Lunacy. Crackers. Soft-headed. Whack. Crazy. Frogwash. Dementia. Delirium.

Amy, when was teh last time you went to lunch with someone who had Downs?

(Details unimportant: Month & year will be fine, thanks.)

PS- Balderdash. Poppycock. Bullshit.

"Lunacy. Crackers. Soft-headed. Whack. Crazy. Frogwash. Dementia. Delirium. PS- Balderdash. Poppycock. Bullshit."

Crid, I'm adoring you right now. I just finished a lengthy conversation with my 7 year old friend Bella (who has Down's) about the joys of playing in the snow and merits of hot chocolate afterwards. If the appreciation of said simple joys and merits doesn't qualify her for time here on Earth, I can name several people who cannot appreciate such things, who have no diagnoses whatsoever, who shouldn't be here either.

Misanthropy for breakfast on a Monday is enough to put anyone off their kibble.

Perhaps looking at someone living under less than desirable circumstances and not understanding how they can find any joy in life is projection of their own fears and distastes; maybe we should ask these less than perfect people if they would rather have not been born, before throwing them out. I have no physical limitations and yet there are days where I despair of my existence, not to be trite or condescending. But meet enough imperfect people who hold their heads up and live in spite of it all and you'd be inspired.

I've said it before, spend enough time in a pediatric neurology unit and you'll find such inspiration. Ask the patients if they'd rather not been born and it would be such a bizarre question, but you might be lucky to get out of the room before they realized they'd been offended.

Are these people expensive? Yes. So are welfare families, convicts, stroke victims, accident victims after their insurance runs out, abuse victims in hiding, political refugees, the list goes on and on.

"A society is judged by how it treats it's least desirable members"

This woman, and Amy too on this point, is whack. Crid used many other appropriate terms I won't repeat. It is eugenics, and where does it stop? Downs babies go, but autistic ok? Autistic need to go too, but club feet are okay? I've never met a down's mother who wished her kid didn't exist, and I've met a lot. How many have you met Amy? Saying the other family members suffer is pretty much bullshit too. How selfish does this world need to be? Maybe I should never go get my haircut while leaving my kids with a sitter, because it takes attention away from them? Kids who learn early the world does not revolve around them have been given a priceless gift, and so has the society they live in.

No one on this planet can make the decision of whether someone else's life is worth living. Period. There are people with every advantage in life who mope around wishing they'd never been born. Some finally kill themselves and save us the whining. And there are others who have been born with every misfortune known to man, and most of them are ecstatic to be alive and appreciate the little things so much more than us "complete" people do. So who deserves to live more?

I will fight to support an adult's right to euthanize. My cousin just died a horrible death from brain cancer, after a 2 year fight. He died at home with hospice care. His wife had been given a lot of morphine, to dose him every 2 hours. I know if he had asked her to, she would have dosed him with all of it at once to save him the pain of the last few days. He DIDN'T ask, and she didn't. THAT is where the line is drawn-an adult who can ask. Anything less is eugenics and murder.

Downs babies go, but autistic ok? Autistic need to go too, but club feet are okay?

Read what I wrote. Autism is discovered after birth. Down's they know about before.

I'll quote myself from above for those of you who are commenting as if you haven't read it: "Like Marrin, once a child exists, I think we have an obligation as a society to take care of it."

I believe that having a child is a personal choice. It must be taken between responsible adults. This includes bringing to term a deficient child. If they can pay for it, so be it. If not, I suggest them to get an abortion.

I know I sound like a cold-blooded bastard but parenthood is not something you can just walk away; it's a life-long commitment. the question is still the same: are you ready to make it with an handicapped child?

>>And, I think it's wrong of people to bring children into this world who they know will suffer, and who they know can never be autonomous

Amy,
Where do I sign up for a guarantee that my children won't suffer from any one of the random vicissitudes that flesh is heir to?

We all want kind, independent, radiant, stout-limbed, brave, charmed, resourceful, cheerful and bright kids.

You spend your life as a parent tailoring the way you nurture your kids to the sometimes confounding strengths and weaknesses they manifest, so that they can realize their particular potential.

Parents of Down's embryos get a heads-up whether to go ahead with - thankfully these days - a great deal of advance notice of what this might involve.

Scoff at their unrealistic hope, and their trust that society might look kindly on their less than perfect offspring if you want. However, all parents suffer from this condition to varying degrees!

(Yay for Crid basically).

Amy, if the autistic test isn't available now it will be soon. It's certainly been developed. I did read what you wrote. I rarely post something I'm not certain of.

Every point I made stands. If we're really looking to lower costs here, and that's what really bothers Amy, not the certainty that every child born will suffer, we should kill convicts. Seriously. They've broken the societal contract and are not contributing to society either, while sucking billions annually. Let's just get rid of them. There are plenty of productive people, we don't need them. I'd get behind that before mandatory eugenistic abortions.

What pisses me off are the people who think they have RIGHT to be parents without bothering to think about the responsibilites such a thing entails.

Some one wrote noone had the right to decide whom lives and who dies, fair enough - but I do have the right to decide not to fund your bad decisions.

Why should I have to pay for someone else? Welfare is a broken system no matter who they try to help with it.

You want to have a brain damaged kid - go right ahead, but if you cant afford to take care of them in the way they need to be dont expect me to sacrifice for you.

I have my own problems and my own family.

> What pisses me off are the people
> who think they have RIGHT to be
> parents without bothering to think
> about the responsibilites such a
> thing entails.

As it happens, they do have that right.

>>What pisses me off are the people who think they have RIGHT to be parents without bothering to think about the responsibilites such a thing entails.

lujlp,
What are you? A mind reader?

I see this empty argument over and over again - that it's what people apparently neglect to think about that's infuriating, and not their decisions. How do you know what they do or do not think?

"I'd get behind that before mandatory eugenistic abortions. " I'm actually at odd with Amy's stance her but this is such utter horse shit I can't help it. Where pray tell the fuck are any of you getting mandatory abortions. Are we just making this shit up cause it makes those that disagree with you look like the fucking SS.

Now on the whole should a parent terminate a child regardless of condition. In truth abortion should only ever be used as an absolute last resort for anything. As far as ASD and abortion. Well if you can take care of an ASD child then go ahead. Here's why Amy's stance her is off. ASD is genetic variations of the "NORMAL" human genome. Now we do not actually understand ASD nor is ASD likely to be one disorder linked to any group of chromosomes. ASD could likely be partly a positive trait depending on the severity, bad with people but good with machines. Think sickle cell anemia, you get one your resistant to malaria you get two genes and your sick. We don't know shit about cause (nut bags aside) we have some half assed genetic markers for ASD but they are nothing even approaching reliable. You'd likely be terminating more non ASD fetuses then ASD ones.

"adult life is also bound to be painful for people with Down's." Well yes and no. First depending on the severity and the extent of co-morbid conditions. They me have no concept of sex. Just not something that occurs to them. As far as happy to be honest all those with Down syndrome I have met or interacted with are better people than most NT. They are a shit load kinder and more happy, a joy to be around. I'm fundamentally misanthropic so that's saying a lot.

"we should kill convicts" Um first we do it's called the death penalty. Second it's actually cheaper under the current system to keep someone locked up for life vs execute them. Yeah sound wrong but when you add in the cost of legal fees it actually true.

The only reason I support termination of down syndrome fetuses at all is not that they are burden to our society quite frankly you wouldn't be able to get a cheap cup of coffee a week on the tax difference. The idea of terminating even a 1st trimester fetus to save yourself a quarter a day is just wrong. The reason I support it is that "and their trust that society might look kindly on their less than perfect offspring" is an act of grand nievity. Modern society is not kind to the disabled (even vets) and the mentally handicapped are great prey for predators and con artists. So knowingly having a child that you can not take care of is supremely bad idea regardless of their disability, hell same goes for the genetically engineered super humans you can order up now.

If it's ok to have issues with some welfare mooch for making babies she can't care for how again is this any different?

"How do you know what they do or do not think?" Well either they don't think or can't count take your pick. Having any child is expensive have a disabled one is just more expensive. Either not think a decision through or ignoring obvious fact of a situation is irresponsible. Can you afford to give the child the basic needs (which vary depending on presence of disability and severity)? Is that that hard of a question to ask people to consider? Add to this the horrible request that if you can not afford this child don't have it or don't keep it (obviously this gets harder depending on disability).

>>Is that that hard of a question to ask people to consider?

Vlad,

How the eff do you know they haven't considered the cost?

Do you have any idea how very, very frequently a Down's embryo expecting mother who attends hospital appointments will be advised to terminate?

Doctors do not like people having sub-normal babies.

I actually agree the more information you get, the better. It is information I think I would have acted upon with an abortion, personally.

But, like lujlp, you seem convinced that people must be either indifferent to - or too stupid or naive to consider the real costs of having problem children by the very fact they go ahead and have them anyway!

"or too stupid or naive to consider the real costs of having problem children by the very fact they go ahead and have them anyway!" If they can't afford them and have them anyway, yes. You can not provide the care this child needs and you have them how is this not naive and/or stupid?

"Do you have any idea how very, very frequently a Down's embryo expecting mother who attends hospital appointments will be advised to terminate?" No do you?

"Do you have any idea how very, very frequently a Down's embryo expecting mother who attends hospital appointments will be advised to terminate?"

No do you?

Of course, I do vlad. Otherwise, I wouldn't have effing asked such a weasel question!

If you could do me the immense honor of reading what I write- again - doctors do not like to deliver sub-normal babies.

You'll either A) have to trust me that a women expecting a Down's baby will be told over and over that a termination can be arranged and why she should be aware of the full spectrum of potential severity of the condition before she optimistically goes ahead and has the sprog anyway to the point that such women sometimes wonder if the doctors assume it is the mother suffering a mental defect - and not the developing bunch of cells.

Or

B) furnish some google proof that - on the contrary - such women are routinely told "hey great! It's a Down's baby! Happy days ahead indeed, and keep taking your folic acid, you lucky mom!"

Your call.

(And, btw, vlad - did you finally get to see "Eastern Promises" the Russian mafia in London movie?)

Ok, so no one is saying aborting down's kids should be the law. Sure. They are saying it's inhumane to give birth to them, and irresponsible, and that the only correct choice is not to, and that the people who do so use no thought whatsoever beforehand. Yet we are supposed to believe that they are perfectly content to leave the law the way it is and just look down on others for their incorrect choices? I think not.

Google Austism Prenatal Test. You can find any number of eugenic genocide countdown clocks. It's real and coming. It may not be linked to one chromosome or group of them. But a test that can tell you your baby might have it is in testing right now. Most prenatal tests can only tell you your baby "might" have X or Y.

You do not have the right to refuse to fund other's irresponsibility. Where do you get the idea that you can? Drunk drivers, and murderers, all get legal counsel on your dime. This is so worse how?

I am aware of the death penalty, and the current cost of it. My argument was to kill all felons. Quickly. Makes as much sense, they have certainly proven useless. Sure, an innocent wrongly convicted person or two may die, but healthy babies are aborted too on probabilities, so what's the difference? Innocence, vs proven law breaking.

How do you know what they do or do not think?
Jody Tresidder

By the decisions they made

As it happens, they do have that right.
Crid

No crid they dont, they have a phisical capability and a physiological urge. I have the phisical capability and a physiological urge to torture my step mother to death - but it doesnt give me the "right"

"Yet we are supposed to believe that they are perfectly content to leave the law the way it is and just look down on others for their incorrect choices?" Yes that exactly correct. The main reason I very much against that law being passed to force it is simple. Who decides what is and what isn't viable or correct. I can consider a decision stupid and point this out can't stop them nor should I.

"Sure, an innocent wrongly convicted person or two may die, but healthy babies are aborted too on probabilities, so what's the difference?" A first trimester fetus and an adult human are not the same. This being the major point of contention here, in fact most of the argument circles around this.

"kill all felons" sure so based on which state do we do this. "In Texas, a Tyler man was recently convicted of felony theft for stealing a $1 candy bar."

Loojy, I think you don't quite understand what a "right" is. If you torture your stepmother to death, you'll go to prison. And if you interfere with the reproductive freedoms of others, you'll go to prison for that, too. See how it works?

"And if you interfere with the reproductive freedoms of others, you'll go to prison for that, too." Um, no you don't. All those bat shit crazies at the clinic are excising their civil rights. Are going to tell me that those action are not interfering? If I have to deal with getting called a baby killer then those parents who knowingly have children they can not support and/or who will likely die slow horrible deaths can deal with me calling them assholes. If you want to look at the rights angle.

Plus I'm not advocating (nor is anyone here) forced abortions but the Jesus jockeys are most certainly advocating banning them, even birth control.

crid I understand what a right is - and having a kid isnt one of them

Dont belive me? Ask a non cutodial parent

No one on this planet can make the decision of whether someone else's life is worth living. Period. There are people with every advantage in life who mope around wishing they'd never been born. Some finally kill themselves and save us the whining.

I think I just got whiplash from this paragraph, MomOf3.

It's wonderful that you have such a compassionate outlook on Down's Syndrome, but could you think about expanding that to an understanding of clinical depression as well?

People who suffer from that are not "whiners", they are victims of a painful and debilitating illness. Many sufferers cannot snap out of it without medical help, and one of the worst symptoms is extreme difficulty in finding the energy or will to seek that help.

To make an analogy, if an able-bodied swimmer drowns, it seldom means that they're too lazy to get themselves to shore. More often they're caught in a rip tide that no one else can see.

"Your call." Fair enough.

"(And, btw, vlad - did you finally get to see "Eastern Promises" the Russian mafia in London movie?)" not yet.

"No one on this planet can make the decision of whether someone else's life is worth living. Period." Actually yes we can and and families/doctors do it all the time. Choosing to keep someone on a feeding tube when all brain function has ceased. Forcing people to take medication if we feel that they are not competent to decide for themselves. Putting people on suicide watch or in locked units after an attempt. We can and do force people to live who don't want to. We are in effect telling them that their life IS worth living. Is this a decision that we should make? Sometimes yes and sometimes no, depends on the circumstance.

"There are people with every advantage in life who mope around wishing they'd never been born. Some finally kill themselves and save us the whining." Your combing spoiled rich kids with people with actual clinical depression.

Yes, I am. I think an adult who is clinically depressed, and realizes this, and chooses not to take meds, or meds don't work, or just wants to check out, should be able to. Just like spoiled rich adults, chronically ill adults, terminally ill adults, and every other adult. I have no issues with adults making choices on the viability of their own life. I have no issue with brain-dead people of any age being taken off life support. That is not comparable to saying someone should be killed because their brain is not up to par. And your very argument argues for making downs syndrome babies live.

I am 100% certain that a first trimester (except whoops, can't diagnose downs until well into the second) life is more important than that of an adult who chose to break the law.

Please post some info-ANY INFO-that religious pro-lifers want to ban birth control. Even most catholics use birth control. Painting all religious and/or prolife people with the official catholic doctrine brush makes about as much sense as saying all prochoice people think abortions should be mandatory.

I think everyone's to stuck into details and practicalities. There's a time and place for that, but this is the time for principles.

Suppose that it was possible to press magic button 1 that would have the result that no more Down's children would be conceived. That somehow the genetics just would never happen again. Not that they would be killed or aborted - just that they would never approach existence. Would you vote to press button 1?

Suppose it was the other way round: that there was no such thing a Down's children. Now we have a magic button 2 which will mean that Down's children will start to be made. The odd one here and there will be conceived, more to older mothers. Will you vote to press button 2?

I'm not 100% sure about button 1, because even Down's children enjoy their lives and I think they bring a great deal to the rest of us, if nothing more than teaching us to be less selfish and more appreciative of the wonders of the world.

But I would not vote for button 2.

Hmmm, I don't really get the arguments here. Down's syndrome children should be aborted because it causes them pain to live with DS? That is too extistential for me.

Life is suffering. There are plenty of times I wish I was never born, and my mom agrees. Just ask her.

Perhaps we should just clannishly expose the defects on a hill to save them pain in the long run.

Oh, I'm sorry, were we talking about pain to your pocketbook instead?

Yes, I am. I think an adult who is clinically depressed, and realizes this, and chooses not to take meds, or meds don't work, or just wants to check out, should be able to. Just like spoiled rich adults, chronically ill adults, terminally ill adults, and every other adult. I have no issues with adults making choices on the viability of their own life. I have no issue with brain-dead people of any age being taken off life support. That is not comparable to saying someone should be killed because their brain is not up to par. And your very argument argues for making downs syndrome babies live.

The objection I was making (and, I think, that Vlad was making) was not that you think untreated depressed people and spoiled rich kids have an equal right to off themselves. That's a reasonable point of view whether I happen to agree with it or not.

No, the problem is that you were lumping them together in your slapping around: "There are people with every advantage in life who mope around wishing they'd never been born. Some finally kill themselves and save us the whining." Clinically depressed people often DO appear from the outside to have "every advantage". If their illness puts them in so much pain that they kill themselves to escape it, that is a tragedy, not "saving us the whining." The fact that that pain is incomprehensible to the non-depressed does not make it unworthy of compassion.

Note that I have not taken any position on the Down's syndrome baby question. I do not support the pressuring of mothers to abort Down's Syndrome babies if they don't want to (and I think Amy's blog entry counts, if any such prospective mothers were to read it), but that has nothing to do with the point I'm trying to make to you.

"(except whoops, can't diagnose downs until well into the second)" Chorionic Villus Sampling which has the same accuracy and risks an an Amnio are done in week 10-12. I believe that this is the first trimester, correct me if I'm wrong.

"info-ANY INFO-that religious pro-lifers want to ban birth control."
http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html
and there are plenty more. Or is the equation of birth control to abortion just for arguments sake. Oh and then there's the christian pharmacy thing where the won't sell condoms, hormonal birth control, or the morning after pill. Still think I'm making that connection up? Also are you denying that Jesus Jockeys want to ban all abortions, only some want to ban birth control?

"I am 100% certain that a first trimester (except whoops, can't diagnose downs until well into the second) life is more important than that of an adult who chose to break the law." So you'd get rid of your guns if guns were banned? I agree with you in that those who kill or even commit violent crimes but even all felonies (let alone all crime) is too broad an net to cast.

Oh, and another thing, MO3: do you really think anyone offs themselves out of nothing more than an ungratified sense of entitlement? If you count attention-grabbing "attempts" that accidentally go right, maybe. Otherwise, I seriously doubt it.

Where does one draw the line? Down's Syndrome is genetic. My husband has an uncle with Down's, therefore my husband and I had a chance to have a Down's child. So do his sisters with their husbands. Why not just say that none of these three carriers should have children and pass on that possibility? Forbid anyone with that particular trait from procreating. Stamp out Downs.

One of my daughters has a neurological birth defect known as Sturge Weber Syndrome. No one knows what causes it. It seems to be connected to Port Wine Stains, which are genetic. I have a PWS, my birthfather has a PWS, all three of my daughters have a PWS. It's innocuous, but every great once in a while one goes all wonky and you get something potentially catastrophic. It's not yet detectable in utero, but they're working on it, and most of the info they have on it is only 15 years old. So as carriers of a PWS trait, should I not have had children, and my three daughters should not go on to have children for fear of what might happen? Stamp out Port Wine Stains.

There are thousands of neurological abnormalities, with symptoms and complications covering an enormous spectrum. If anyone who is a carrier of an abnormal trait for anything is forbidden to procreate, guess what? This planet will be devoid of human life in less than 300 years. Now there are some who say that wouldn't be such a bad thing, but that's another discussion. Abnormalities are gonna happen. It's beyond our purview to try to predict and eliminate every one of them. Sort one out and another will fall in its place. It's called mutation, right in line with evolution. Diseases are the same way. Cure one, and another badass germ crawls out of the muck. That's life. Literally.

"Please post some info-ANY INFO-that religious pro-lifers want to ban birth control."
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/emailphotos/pdf/HHS-45-CFR.pdf
Please see the link above. The Department of Health and Human services is attempting to define contraception (or prevention of implantation) as abortion. We already know the far right wants to overturn Roe v. Wade; since now they're defining contraception as abortion, seems to me they're trying to ban birth control, too.

"No one on this planet can make the decision of whether someone else's life is worth living. Period."

I'm not sure where you were going with this, because it's clearly wrong.

Soon, doctors will be able to tell you - not suggest, or advise, tell you what the genetic makeup of your baby means for you - and they will be able to let you choose, generally, the features you want your child to have.

I bet you don't pick warts, acne, blotchy skin, ancephaly, Downs and/or other suffering for your offspring.

Well, unless you're a sadist.

I hope you picked the smartest and healthiest man you can find to be Dad, and then lead a sensible and vigorous life. Like it or not, that's how you get ahead. We do not get to ignore the laws of nature because we have intent. How much should emotion interfere with reason in natural selection?

One more link regarding the birth control issue (just for good measure.)
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN1536910620080715

I feel like I am watching a train wreck. My sister's child was thought to be Downs Syndrome until she was born...and she was not.

Eugenics has a very real and ugly history in the U.S. and it’s researchers could be morally guilty of genocide by (University of Vermont) providing Hitler with direction in his “final solution”. This is NOT slippery slope.

How ever "well intentioned" the argument is to "spare" Down's baby's from the pain of society or being a "tax burden" still just makes me cringe.

This argument is a moral hazard with unpleasant consequences. Do I want to pay for everyone else’s “mistakes” Hell no - But I chose to pick my battles and this ain’t one of them.

"It's called mutation, right in line with evolution. " No it's not. Evolution works but the most effective traits are passed on and the less effective traits die out. If you invest all this effort in ensuring that all people survive to reproduce you really can't use the evolution argument. We do our best to circumvent evolution, both medically and financially.

The main question is if you knew that the fetus your carrying is not a carrier but presents with some horrid disorder(Downs is a really bad example) regardless of the cause do your carry to term, or even take extreme measures to ensure it goes to term. This is very different than if you don't know and the child is born with birth defects.

Eugenics has a very real and ugly history in the U.S.

Totally right, Feebie.

People might like to dismiss American Eugenics as a passing historical embarrassment of strictly limited consequence. It wasn't.

From the wiki entry about Harry Laughlin (one of the leading US enthusiasts): Laughlin was awarded an honorary degree by the University of Heidelberg in 1936 for his work behalf of the “science of racial cleansing.”

We do not get to ignore the laws of nature because we have intent. How much should emotion interfere with reason in natural selection?
Radwaste

Well Radwaste I'll ask the same question,
only I'll direct it at those who use modern medical tech to extend and ensure their lives

@Jody

Or Henry Perkins (zoologist) at the UofV, let us be thanking him as well (sarc).

Eugenics in VT targeted the rural poor and the Abenaki Indians, Gypsies and any non-white.

They began by organizing a survey that mapped out extended 'degenerate' families they felt were a drain on the economy. With this research, Perkins pushed the Vermont legislature in 1931 to pass a sterilization law(one 24 states where this existed).

Many members of the community hid their language, religion, customs, and so on, so as not to be targeted by the eugenicists. This forced the Indians to go underground and with it so did their culture, and so did their lands (hmmmmm).

''It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or letting them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.'' - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

The prominent men and women who were involved in Perkins Eugenics project went back to teaching, or grew famous in offshoot capacities (i.e. Margaret Sanger and her work with birth control).

This project was finally disbanded when Hitler credited his Final Solution with the American Eugencis Model.

Facts are facts folks. If Politics played a lesser role in Abortions and Birth Control (as they should have....) then I would assume using the Eugenics argument WOULD be irrelevent.

But History ALWAYS repeats itself - and deciding who gets to go and who gets to say has HORRIFYING outcomes - especially when in the hands of our GOVT (wow, because they do such a great job with our money and all).

Meanwhile, Muslims are polulating like rabbits.

Radwaste, do you really think moms go out and look for the best genetic material for dads? We marry for love, then kids follow as a celebration of that love. Or, should. I abhore intentional single parenting almost as much as Amy.

I would never design my child, whether the technology existed or no. I would never in a thousand years have thought up the cute little nose crinkle my daughters do when they smile, or their love of singing completely off key, or any of the uncountable special quirks that make them them. If that means they risk the many diseases that eventually kill us all, then so be it. Has no one seen Gattica? (yes, I am aware it's a fictional movie, it makes great points though). Humans daily do things that are impossible by definition. Genetics can only take you so far. I would be afraid that to mess with one thing would domino down and ruin everything. And since nothing in life is unlinked, that's pretty much a guarantee of what would happen.

Although I studied science and think it's given us great things, I do not worship at it's altar. Some things we should not do even if we could. Would you really want to live forever? I mean really? Every pleasure looses it's appeal eventually. I think living forever would be hell. And so, when people say stem cell research might lead to that, I shudder. Sometimes science needs to admit it can and should have limits.

I said I would support killing felons before killing downs babies, not that I thought it was a fabulous idea. My point was if we're looking to penny-pinch, there are better places to look than innocent lives.

There is no ethical arguement that can be made that aborting a child that tests positive for Down's syndrome is better for the child.

Of course, I could be wrong as evidenced by the thousands of Down's syndrome children who immediately commit suicide every year once they become adults and realize how their life is simply a "grave misfortune".

Seriously, the only rational decision one can make is to support life in all it's imperfect forms including Down's syndrome children, altzheimer patients, stroke victims, Helen keller level of deaf - dumb - blind, and essentially everyone who doesn't meet the accepted definition of a normal, productive member of society. Because as long as someone can be loved, can anyone say that is a person whose life is without meaning?

Cheers,

LoneStarJeffe

Evolution works but the most effective traits are passed on and the less effective traits die out.

I have to pick on this statement for its incompleteness.

The most effective traits for the environment, that can be supported, survive to be passed on. But a species will only survive if it can adapt to the environment, or alter its own situation/environment to adapt.

If the adaption were to die out in a species because of a radical climate change from very wet to very dry and then back very dry, then the species would likely die out.

Examples of this are the small creatures that live on the ocean bottom by lava outflows, fish that live in caves and no longer have eyes. The other example is that a Siberian tiger need about 50 acres to hunt vs there relatives in warmer climes only needing 20 acres.

Essentially, full evolutionary pressures haven't really effected human survival for centuries. Sub-groups of humans have been effected by it, but the overall population is not as badly affected.

I can understand the decision to abort a baby with Down's Syndrome. This is not the same as taking all the gentle people you know living with Down's Syndrome and killing them. I have a relative with a different disability who will never be more than a child mentally. I love him, he's as much a person as anyone else, and I would never want any harm to come to him. But I also see the heartbreaking difficulties of his life and the lives of his fellow disabled friends, those of their families, the uncertainties of how their long-term care will be managed when their parents pass on. If I could avoid such a situation by making a decision before birth, I probably would, heartbreaking though it would be to ME.

Surely if you agree that a woman has the right to abort a child (I even say child, not fetus--to me it is still a child, but when it's in her womb the mother may decide to terminate its life), then that reason can include not wishing to produce a life of significant disability, that will never independence, and which will be a burden to limited social resources should immediate relatives be unable to provide for it, or die before it. When you look at it that way it seems the only responsible decision, unless you're wealthy enough to secure the best of care for this child for his or her entire life, not just yours.

Yes, it is difficult because prenatal testing is not 100% accurate. You can only consider the margin of error and make the most informed decision possible based on the data available in any situation in life. What mistake would you rather make--terminating a healthy child you thought severely disabled or bearing a severely disabled child you thought healthy, and what are the chances of making each mistake?

I am also aware of the ethical "slippery slope." You could ask, it is humane to bear a child with no legs? Surely this a serious disability resulting in suffering and reduced independence. Yet, the child would not be hampered in his or her mind, which can overcome so much. There is also a lot of technology available these days to provide people with such disabilities more independence. You could ask, do the parents pay for such things, or are the costs of developing them and making them available shared by society? For myself, I do believe that society should share the costs of helping the disabled lead fulfilling lives, but you do have to weigh the severity of that cost versus what you can contribute when you are deciding to have a child.

Just to make it clear, I believe euthanizing, experimenting on or in any way abusing the disabled is a despicable crime. For me the decision before birth comes down to the pro-choice argument and taking complete responsibility for any life you choose to bring into the world.

I keep losing interest before writing a big comment about this. Highlights:

Your fascinations with "autonomy" are very much your own, and find no use a as the gold standard of a life well lived.

The fanatic Islamicists to whom you devote so much of your blog are ready to terminate your life, right now, with identical reasoning to that by which you'd demand a Down's baby be aborted. They too are certain that there'd be no moral component to the termination, and that the beliefs of others need not be registered.

Your failure to recount personal encounters with these people is telling, and mirrors exactly the personal isolation and ignorance you show when asked about your experience with religious people in the flesh. You imagine the matter to be far removed from you... But the guy in line with you at the bank, that casual associate from business, and any number of closer friends have Downs (and worse) in their families, and just don't bother you with it. Be grateful, but don't be oblivious.

(More in the days ahead: We can tell that you're going to stumble through this slowly)

Edit:

...be grateful if you must, but...

There just isn't time for this topic.

"Your fascinations with "autonomy" are very much your own, and find no use a as the gold standard of a life well lived." This is no different than any person having any child "neurotypical" or "special needs" (both terms are fundamentally stupid but that's what we use) when they can not care for him/her. How is this being made a special case? Should the parents of special needs children be given a pass not granted to the rest of us, why?

This is very different from the oh shit surprises that occur in life. If you though the child was normal and you were fully prepared to raise a normal child and then the unthinkable happen leaving you to rot and the child to starve is morally horrific, as would killing them.

Physically the fetus doesn't even resemble human till somewhere in 2nd trimester. Cognitive abilities don't appear till 3rd. So if it doesn't look like a duck nor think like a duck how does it magically become a duck.

> Should the parents of special needs
> children be given a pass not granted
> to the rest of us, why?

Do you think they are? Would your special-needs child not have the same resources provided?

> Physically the fetus doesn't even
> resemble human till somewhere
> in 2nd trimester.

That's just stupid... In the lesser sense, as if "resemblence" held any probative value; and in the larger sense, as if a fetus isn't "human".

Damn. Second try. Stupid $1300 paperweight. I thought apples were supposed to be good!

Crid, you've made a great point on the comparison to Islamics. Amy however will counter it, with her belief that she is somehow more important then other lives.

I find it odd, Amy, that in this post you say that once the disabled are here we should care for them. Yet in the last irresponsible-parents-bringing-a-disabled-baby-into-the-world post, you agreed with someone (your exact words were "exactly!") who stated you weren't human until you were living without medical intervention. I guess people undergoing surgery cease to be human for a while? I understand that in that case you were seeking to eliminate those pesky preterm NICU babies who were posing a threat to your pro-abortion argument that you're not human when you're 24 weeks gestation, but there is a term for holding, or claiming to hold, 2 opposing views at once. I believe it's cognitive dissonance.

People who argue for eugenics, or aborting "less than perfect" babies, always put themselves first in the line of people worthy of life. Yet you don't think that the disabled would do the same for themselves and their life? I'm no psychiatrist, but I believe that seeing others as less human than yourselves, and therefor less deserving of life, is a symptom of sociopathy.

Vlad, when did you lat see an ultrasound? A fetus, if you must use the term, is fully formed at 12 weeks. It looks like nothing other than a small human. Just about the only thing left for it to do at that point is gain in neural connections and lung function, and of course size. All other systems are already working and have been for some time. Oh, and it still has to develop the bone movement necessary i the inner ear for hearing. It;s been a few years since my developmental bio classes, but I'm fairly certain I'm not forgetting anything.

If we're going on appearance making you human, I guess the ugly people can be lumped in with the disabled for disposal.

That's just stupid... In the lesser sense, as if "resemblence" held any probative value; and in the larger sense, as if a fetus isn't "human". Are you trying to say that resemblance has nothing to do with it. That would mean that I could declare my cat as human. The fetus has no traits that are associated with human, can't love, can't laugh, etc.

"Would your special-needs child not have the same resources provided?" Huh? Where did this come from. Intentionally having a child you can't care for has nothing to do with what service I get or don't get.

"I'm no psychiatrist, but I believe that seeing others as less human than yourselves, and therefor less deserving of life, is a symptom of sociopathy." no your not and no it isn't.

"Just about the only thing left for it to do at that point is gain in neural connections and lung function, and of course size." That would be the neural connection that make us human correct. Quite frankly the rest of the parts are identical and sometimes interchangeable with other animals.

BTW point of reference downs is a bad example. They can live normal, and exceedingly happy lives I envy them more than anything else.

> The fetus has no traits that
> are associated with human

Except fer, y'know, that one part about being human.

Could you be this naive? Seekers, you just are not permitted to casually decree that the lives of other people are or are not worth living. Nobody's asking you. No one will ever ask you, just as you will never ask some distant party (Osama, f'r instance) to judge the value of your own presence.

Is the crap in home depot a fully built housing development?

People are nothing more than chemically powered meat machines. If a machine is broken you try and fix it. If there is a design flaw durring production why would you continue?

"For me the decision before birth comes down to the pro-choice argument and taking complete responsibility for any life you choose to bring into the world."

I disagree. Are you telling me a woman in rural India has a choice to bring a life into this world or not?

When I was a kid, I asked my mother "how did I get here?" She told me that she did not have a choice because her stomach got bigger gradually and started really hurt one day.

You cannot take complete responsibility for your child. If your child grow up to be a criminal, you will be a mother of a criminal but will not be sent to jail for it. And you shouldn't.

Just remember that Mary was not crucified right beside her convicted criminal son. It is very ironic that the legal authority at that time found his life worthless but that odd and delusional dude inspired the countless people for the generations to come.

The bank I go to has a teller with deformed fingers on her left hand. She uses her right hand only to complete my banking transactions.
And whenever she says "Have a good day" with that killer smile, I am glad that I was born and I am glad that she was born to inspire me.

Sorry, it's anti-social personality disorder now. And yes, it is in fact a symptom (sign, whatever word you want to use since it's not a disease).

I am sorry you think you are a meat machine run by chemicals. I don't think it's the neural connections that make us human, as every animal on the planet has those too. It's the soul. You obviously don't think you have one. I'm sorry for you. Assuming you get a brain injury that renders you highly unintelligent but capable of doing the basics like pooping and drinking, just very much like a young child, are you no longer human? Since you've lost so many neural connections and the higher thinking they allow?

No I dont belive in a soul, and it isnt nuural connections that makes us human.

It is the mind, our capacity for self awarness, imagination, and foresight that makes us so.

If there were such thing as a soul then everyone would have one and there woul be no such thing a seiral killers and child molesters - because what kind of god would place a soulless monster amoung his favorite creations?

We are machines, but why do you suppose that is a bad thing to be? We have attained the ability to think, to reason, its a pity people dont use it more

"I am sorry you think you are a meat machine run by chemicals. I don't think it's the neural connections that make us human, as every animal on the planet has those too. It's the soul. You obviously don't think you have one. I'm sorry for you."

No, it is not the soul. It is the fire. If you belong to a group, which knows how to start a fire, you are humans. Otherwise, you are not humans.

Just because cockroaches do not speak English, it does not mean they do not have souls. It does not mean they do not mourn the loss of their loved ones either.

I think you think you are special because you were born as a human. The fact that you were born as a human should not give you a privilege to have a soul as you have nothing to do with it. Do you think cockroaches chose to be born as cockroaches?

> People are nothing more than
> chemically powered meat machines

Sharing the fundamentals of your cosmology this way will be very helpful to people who weigh your arguments.

Seekers, you just are not permitted to casually decree that the lives of other people are or are not worth living.

No one is talking about "casually decreeing" anything. I, at least, was talking about a personal decision made by parents to abort a child that they believed they could not adequately support and that would not have a good chance in life due to a severe disability. How is this different than parents, or a single woman depending on the situation, deciding to have an abortion because they are too poor or otherwise unable to make the child's upbringing a priority at that particular time in life? It's their decision! Not an easy one, and one best avoided altogether, but this isn't always possible in life.

Nor is it about terminating "less than perfect" life. Like I said, those living with disabilities are to be protected and supported in order to live the most fulfilling lives possible. Nor does any disability = abortion, that's as reprehensible as forced euthanasia. I don't consider myself an ideal specimen, and if we were only breeding perfect humans, I probably would have been aborted myself. This is not what I am arguing for. I am talking about severe disabilities that, if discovered in my unborn child, would cause me to consider termination.

Are you telling me a woman in rural India has a choice to bring a life into this world or not?

That many women in our world still do not have control over their childbearing and other aspects of their lives is extremely unfortunate. This is due to poverty, cultural backwardness and lack of education. I'm sure you agree this is not the way it should be. Yet people who DO have the precious gifts others lack should never take it for granted, and should use them to take responsibility for any children they conceive.

"People are nothing more than chemically powered meat machines" What a point of view.
I'm thinking this one would put you in the "misanthropic" category.

Ever see a chemically powered meat machine design a supercomputer? Chart the universe and beyond? Chart the carbon molecule and within? Write an epic poem? Compose the Rach 3? Paint "Guernica"? Such examples are indicators that we are more than mere biological systems. We have the capacity to regress to nothing more than that lowly organizational level, and conversely, leave it spectacularly behind. Feel free to find your place anywhere in that spectrum.

One of the things this strand has been really good for is an indicator of anyone NOT to hire for Health and Human Services. In ANY capacity. (shudder)

"Well Radwaste I'll ask the same question, only I'll direct it at those who use modern medical tech to extend and ensure their lives"

Go right ahead. What answer do you get? Nobody answered mine. momof3 listed a few things she couldn't do as justification for a dismissal.

And juliana, you listed a bunch of things you could be proud of by association, but you have not actually produced anything to argue for being more than the sum of your parts- even as you listed the exception, not the rule, of human achievement. You - and I, BTW - think those are remarkable because of our point of view. We don't remark on the incredible brilliance of Koko from the POV of another gorilla. For many examples of the effect of this first-person view, and the role of prejudice in the assessment of human achievement, just consider the rarity of NFL quarterback talent, F1 drivers, MotoGP riders or bluegrass dobro players. Real expertise is given a big "ho-hum", routinely, by people who just aren't interested in that skill.

Complexity doesn't equal divinity in any measure. A snowflake is more perfect than we.

"Is the crap in home depot a fully built housing development?

People are nothing more than chemically powered meat machines. If a machine is broken you try and fix it. If there is a design flaw durring production why would you continue?"

Fer goodness saaakes woman, please tell me you are NOT equating humans with Downs to weather stripping (crap!!!???))lying about Home Depot.

This MUST be a hyperbole. Please, tell me you are joking. The two are completely incomprable.

Absurd!!!!

Design FLAWS?! It's this type of dehumanization and desensatizing in society that scares the Be-jezuz out of me.

You wanna get an abortion because you feel it best for your life on account of having a Downs child. FINE - no judgement here. But using a Downs syndrom baby as the litmus test for soem hair-brained logic to save money or comparing them to PVC piping is RETARDED.

THIS is the exact type of argument that flirts WAY too close to the justification Nazi's used (Jews being SUBHUMAN)back in Nazi Germany.

Are there really people out there like this....Holy Chit!!!!!

"Complexity doesn't equal divinity in any measure. A snowflake is more perfect than we."

Before I assume and respond, I need clarification. In what specific context are they more perfect? Structural design? Composition?

Everyone has a soul. We also have free will. God gave it, and some of us use to to horrifying results. Doesn't reflect on God at all, although plenty of atheists like to use that little point.

Just because other's reasoning doesn't end in their having the same opinion as you, doesn't mean they don't reason.

Some of you either are anti-social personality disordered, or like to make statements which you don't believe for shock value. Since one would hope that wanting shock value gets outgrown in high school, we are left with the other far scarier proposition. Humans who don't live the sort of life you want are not design flaws. Jesus.

The point of the woman writing the original piece Amy blogged on WAS that Down's babies should not be born. Not that it's a parents heartbreaking decision. She thinks to do other than abort is inhumane and irresponsible. And that is the opinion we are debating, or were. That you might agree the parents have the choice does not mean you agree with her. To agree with her is to open the door to eugenics, and yes forced euthanasia.

Although I suppose a mere meat machine might not care if it's terminated due to poor output. I, being human and designed by God, do care.

"Ever see a chemically powered meat machine design a supercomputer? Chart the universe and beyond? Chart the carbon molecule and within?"

These superb achievement does not mean a thing to the aliens, who just traveled two gazillion light years to get to this planet.

At first, they will see if these meat machine are edible or not. If humans turned out to be gourmet for them, they will breed us just like we breed cows.

This arrogant attitude that humans are more than meat machine brought us to this sorry state of this planet. The total lack of respect for other meat machine species' right to exist on this planet is very tragic to me.

You know momof3, if you really belived in god (you know, the one who prommised eternal hellfire for the slightest of infractions) you probably want to stop taking his name in vain.

After all he punished all of mankind for the infraction of 2 people, kind of a sadistic motherfucker if you ask me - ever question how the snake got into gods private golf course in the first place? Sound like someone was set up for failure.

And freebie I am a guy, and yes I did compare a protoplasmic blob to pvc. Another example would be to compare it milk eggs flor and sugar. These thing can be used to make cake but they need time, proper mixing and input at the right moments

Likewise a fertalized egg is a potential person but until suffeceint time and stages have been passed it is nothing more than building blocks.

And if you are unable to provide for a child with such needs you have no right to saddle the rest of us with your problems

To clarify to momof3: I believe that aborting a Down's baby IS the responsible and humane choice, in general. You seem to have missed the author of the article stating that she did not believe abortion should be forced on any woman. Nor do I. I believe people should think damn hard before they have a child, in any case, but neither I, a doctor, the government, nor anyone else has any business making the decision for them.

I've already explained that I do not believe in eliminating every last disability or imperfection from the human race, and that I believe in the rights and support of people living with disabilities--as does the author of the original article. Did someone else here start urging forced termination or euthanasia that I missed? Or perhaps you're the one opening the door to Nazi-style eugenics, in your own mind.

This was my favorite part:

"In a hyper-sexualised culture that worships bodily perfection, beauty and sexual success, adult life is also bound to be painful for people with Down's."

Because great looking, sexually attractive people never have any problems in life. Like Marilyn Monroe, Montgomery Cliff, Princess Diana--who is this writer kidding?

I think it's wrong to assume that people with DS are forever on the outside, noses pressed up against the glass.

But considering that the original writer is British, she's probably just worried about the drain on the national health. She should be more worried about cousin marriage in the Pakistani community, if birth defects are an issue for her.

"when did you lat see an ultrasound? A fetus, if you must use the term, is fully formed at 12 weeks."

I saw one exactly 10 weeks ago, and it had the benefit of being mine. Yes, at 11 weeks it was a tiny bony guy, scary and cute at the same time.

But I had never felt so much cold detachment as I did while I waited for the right measurement of the nuchal fold, the nasal bone, the blood flow through one of the major arteries.

At that time, the foetus looked as if it was playing, but all the movement was reflex- it did not have enough brain to decide to play.

But it was not the appearance of human-ness that would sway my decision. I would not have continued to term and given life to a disabled child, based on my knowledge of how hard the disability would be on the child and on my family.

> No one is talking about "casually
> decreeing" anything. I, at least,
> was talking about a personal
> decision made by parents to
> abort a child

People do that on this blog a lot. They take the most intrusive and heartless positions on issues imaginable... And then when you call their bluff, they say "Oh, I didn't mean to force anyone to do anything, I just think people should naturally answer my shallow impulses... Don't pay any attention to little ol' me!"

> This arrogant attitude that
> humans are more than meat
> machine brought us to this
> sorry state of this planet.

Chang is about to make the transition from narcissistic teenager to fully-grown Gore Democrat. You won't be able to tell the difference.

Hey Chang! Did you pick out a girl to ask to the school dance yet!

PS_

> A snowflake is more perfect than we.

This is not true, but here's my favorite.

Crid, it's adorable! o.O

Oh wow, HIpparchia. What a great parent you'll be, now that the baby's up to snuff in your opinion. One hopes it stays that way.

Sure, your personal beliefs are not ones you would vote on. No one ever votes on their personal beliefs or values. You are perfectly happy to keep everything exactly the way it is, even though you disagree with the choice. I'm sure you didn't vote Obama either.

"Hey Chang! Did you pick out a girl to ask to the school dance yet!"

Yes, I did. We will go to dance together only if I grow two inch taller before the school dance. That is four months away and I am drinking milk everyday.

Do you think it is easy for a short Asian boy trying to be cool?

"Everyone has a soul. We also have free will. God gave it, and some of us use to (sic) to horrifying results. Doesn't reflect on God at all, although plenty of atheists like to use that little point."

Well, here we go with dogma and absent definitions.

By the way, "free will" is not dependent on anyone's deity - and there is considerable doubt as analysis continues that it even exists. If you "choose" not to eat - even though the outcome will be fatal - the decision to forgo eating is the result of chemical processes which always follow natural laws. That those processes produce an outcome others don't like is irrelevent.

It'll take me about a full page to walk through the differences between the popular views of "free will" and the actual process and its characteristics. Pardon me for not doing that now.

Crid, you're amazing. That was the exact picture I was thinking of as objection to my own line. I decided to bank on the popular image, not the micrograph.

Funny how much the real world differs from one's ideas, isn't it? So it is with "free will".

So you think murderers had no choice but to kill? They were following some chemical imperative? I have identical twins who could not possibly be more different. Raising them has been an interesting look at Nature vs Nurture, since they are all but exactly the same in both. Ergo, what makes them each "them" is the soul they each have.

free will may not be dependent on anyone's belief in a diety, but to those of us who believe, we were all given it the same way. As the whether we are right or not, we'll find out, won't we?

I do happen to believe in evolution. I also believe in souls and god. They aren't mutually exclusive.

I really agree with Debra, who keeps putting it so well.

This is the main issue that causes me to part ways with the pro-life movement, even though I believe the evidence is pretty irrefutable that an unborn child is a life - if not at conception, at least within the first trimester (I believe the brain is actually the first organ formed - it is the bud of the whole central nervous system which builds everything else. The heart begins beating within 4 weeks)

However, having a severely mentally handicapped brother, I've seen first-hand the struggles - the "damaged family" aspect - and I just cannot demand that a woman make the choice to raise a handicapped child if she doesn't feel up to the task.

The pro-life movement usually skirts that issue with the rebuttal: Well, just put it up for adoption!" But being adopted myself, I believe that greatly underestimates the emotional and physical consequences of adoption - not to mention the burden on the adoptive parents, siblings, and society as a whole.

It's a very tough issue though - because no one can predict how well or poorly a handicapped person will do in life. I just watched a very inspiring piece about a young man born with no arms or legs - but he does everything, even plays golf, and lives an extremely productive life. Then, of course, there was Helen Keller.

Still, I don't think a woman should be faulted for choosing to terminate a pregnancy when there are known deformities and handicaps. It should be the parent's personal choice.

But I also don't think the opposite choice should be villified. We are getting awfully close to Eugenics if we view this issue simply in terms of money and social burden. For parents who have the love and patience it takes - and can make the sacrifices to raise an "imperfect" child - there should be support.

Those children, and those parents, by example, teach our "normal" children about love and tolerance. They are heroes! And, besides, we want that social system in place because none of us know when our children - or ourselves - might become handicapped.