do you propose?

As far as I can tell, you were the one who inserted gay marriage into this thread in the first place.

As far as I can tell, you were the one who inserted gay marriage into this thread in the first place.

And who’s the guardian of said file? The doctor? The state? The fetus has no legal rights to medical confidentiality or anything else. Did this change over the holidays, or something?

Well, you’ve sunk to the level of “I know you are, but what am I?” so there isn’t really anything else I can discuss with you.

113

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
As far as I can tell, you were the one who inserted gay marriage into this thread in the first place.
[/QUOTE]
The point of my inserting gay marriage into the thread was to point out that society has a right to stick its nose into people’s business. Like it or not. It does.

You seem to be focused on my trying to hijack the thread and ignoring the point that society does indeed have a right to stick it’s nose into your business.

I’m trying really hard to not use any more analogies about something hypothetical without precedent. My point it if society says we don’t want you to do that, then you can’t do that. Test you fetus for gay? Sorry, society says you can’t do that.

114

Well, let’s just shred this pesky constitution, then. It’s been more trouble that it’s worth, anyway.

115

[QUOTE=Deaf Geek]
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: http://www.chromosome18.org/Genetics/18q-.aspx
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.
[/QUOTE]

That is rather interesting, it looks as if the ‘gateway’ for getting into the sample is mental retardation.

My hunch is that 18q- is a genetic problem that turns up beside other genetic problems that they have not identified. It might also be non-causal, in other words it is just a side effect - or a pure coincidence.

It would also be interesting to know the size of the population for those statistics, if they are actually 930 hillbillies living in an abandoned mining town, then one could come up with any number of theories.

Actually, they (or should it be we) know very little about DNA, we can take a mechanical clock apart and count what we see as components, but that does not mean that we understand what individual components do, or (and this is the latest killer) what assemblies of components do.

Out of curiousity, assuming that you have a genetic disorder, how do you feel about passing it on ?

116

[QUOTE=Paul in Saudi]
It is pre-breakfast morning here again, and again I am creeped out by this. Some posters seem to be advocating therapeutic abortion for the imperfect. I am pretty well imperfect (talk to my ex!), and I like being alive.
[/quote]

Nonsense. As even a cursory reading of this thread will demonstrate. The only poster thus far to advocate aborting those who he (she? sorry, but I don’t know) feels is somehow less than perfect is Der Trihs. By far the vast majority of people who are pro-choice have said that a woman has a right to an abortion no matter the reason. What’s more, I think you are smart enough to recognize that.

Define “person”. Because there are far too many people that I have encountered who define “person” as everything from an old person near death all the way back to a blastocyst and even further (in certain instances) to sperm and/or eggs. If you’re talking about those who are currently living with no biological ties to their mothers, then such a society exists and we live in it. Just because there are some who feel otherwise means nothing. There will always be those who hold opinions in opposition to society at large.

As to children being raised able to make moral choices, that is also being done at present. Or are you actually arguing that everyone is a hedonist and that society is heading down the crapper. If so, then that’s another thread.

117

levdrakon, help me out here. I understand analogies, I really do. I get that you don’t like the laws against gay marriage, and I’m with you all the way, buddy. Limiting one’s choice of spouse based on gender is abhorrent and morally wrong.

So why does that make limiting a woman’s access to her child’s* medical records , or limiting her legal grounds for abortion right?

Two wrongs don’t make a…well, you know the rest.

If you’re saying that the legislatures have the legal authority to limit abortion just like they have the legal authority to limit gay marriage, even though *exercising *that authority in both cases is wrong, then I get it and I agree. The legislature *can *seemingly limit anything it wants to and does, through sometimes torturous logic about “the good of society”, even when it shouldn’t. (Constitutional rights should be excepted, but…well, let’s just not go there during this particular administration, 'kay?) But it’s not clear that that is what you’re saying, so I don’t want to put words into your mouth.

*I use “child” merely to point out that in every other medical decision, the parent has full access to her child’s medical records because the parent is the one to decide what medical care their offspring may or may not receive, not because I think a fetus is a person with a full slate of citizen’s rights.

118

[QUOTE=GLWasteful]
The only poster thus far to advocate aborting those who he (she? sorry, but I don’t know) feels is somehow less than perfect is Der Trihs.
[/QUOTE]
I’m male.

119

[QUOTE=WhyNot]
levdrakon, help me out here. I understand analogies, I really do. I get that you don’t like the laws against gay marriage, and I’m with you all the way, buddy. Limiting one’s choice of spouse based on gender is abhorrent and morally wrong.

So why does that make limiting a woman’s access to her child’s* medical records , or limiting her legal grounds for abortion right?

Two wrongs don’t make a…well, you know the rest.

If you’re saying that the legislatures have the legal authority to limit abortion just like they have the legal authority to limit gay marriage, even though *exercising *that authority in both cases is wrong, then I get it and I agree. The legislature *can *seemingly limit anything it wants to and does, through sometimes torturous logic about “the good of society”, even when it shouldn’t. (Constitutional rights should be excepted, but…well, let’s just not go there during this particular administration, 'kay?) But it’s not clear that that is what you’re saying, so I don’t want to put words into your mouth.

*I use “child” merely to point out that in every other medical decision, the parent has full access to her child’s medical records because the parent is the one to decide what medical care their offspring may or may not receive, not because I think a fetus is a person with a full slate of citizen’s rights.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, basically all I’m saying is we can pass laws with regard to what you can or cannot do with a fetus. There’s some precedent for it.

In an attempt at lightheartedness, let’s say I want to go to Taiwan and make a green-glowing kid. Does society have a right to say “sorry, dude. That’s just messed up. Hate to trample on your reproductive rights and all, but no.”

Anyway, in reality I think if someone develops a genuine, reliable test for gay, I’d probably vote to allow it, assuming it came to a vote. I’d rely on people’s (hopefully) basic good nature to not embark on some insidious draconian campaign to rid the world of gay kids.

It might even be good for society if parent’s knew their kid was going to be gay. They could hopefully grow up in an environment without the queer and fag ridicule, or the innocent comments from mom like, “I’m so glad you’re not gay. I mean, I’d still love you but it would break my heart. Thank goodness you’re not.” Thanks mom, you just guaranteed my not coming out for another ten years.

120

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
By comparison to the average healthy human.
[/quote]

I have clients with DS in better health than employees who are out on medical leave because of illnesses, disease, etc. Just because one has DS, that doesn’t mean they are automatically unhealthy (below average).

So when you said:

Then what do you mean by “can do everything they can and more”? Run, jump, read, do math, make a meal, or are you moving goalposts outside of the scope where even “normal” people might be able to do such things as play football, compose orchestral music, make gourmet food, create calculus programs, but choose not to, or better yet, can’t?

Good luck with that ideal. Didn’t work out for some guy back in the 1st half of the 20th century. You’d also be surprised that you’re advocating eradication of 3 to 4 percent of all live births in this world. Link.
Natural miscarriages tend to do just what you believe in, except maybe you feel it’s not efficient enough for your taste. Trying to engineering them out would also sound like you are not advocating choice for women either. Sounds double-standardish.

Not all defects are bad, hidden or apparent. Some are mild. Some are corrected with surgery or medication. Some are easily mitigated, some are mitigated with some difficulty, but manageable. People with DS can fall into either catagory. I see examples of this 5x a week, 52 weeks a year. Most of them can function well in society, just like most “normal” people.

As for hidden defects, one may operate as a “normal” human not even knowing that they have the defect…could be you, could be me, could be anybody. The thing is that we can still function with it with now, but may cut our life or functioning ability earlier than expected, such as Alzheimer’s, diabetes, etc. Those can be seen as defects as well, but not the type of defects that should be remedied by terminating pregnancies. DS would fall into this category, as well as many other defects.

And on a general note:
Boston Globe article: 3.3m children worldwide die of birth defects, study says
Maybe outlawing first cousin marriages in some third world countries would be a better choice than forced engineering.