My side with a heart:No thats aful
My normal self:Coat hanger or doctor? Screw it either will work!
My normal self:Coat hanger or doctor? Screw it either will work!
Poll: Would you abort a pregnancy if the child would have Down Syndrome?
- Thread starter llafnwod
- Start date
Down's Syndrome itself can't be latent.EcoEclipse said:
However, it's quite possible that any mental/intellectual deficiencies (retardation) your brother has were caused or exascerbated by the seizure, which may have caused brain damage, rather than Down's Syndrome.
Down's Syndrome itself isn't a type of mental/intellectual deficiency but most people with Down's Syndrome do have some form of mental/intellectual deficiency because of the nature of the disorder. The number and severety of the deficiencies varies widely so, who knows?
I agree that the main crux of "They're deficient, so let's kill them" is bullshit. Simple ignorance on the part of strangers on the internet. Life's pretty much meaningless for everyone, not just the disabled.tehroc said:
Those eugenics fools are kidding themselves.
I'm tearing up here at the all the posts about those with disabilities not being "real" people or incapable of emotions. I have an extremely disabled sister a year older than I am, and a very large part of my childhood was spent helping to take care of her. Her happiness is worth all the difficulties, and denying someone a shot at that "for their own good" makes me sick inside.
I'm pro-choice. If people think they can't handle the responsibility, fine. Their kid, their house, whatever. Still, the sheer amount of people voting yes really says something for what people truly think of someone like my sister. Hell, my brother volunteered to work with children with Down's Syndrome when he was less than ten.
Personally, I voted no. I would do everything I could for their happiness. I live by the mantra to live in love and service, and I'm sticking to that.
I'm pro-choice. If people think they can't handle the responsibility, fine. Their kid, their house, whatever. Still, the sheer amount of people voting yes really says something for what people truly think of someone like my sister. Hell, my brother volunteered to work with children with Down's Syndrome when he was less than ten.
Personally, I voted no. I would do everything I could for their happiness. I live by the mantra to live in love and service, and I'm sticking to that.
Wow, Edgy McEdgerton in the house.ghostalker.cepo said:
You do know, don't you, that people with Down's Syndrome have very low fertility rates, don't you? Females with Down's not only have low fertility but they have many problems carrying a pregnancy full term, especially if the fetus falls within the 50% chance of inheriting DS where there is a very high incidence of spontaneous abortion (miscarriage). In males with Down's Syndrome fertility is so low that only 3 have been recorded as having fathered children.
Apart from women with Down's Syndrome, despite low fertility and high rates of spontaneous abortion for fetuses with Down Syndrome (which are only roughly 50% of the fetuses anyway), hatching their own spawn the only other hereditary form of Down's Syndrome is the extremely rare Translocation type.
So, from a species wide view, it's a very self-correcting genetic disorder.
Nope not at all. I'm not against abortion seeing how I'm pro-choice. But I'm if my kid is going to be special (not the special-special your thinking of) then let them be special. I'd actually be happy and proud of having a down kid. Then no one would be able to call him normal. It sounds weird, yes. But I'm against that word entirely. No one is normal. It's just a pathetic standard and the word should be ripped out of the dictionary and I would make sure my kid would understand that even if he couldn't. Plus I'm working with them in my high-school for my gym class. Why would I say "yes" to something like that if I'm going to be working with them? Just for the credit? No. I'm a sophomore not a senior who just needs credit to get by. I work well with kids and sometimes teens. I would make no sense what so ever!
I'm pro-choice and think that _some_ genetic disorders are justification for abortion. The really awful ones where a child lives a few years in pain and under constant medical attention. Down's Syndrome? Not even close to a good enough reason. Folks with Down's can live happy lives, loving and being loved. They, with a bit of help can even be productive members of society.
Sorry to fall into the obvious Godwin's Law here, but Hitler was all about this kind of behavior. We all have things that are wrong with us genetically (asthma & allergies over here, but I'll still beat you in a foot race). Seriously, look yourself in the mirror and tell me how much more right to exist you have than somebody who'll never have a job at higher than minimum wage, but smiles a lot and never invades Iraq.
Sorry to fall into the obvious Godwin's Law here, but Hitler was all about this kind of behavior. We all have things that are wrong with us genetically (asthma & allergies over here, but I'll still beat you in a foot race). Seriously, look yourself in the mirror and tell me how much more right to exist you have than somebody who'll never have a job at higher than minimum wage, but smiles a lot and never invades Iraq.
I did in fact know that they had low fertility rates, although you have educated me as to exactly HOW low. However you conveniently cut out the the next part where I expand that to all genetic disabilities, not just that of Down's Syndrome. DS may be self correcting, and for the mistake, I'm sorry, but as I said, I expanded my argument to encompass all genetic defects, and I really should have said that in a world where we had natural predators, they would be among the first to be dragged off by the lions.RhombusHatesYou said:
And by genetic defects I mean serious, life affecting ones. Children born with serious congenital defects wouldn't have survived in prehistoric times
Interestingly enough, THAT was the only part of my argument you chose to pick holes in...
Also, I'm trying to quit smoking, so yes, right now I am Edgy McEdgerton heh.
In all honesty, I put yes. The reason being as that I get very sad watching people that have these types of problems and would effect me too much. I would also worry about it effecting my relationship with my girlfriend/spouse. I do have to agree that it is a very hard choice to make, and that if I was put in the heat of the moment I would be at loss at what to do. It probable also wouldn't go well with the possibility of other things to be stacked on top of that because of my genes. *ADHD, Autism* I mean, I still don't even know for sure if that's what I have or not. I think the real question is, can you and the rest of your family work with it? Depending on the money, stress and a lot of other factors. I believe that most families probable couldn't deal with it very well, and that's why so many people answered "yes". I think this question is one of those, "both are right and wrong at the same time", unless you factor in certain things. *Alright I've summed this up as best as I could, I'm gonna go to sleep now.*
if we found out early like the 2nd week of pregnancy and it would cause the child seriouse problems that would make life a liveing hell thien yes. but if the child could lead a normal life. or if it was the 3 month mark, or a combo of both thien no.
Of course I did. Why would I address points that don't allow me to pontificate? Where's the fun in that?ghostalker.cepo said:
Just don't start on a 'modern medicine is anti-evolutionary' trip...
Nobody likes a quitter.
No. I'm pro choice, and I respect anyone else's decision on the matter, but I would not abort my child if (s)he had down syndrome.
Why? For two reasons. One, I would love my child no matter what (s)he is going through, and I would make any sacrifice for him/her rather than just "put them out of their misery." And two, we, as humans, need to improve the treatment of the mentally challenged. We need to learn to help them have a better life and help them get accepted into society rather than just, again, "putting them out of their misery." That is a gap that we need to fill and I'm shocked that so many people would just avoid the challenge of doing so.
Why? For two reasons. One, I would love my child no matter what (s)he is going through, and I would make any sacrifice for him/her rather than just "put them out of their misery." And two, we, as humans, need to improve the treatment of the mentally challenged. We need to learn to help them have a better life and help them get accepted into society rather than just, again, "putting them out of their misery." That is a gap that we need to fill and I'm shocked that so many people would just avoid the challenge of doing so.
Fair enoughRhombusHatesYou said:
It's something I happen to believe, athough I won't start, I think I've already stated my view.
Right-o *grabs coat and heads to the shop*Nobody likes a quitter.
I voted yes, why? Because my family owns a group home where we care for mentally disabled adults. I've seen Downs people come and out of our care. But I always wondered why we could only care for them for so long before we weren't able to.
The truth of it is --- fifty years they're still very mobile and high functioning. But the truth is once they get older it's a sad sight. Without giving to much out about clients, when i started working for my family we had someone who was the highest function Downs Syndrome patient anyone had ever seen, she could do 90% of her tasks by herself. Which was amazing, but about two years ago she has begun to decline. She doesn't recognize her family members [who are big parts of her life still!] She can no longer get up from a chair or into bed without assistance. She can no longer wipe her bottom or bathe herself. But because of the dementia she is scared and fights with staff, injuring us. Myself included. She also has forgotten how to take medications as well. My mother tells me this is only the tip of the iceberg, soon she will forget how to walk, talk or drink. When that time comes, when we are no longer able to care for her, she will go to a nursing home --- where she'll spend the rest of her days. Normally that's about three months. She is only in her late sixties.
I think I'd be a bad parent if I allowed my child to be born. And I'll look at it this way as well, pregnancy is a risk to myself. And maybe I have another children too, since it does tend to effect older mothers. I can not to that to my other children.
I've seen how their lives end, and I would not want my child to live that way.
The truth of it is --- fifty years they're still very mobile and high functioning. But the truth is once they get older it's a sad sight. Without giving to much out about clients, when i started working for my family we had someone who was the highest function Downs Syndrome patient anyone had ever seen, she could do 90% of her tasks by herself. Which was amazing, but about two years ago she has begun to decline. She doesn't recognize her family members [who are big parts of her life still!] She can no longer get up from a chair or into bed without assistance. She can no longer wipe her bottom or bathe herself. But because of the dementia she is scared and fights with staff, injuring us. Myself included. She also has forgotten how to take medications as well. My mother tells me this is only the tip of the iceberg, soon she will forget how to walk, talk or drink. When that time comes, when we are no longer able to care for her, she will go to a nursing home --- where she'll spend the rest of her days. Normally that's about three months. She is only in her late sixties.
I think I'd be a bad parent if I allowed my child to be born. And I'll look at it this way as well, pregnancy is a risk to myself. And maybe I have another children too, since it does tend to effect older mothers. I can not to that to my other children.
I've seen how their lives end, and I would not want my child to live that way.
No question, yes. Simply put, Down's isn't fair.
It isn't fair to force somebody to live an incomplete life, never able to properly come into their own as a human being. Harsh, perhaps a bit crass, but there you have it.
Likewise it isn't fair to force the parents into a situation where they are to remain parents in perpetuity. At no point will your child grow up and blossom into adulthood, instead leaving all parties concerned in a limbo for the rest of their lives.
If there is a situation where such blatant biological unfairness is avoidable, I say by all means avoid it. Sometimes mercy isn't easy, but that doesn't mean it is to be avoided.
It isn't fair to force somebody to live an incomplete life, never able to properly come into their own as a human being. Harsh, perhaps a bit crass, but there you have it.
Likewise it isn't fair to force the parents into a situation where they are to remain parents in perpetuity. At no point will your child grow up and blossom into adulthood, instead leaving all parties concerned in a limbo for the rest of their lives.
If there is a situation where such blatant biological unfairness is avoidable, I say by all means avoid it. Sometimes mercy isn't easy, but that doesn't mean it is to be avoided.
Yes. there are a lot of diseases that i'd get an abortion over. A child with down syndrome has to deal with being teased by other kids, not learning as fast as their siblings/cousins/whatnot, and being coddled by their teachers and looked down upon by the other students, either out of pity or out of genuine hatred of stupid people, which is more common than it seems. This of course, brings up the eugenics issue of certain diseases that should be "bred out" of the gene pool, like one does with animals. While i'm against eugenics for shallow things like race, gender, etc, there are things that should be bred out, like down syndrome and Huntington's disease, Marfan syndrome, Neurofibromatosis type I, and Rett syndrome. These diseases make life miserable most of all not for the parents raising it or the siblings or classmates, but for the child itself. Most people who are against abortion seem to forget that there are a lot of horrible diseases running in a lot of genes spread through a lot of people, and that giving life to these people is less an act of mercy, and more an act of disassociated sadism, forcing the child to be born in pain and suffering that will never go away or lessen through the (often cut short at around 50 at most for the luckiest)entirety of their lives.