Down's Syndrome about to be cured in Denmark

[useless]

Don't see much problem with this.

 

[Formaldehyde]

But you ARE trying to compare this to the Nazis.

I am also comparing this to the acts of the Swedes, Americans, and many other groups. Do you have a problem with that as well?

I think how much this costs "taxpayers" should not enter into the matter. To do so leads governments down the wrong path, as it has done in the past.

 

[Luckymoose]

I am also comparing this to the Swedes and the Americans. Do you have a problem with that as well?

Yes, because this isn't the same thing. You are comparing apples and oranges just to make the opposition to your opinion seem evil and inhumane. You've offered no support for why we should purposefully allow mentally handicapped people to be born knowing full well their inability and incapability to fit into normal society. You are in effect supporting, without clause, the draining of public funding that could better be spent on curing diseases or feeding the poor just because YOU think you know what is best for a down syndrome fetus.

edit: This SO has to to with taxpayer money. As these people end up in clinics and on government subsidies their entire lives. I know because I've worked for said clinics and seen the amount of money that pours in to support these people. A family that gets 1500$ a month to support a mentally handicapped person is wasting money that could put a poor kid through college.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I am doing no such thing. Once again eugenics and social Darwinism used to be prevalent in many countries where people complained that "taxpayers" were having to pay for these unfortunate victims, including the US and Sweden. Fortunately, that is no longer the case.

 

[Luckymoose]

See above. Educate yoself before you break yoself.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Down's Syndrome affects 1 in 800 babies in the US, and there are now 400,000 people in the US who suffer from it in some form. I really don't think the government has the right to demand that all these fetuses are aborted merely to save a few "taxpayer dollars". YMMV.

 

[EnglishCrusader]

Down's Syndrome affects 1 in 800 babies in the US, and there are now 400,000 people in the US who suffer from it in some form. I really don't think the government has the right to demand that all these fetuses are aborted merely to save a few "taxpayer dollars". YMMV.

A few?!

 

[Formaldehyde]

We don't have socialized medicine in this country. But even if we did, I would still be opposed to mandating the abortion of any fetus. It should be the sole decision of the mother-to-be.

 

[EnglishCrusader]

It shouldn't be mandatory, but highly encouraged.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I would certainly agree with that. But it shouldn't be coerced, or even forced, as sterilization once was.

 

[Arakhor]

Given that I wouldn't exist if foetuses with congenital disabilities were terminated, this may sound a little odd, but I'm not opposed to genetic engineering to remove common health defects such as sight problems, sickle-cell anaemia or autism. That said, given that only highly religious people would complain that a human soul is given to every bundle of cells that will later develop into a foetus, I see no ethical reason not to do this if it results in a much more stable gene pool for humanity.

 

[EnglishCrusader]

Given that I wouldn't exist if foetuses with congenital disabilities were terminated, this may sound a little odd, but I'm not opposed to genetic engineering to remove common health defects such as sight problems, sickle-cell anaemia or autism. That said, given that only highly religious people would complain that a human soul is given to every bundle of cells that will later develop into a foetus, I see no ethical reason not to do this if it results in a much more stable gene pool for humanity.

Same here actually. Still, if they have serious disabilities they should be aborted.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The simplest way to avoid Down Syndrome is to have babies when the mother is younger. From the URL I posted earlier:

The risk of Down syndrome increases with the mother’s age (7):

At age 25, the risk of having a baby with Down syndrome is 1 in 1,250.
At age 30, the risk is 1 in 1,000.
At age 35, the risk is 1 in 400.
At age 40, the risk is 1 in 100.
At age 45, the risk is 1 in 30.

Of course, this isn't a cure-all.

Even though the risk is greater as the mother’s age increases, about 80 percent of babies with Down syndrome are born to women under age 35. This is because younger women have more babies than older women (1).

 

[Midgard Eagle]

I think the Eugenics movement accounts for a lot of the resentment against this. It smacks of the same reasoning -- "society is better without these sub-humans, let's do our best to eradicate them". But to me, throwing grandma off a cliff or sending a child without legs to a death camp just isn't the same as terminating an early pregnancy.

The argument is often thrown around that you can't terminate a pregnancy just because you're bearing a child that will be a greater burden to you than other children. This despite the fact that this is precisely why abortions are carried out in the first place. Even most of the fiercest abortion opponents aren't opposed to rape victims terminating pregnancies... because their baby would be an enormous burden to them, compared to kids that aren't conceived through sexual assault.

Bottom line, it's the mother's choice. That is, unless you want laws passed that lets only healthy, "fault-free" embryos and foetuses be subject to abortion. If you're opposed to, your time condemning and judging is probably better spent spreading information on what raising a Down's syndrome child is like, and supporting charities and whatnot that makes such kids easier to raise, so that less parents will choose the abortion option.

 

[GhostWriter16]

A child is a child, it may be ill but it deserves to live.

Aborting a down syndrome baby is wrong. They live for like 4-5 decades have a decent quality of life, they just need constant care. It is just selfish parents who can't be bothered to look after there own children if they're not perfect.

And dead-on

And what if that child needs the same level of care when they are 50 as when they are 5?

Is it selfish for parents not to want to be potentially caring for an adult child into their seventies or eighties?

'

Down's Syndrome babies can't usually live that long, in fact, I'm not totally certain if any live that long.

That aside though, since its irrelevant, you can't just kill someone because they are disabled.

I don't have a problem with them being aborted if they have a serious condition like this. Although they might enjoy their lives, you have to think of others.

Utilitarianism. Ugh. So, just kill "Problem children" because they are difficult? No thanks.

This makes a lot of assumptions....
I mean, if the child is happy, then what does it matter that they have a "lesser" life? Who's determining that?

Agreed.

I don't know what I would do, it would have to be decided between the female and me together...

At least you wouldn't just kill him without a conscious thought.

No. We cannot control a person but we can run a negative ad campaign against such behavior. I'm not saying force anyone to do it, but giving people the options legally to do it is THE BEST IDEA. Anyone, coughPalincough, who brings a human into this world knowing they will be handicapped mentally to the point of being in the care of others forever is a terrible human being.

No, anyone who claims you should kill someone for being ******** is a terrible person.

But you ARE trying to compare this to the Nazis.

I would.

Don't see much problem with this.

They are having abortions for the sole purpose of not allowing disabled people to exist. Sound a bit like the Nazis?

Down's Syndrome affects 1 in 800 babies in the US, and there are now 400,000 people in the US who suffer from it in some form. I really don't think the government has the right to demand that all these fetuses are aborted merely to save a few "taxpayer dollars". YMMV.

Wait a second.

The fact that you even had to make this post is very, very, scary.

People suggesting abortions should be forced? What's next?

I will be praying for our country.

Even most of the fiercest abortion opponents aren't opposed to rape victims terminating pregnancies... because their baby would be an enormous burden to them, compared to kids that aren't conceived through sexual assault.

Not true in the US...

And I certainly am not OK with it.

 

[NovaKart]

No. We cannot control a person but we can run a negative ad campaign against such behavior. I'm not saying force anyone to do it, but giving people the options legally to do it is THE BEST IDEA. Anyone, coughPalincough, who brings a human into this world knowing they will be handicapped mentally to the point of being in the care of others forever is a terrible human being.



But you ARE trying to compare this to the Nazis. Why else would you post a German poster? I have at no point said we should force anyone to kill such people, but giving EVERYONE the preventative measures would in all likelihood eradicate such ethical issues entirely. If you have the option to genetically engineer your baby so it doesn't have an extra 21st chromosome, would you say no? How selfish of a person can you be at that point? Hipsterism shouldn't be a legal choice for parents.

I think it's really bizarre you would call someone a terrible human being for giving birth to a child. I think most people with downs syndrome or other birth defects would rather be alive than to have never been born. Sure they have a lot of difficulties in life that most people don't have but that doesn't mean they don't experience any of the good things in life. I wouldn't look at a down syndrome child as nothing but a burden either. Parents with disabled children can also experience the rewarding side of having children along with the extra difficulties.

I wouldn't encourage someone to give birth to a down syndrome child but I think you're going too far in the other direction by arguing that they shouldn't be born at all.

 

[EnglishCrusader]

Utilitarianism. Ugh. So, just kill "Problem children" because they are difficult? No thanks.

You're making it sound worse than it is. Anyway, why do I have to pay money to care for these people who aren't going to do anything for me or any other taxpayers? I don't mind them if the parents pay for and take care of them, but when they are taking the taxpayer's money that could be used to directly benefit the taxpayers, that's when I start to disagree.

 

[Kozmos]

Would anyone having a more or less normal life with its great ups and down chose in his/her right mind to live a life like a mentally challenged man, being denied the fullness of life? Would you like to live like a shadow of man? Would you accept the constant pity you wouldn't be even able to comprehend? A world you will never understand? A world where you will never be good enough for almost everything, including cutting paper with scissors?

I know I wouldn't. I'd rather be dead than live like a human pet or a pity object.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

They are having abortions for the sole purpose of not allowing disabled people to exist. Sound a bit like the Nazis?

No, the Nazis used forced sterilization and euthanasia. And now I await your inevitable response where you equate embryos to fully-grown children/adults. And thus the circle of the typical abortion debate continues unabated.

 

[galdre]

You're making it sound worse than it is. Anyway, why do I have to pay money to care for these people who aren't going to do anything for me or any other taxpayers? I don't mind them if the parents pay for and take care of them, but when they are taking the taxpayer's money that could be used to directly benefit the taxpayers, that's when I start to disagree.

So what about people with disabilities who work and pay taxes? Not every person born with a disability sits around taking tax money. And even if they did, is that really a reason to kill them? To save money??