[Spoilsport Stonny]

http://www.theguardi...syndrome-foetus

Some hot button topics involved here, but I'm gonna give it a go.

I have a nephew with Downs and he's a spectacular little guy, full of life and joy. It hasn't always been easy on his mother or him, and his life has certainly had some struggle. My sister knew before he was born that he would likely have Downs, but at no time did she consider aborting him. Lets just say I love the little guy and he's taught us more about ourselves and given our family a different perspective on humanity.

But I like to think the folks on here have some interesting POVs and can share their feelings. Because before I take my anger to the facebook wall, I wanted to see if I could understand the other side of this.

[Inane Babble]

Whether or not you agree with him you have to agree that his attitude is just abhorrent.

Such casual disregard for the lives and feelings of others, what an asshole.

Stonny, this is probably going to piss you off if you read it, just letting you know.

I strongly disagree with him and his attitude, as it should be a personal choice for each couple, but Dick's thought train may go something like this;

A child born with a serious genetic condition is going to be unable to live a normal life.
This child will not be able to experience the same quality of life of almost everyone they meet.
The child and parents will go through much more difficulty in life than a child without the condition.
This person when they grow up, will then be faced with whether or not to bring their own children into the world with a greatly increased chance of having whatever genetic condition they possess.
This person will have a shorter (sometimes significantly so) lifespan than a person without the condition.

Eventually reaching the conclusion that it is not fair (or moral as Dick the prick would say) to bring a person into this world who will be unable to participate in the full scope of human experiences, instead being forced to live a stunted life being cared for by others.

My personal opinion on this is irrelevant I think because I will never (in fact, cannot) have children of my own, espousing my own opinions here would be like a fish telling a bear how to go about its business.

[Spoilsport Stonny]

Well you certainly proved the paradox of your name with insightful comments, and I appreciate your wisdom in not offering opinion, although that stuff doesn't piss me off any more. I'm pretty open minded.

I also think he was speaking about a specific situation, so to think he was meaning ALL Downs foetuses should be aborted was never what I was taking from it.

My nepheew's life is certainly not normal by my standards or society (he's 10, but behaves more like a 3 or 4 year old). But from his perspective, its all he knows. We went to see fireworks a month ago, and he was just freaking out, and his mother was being told by everyone to just take him home, but she had her other kids there and couldn't. I got so sick of everyone complaining about their experience being ruined, and was bothered by my sister's stress level rising, knowing she couldn't handle the situation at the time so I took him from her, held him tight and told him I would NEVER let anything hurt him. I then explained that it was like a STar Wars movie or Wall-E. I said they aren't gonna hurt you, so its fun to watch them explode like lasers guns in space, and he turned around, warmed up to them and started to really enjoy them, laughing and clapping.

What I think Dawkins failed to do, is just like you say, he ignored the feelings of others who live with Downs. Yes their lives are different and some are incredibly tougher than others. But the lessons one can learn when working or sharing experiences with people who function drastically different than normal can be illuminating and have the potential to positively impact the way people behave on a regular basis and treat other people. I know it changed much about me.

[Aptorian]

Like Inane Babble outlines I don't think it's hard to follow the logic that dictates Dawkins opinion. Dawkins is if I recall correctly an evolutionary biologist or something like that, revolving around genes and ethics. As such, his clinical assessment of a fetus that is formed with a genetic flaw would obviously be that you should terminate it.

I strongly dislike the mans religious rhetoric but in this case I completely agree with him actually. Very rarely will you see people with Downs Syndrome in this day and age, because most fetuses are aborted. Women also abort fetuses who are born deformed, missing limbs or organs, with similar chromosome disorders, etc.

I think giving birth to a child that is "defective" is a selfish act. A child, in this case one with downs syndrome, is going to have health problems, cognitive issues, mild retardation, they will mocked and bullied, people will avoid them other people will use them. You can't expect to be able to take care of them yourself, so (at least in the case of Denmark) you are dependent upon the state to pay for the childs care and health issues. Generally, this child is going to be a burden.

Giving birth to a child and loving it despite its flaws is a romantic notion but how many parents regret the decision as the years go by? How many couples would have been happier if they had chosen an abortion?

Why not try again or chose adoption instead?

[Inane Babble]

Apt Hoc, on 21 August 2014 - 05:50 PM, said:

Like Inane Babble outlines I don't think it's hard to follow the logic that dictates Dawkins opinion. Dawkins is if I recall correctly an evolutionary biologist or something like that, revolving around genes and ethics. As such, his clinical assessment of a fetus that is formed with a genetic flaw would obviously be that you should terminate it.

I strongly dislike the mans religious rhetoric but in this case I completely agree with him actually. Very rarely will you see people with Downs Syndrome in this day and age, because most fetuses are aborted. Women also abort fetuses who are born deformed, missing limbs or organs, with similar chromosome disorders, etc.

I think giving birth to a child that is "defective" is a selfish act. A child, in this case one with downs syndrome, is going to have health problems, cognitive issues, mild retardation, they will mocked and bullied, people will avoid them other people will use them. You can't expect to be able to take care of them yourself, so (at least in the case of Denmark) you are dependent upon the state to pay for the childs care and health issues. Generally, this child is going to be a burden.

Giving birth to a child and loving it despite its flaws is a romantic notion but how many parents regret the decision as the years go by? How many couples would have been happier if they had chosen an abortion?

Why not try again or chose adoption instead?

You cannot just choose to try again. To have a child growing inside you and know they you are going to be a MOTHER only to find out that it's damaged (not a great word to use) is soul crushing. It isn't something you shrug off no matter what.

I really wish more people adopted children, but people are people. Selfish, stupid, barely sentient at times. Adoption rates won't go up significantly until the public perception of parenthood changes and the process is made drastically easier. It is extremely difficult to adopt a child in many first world countries, and prohibitively expensive in the more barbaric ones *waves at america*

[Aptorian]

Inane Babble, on 21 August 2014 - 06:04 PM, said:

Apt Hoc, on 21 August 2014 - 05:50 PM, said:

Why not try again or chose adoption instead?

You cannot just choose to try again. To have a child growing inside you and know they you are going to be a MOTHER only to find out that it's damaged (not a great word to use) is soul crushing. It isn't something you shrug off no matter what.

Hey now, as a cold hearted socialist atheist, I resent that notion. Mother must make more helthy children for the States factories. It is honor and duty!

[Andorion]

I think this kind of decision is a very personal one, that each set of parents should make by themselves, asking the advice/opinion of those they feel appropriate if they ask someone's opinion at all. The child they are having or not having is theirs, created of themselves and their love. I don't think anybody - the government, a religion, a social activist anybody can tell them whether to have a child or not. Because, it is they (and maybe the child) who will have to live with the consequences for their decision. What others like the state, religion, society, the larger family, can do, is provide that if such a child is born, the facilities and support structure needed for that child is in place.Because once a person has entered the world it becomes the responsibility of others to care. That is what makes us human.

[Spoilsport Stonny]

Questions of happiness, to me, aren't really the point. Happiness is relative. There's people with ideal lives who still aren't happy.

Apt you raise good points. I look at it though as if abortion was never an option, how would these people be cared for? State-run healthcare systems now force the issue to be shared amongst everyone, as the financial burden is shared. But here (USA) in addition to well-run charities, we have SSI which takes into account household income when considering need, in addition to keeping more of our personal income to help finance the necessary treatments.

Also, bullying has become essentially tantamount to a hate crime here in the states and the tolerance level for it has dropped dramatically since I was in school 20 years ago. The times they are a'changin'.

Now, of course, people are free to abort and try again. And most do. But as a family, we have worked together to give David a wonderful life and most of the psychological therapy he receives indicates he's a happy child. I don't feel that counts for nothing. However the Downs child whose drug addict mother lives across the street from us doesn't seem to be in such a great spot, though we try to do what we can for him too. He's also an awesome kid, but his quality of life is suffering from his mother's true selfishness.

And many of these kids grow up to have jobs, a lot of them play sports (wrestling is very popular), have romantic relationships, and lead generally fulfilling lives. I don't really see anythign selfish about a parent who can help provide the environment that fosters that result.


And I agree 200% Andorion. Well said.

And IB, adoption is such a ridiculously bureaucratic function these days, and all about how much money you have to grease the wheels. Its essentially become human trafficking. But that's a discussion for a different day.

[Spoilsport Stonny]

An aside...

I keep saying "Downs syndrome", knowing full well that it is actually "Down syndrome", but a vestige of my pre-experiential ignorance won't allow my brain to write it any other way. Apologies...

[Aptorian]

I guess it is a matter of quality of life and what one finds fitting. Of course normal, kind hearted people will make room for people with Downs Syndrome. There's no doubt about that. Here in Denmark there are two guys with Downs Syndrome who are TV celebrities, Ir started out as a humorous documentary about two young boys with Down Syndrome who liked football and has resulted in a TV series and various appearances in commercials, special events, etc. Those two are hilarious and I suspect they have done a lot to teach the average Danish television viewer about people with Downs Syndrome.

But going back to Dawkins Tweet. A lot of long term emotional, sociological and economical issues could be done away with by simply making a hard but logical choice during the first or second trimester.

Also, regarding adoption, just to be clear, I didn't mean that a mother should give away a baby with Downs Syndrome. That would be defeating the purpose of going through with the pregnancy in the first place. I rather meant that if ones genetic make-up means that you are unable or unlikely to have a healthy child, then adoption could be a option. God knows, there are a lot of unwanted children out there.

[Spoilsport Stonny]

First time I ever ran out of rep for the day. I'll get you for that last one tomorrow, Apt. And I gotta see that show...

[Spoilsport Stonny]

Looks like he's made some clarifications. This actually kind of rare for him to do, so I'll take it as he's realized he came off as a dick and wasn't winning any friends.

https://richarddawki...-of-twitterwar/

[Aptorian]

Spoilsport Stonny, on 21 August 2014 - 06:37 PM, said:

And I gotta see that show...

Looked around a bit and I haven't been able to find any videos with English subtitles but here's a short compilation video of the two during the past 20 years or so. The first clips are from 1991 when they were kids.



EDIT: Awh man, watching those clips again brings up so many memories. There's so many quotable memes those two have planted in the Danish mindset. Like "Det er det falske sted" = It's the fake place, from when they got lost on a vacation once. And their constant bickering is so amusing.

This post has been edited by Apt Hoc: 21 August 2014 - 06:52 PM

[Andorion]

Apt Hoc, on 21 August 2014 - 06:31 PM, said:

I guess it is a matter of quality of life and what one finds fitting. Of course normal, kind hearted people will make room for people with Downs Syndrome. There's no doubt about that. Here in Denmark there are two guys with Downs Syndrome who are TV celebrities, Ir started out as a humorous documentary about two young boys with Down Syndrome who liked football and has resulted in a TV series and various appearances in commercials, special events, etc. Those two are hilarious and I suspect they have done a lot to teach the average Danish television viewer about people with Downs Syndrome.

But going back to Dawkins Tweet. A lot of long term emotional, sociological and economical issues could be done away with by simply making a hard but logical choice during the first or second trimester.

Also, regarding adoption, just to be clear, I didn't mean that a mother should give away a baby with Downs Syndrome. That would be defeating the purpose of going through with the pregnancy in the first place. I rather meant that if ones genetic make-up means that you are unable or unlikely to have a healthy child, then adoption could be a option. God knows, there are a lot of unwanted children out there.

Agree totally on the adoption thing. If you want to and are able to provide a home to a child why not adopt one of the many babies who for whatever reasons have no home of their own? Your point about about the logical choice being hard, but beneficial in the long-term is also well-made. Personally I agree with you totally. But having said that I think the act of having and raising a child is logic balanced with affect and emotional factors and sometimes these latter factors can and do play a crucial art in decision making. From your point of view this is probably nothing to cheer for that much but parents may think differently. And as parents I think they should be allowed to make that decision by themselves.

Also humanity is probably the only species where offspring born unhealthy can still thrive and grow, because we have the necessary social surplus to support them. I am aware that this is not uniform across the globe. Being from India its only too painfully apparent how infrastructure can still just not be there. But I think its wonderful that in some parts of the world at least, parents have an option other than terminating a pregnancy, or seeing their baby die young tragically. To me it comes down to the fact that people can and should be able to choose.

[D'iversify]

I think personally that it is important that parents know in advance whether their unborn child will have Down syndrome or any other significant developmental disorder. I would argue that this is a good thing even for someone coming from an anti-abortion or a pro-disability position, as the more parents know about the physical and mentla health of their child the more they can prepare for postnatal care. Moreover, it's obviously important for doctors if they need to make any prenatal interventions or if such an intervention can help mitigate a potentially debilitating condition.

With regards to abortion, I personally believe that to kill a entity that would likely become a future person does no significant harm in the sense that it is not possible to harm a non-sentient entity in a sensational sense, e.g. by inflicting consciously felt pain, and that whilst a foetus would have interests if allowed to develop into a sentient being, it shows no evidence of having conscious interests as a foetus in itself, so it does not in itself lose out by not having a future. So I believe that on utilitarian grounds, whether pleasure/pain or interest-based, that there are fair grounds for abortion being permissible. Nonetheless, I do not think abortion should be applied willy-nilly as there can still be considered to be harm done in the abstract sense that a potential future life that could potentially be of high quality is lost in the process. But I think that since we are here only talking about the potential future happiness of a potential future person versus the actual welfare of actual persons, i.e. the parents, especially the mother, that abortion could only be overall considered morally problematic if it is applied callously, i.e. where there is a high probability that the child would have a happy and fruitful future life. In practice, this means that if the parents are well off enough to provide for this future high quality life but genuinely do not want the child, then on the logic that an unwanted child will likely not be a happy child, then abortion is not morally problematic. Adoption can be considered an option but that entails asking a woman who does not want the child to bear it to term and for her partner to support her, so I would argue that if the parents are unwilling to do this there is no responsibility to compel them to. The argument against callous abortion does however support the wrongfulness of child destruction, i.e. where the unborn child is killed by a third party.

Where the quality of life does come significantly into play is in arguments such as regarding Down's and other developmental problems. Now I would argue that it is much better that a potentially sentient being that will only suffer horribly if it is allowed to come into existence be aborted before it does so, especially if its sentience is of a very limited capacity (based on the argument that greater capacity to understand suffering allows for better capacity to cope). But I do not think that the vast majority of those with Down Syndrome have particularly terrible lives. They have health problems and issues with intellectual development, but both these can commonly be mitigated with the right support. I do not think experientially that the life of a Down Syndrome person is in general especially bad. So the main issue is really about the difficulty placed on the parents since they have to support their children well into adulthood at considerable financial and emotional cost. On this basis, I very much understand why many potential parents-to-be do abort unborn Down's babies. But I do not think this is any justification to argue for all Down's babies to be aborted, for not only are there many people with Down's who have worthwhile lives, there are also many parents are able to both emotionally and financially support them and, importantly, I think Western society is more than wealthy enough to support the lives of its disabled so as to allow them to live worthwhile lives. Frankly, I don't think there is the support there could be and that to put the blame on disabled people and their parents is completely immoral.

[Illuyankas]

Dawkins has fallen into the common trap of thinking that having said one interesting, intelligent and lauded concept means every further statement made is similarly interesting, intelligent and laudable, instead of badwrong dumbstupid bullshit.

[Cause]

I think calling it immoral is a bit of a stretch. We have evidence of people on this forum saying they can live and be happy. I think its important to recognise though he was only talking about early abortions if the disease is detected early on though. That said I certainly believe I would pro-termination in the case of almost all complications if screened for and found at the early pregnancy stage. As has been said, most people can have future children again and I honestly see no reason to suffer through the emotional, finicial turmoil otherwise. Those are selfish reasons but short of asking the unborn foetus its thoughts I cant
really comment on how it might judge its less than perfect life vs having no life at all. It should also be mentioned that Down Syndrome is only one of many possible birth defects and many are far, far worse. A child with Taysachs for example I think at best could make it ten years, likely I think 3 . In this case I would say the debate all but disappears short of an argument involving god that argues against termination.

Personal feelings are also important. For example, I have often thought it would be better for me to die than to have some form of dementia that reached the point that I could not recognise my own family or friends. That person would not be me. Quality of life to me is an important description of life itself. For others its less so.

Illuyankas, on 21 August 2014 - 09:46 PM, said:

Dawkins has fallen into the common trap of thinking that having said one interesting, intelligent and lauded concept means every further statement made is similarly interesting, intelligent and laudable, instead of badwrong dumbstupid bullshit.

I think I agree with this, out of curiosity which one of the many things he said do you imagine was the one interesting thing he said? Green beard genes, God delusion?

[Obdigore]

I dunno. My personal viewpoint agrees with him, so long as the Syndrome is detected early-ish. I agree that for the vast majority of the general public, bringing a child into this world with special needs isn't something they are prepared for, and it leads to a huge loss of QoL for both the child and the parents.

Of course, I don't view the public at large as capable of being very responsible about anything, and for the vast majority of the general public, I think an abortion would be a better option for both them and the child in regards to a myriad of birth defects and special needs fetuses/zygotes.

That said, of course there are parents who understand and are capable of taking care of special needs children, as well as people who most likely will never be able to get pregnant again.

I wouldn't advocate for mandatory or even urging for people to abort special needs children, I just think that stuff like this can and should be detected early and the parents should be given all the information.

[cerveza_fiesta]

Speaking from personal experience as a dad here, so please don't think I'm trying to generalize for every parent in every circumstance:

I think there's a really important line to be drawn regarding the timing of the decision. There's aborting a pregnancy, and then there's aborting a *baby*. At first, it's just some morning sickness, overheating, increased apetite and a few other relatively minor physiological changes. She's pregnant, but there's no baby yet. After the prospective mom feels that first kick or stirring, that thing inside her is a goddamn baby and a completely different decision making process kicks in. I wasn't even the pregnant one and the effect was the same on me.

I just mention this because folks that haven't been through the experience might not understand. I and my wife would have had no problem aborting a pregnancy just a few weeks in. At 2nd or 3rd trimester, NO FUCKING WAY. Logic goes out the window completely...you're killing a being that will soon be a human. Sentience doesn't even enter the thought process; it has arms, legs, a body, a face...it makes no difference if it's horribly deformed, or down, or otherwise deficient. That is your progeny and fuck anybody that says he/she doesn't get a fair shot. The branch leading to "abortion" on your internal decision-making tree is hacked off, burned and scattered to the winds. I realize, looking back, that the experience made me rethink my entire stance on abortion and I actually empathize with the anti-abortion crowd to a certain extent now - something I thought I would never do. That's the power of emotion when it comes to your born/unborn kids - it changes you entirely.

This story has a point though, and I think it's important to know about before the discussion goes any further. Canada (and I assume many other places too), the genetic tests are absolutely not infallible. They give you at best a percent chance that the baby will be born with XYZ deficiency. If you base an abortion decision on that, you have a significant chance that you're aborting a perfectly healthy and whole baby. The only way to get a better estimate is to actually sample by means of a big ass needle the amniotic fluid or the fetus itself. Both of these procedures significantly up the risk of miscarriage and are generally not recommended unless the first test comes back with pretty convincing evidence of a problem. EVEN THEN, we have friends that were told basically "your baby has down syndrome" based on the outcome of the tests and the baby was born 100% normal and healthy. On top of this (at least where I live) these tests aren't administered until about 20 weeks...halfway through. At this point you're so far into "mah bebeh" territory that decisions are no longer taken with a clear mind.

Also, none of the above mentions that in my province there is no access to abortion without a doctor's consent, and I think few would actually authorize a 2nd trimester abortion based solely on the mother's desire not to have a downs baby. There would have to be some legitimate health or risk to the mother's survival. It's not like that everywhere, but our system is hardly uncommon.

RE Dawkins comment, it shows a severe lack of empathy and understanding. It's like reading a FB post by a highschool student who has no experience in real life! It's profoundly dumb to suggest that all downs babies should be aborted as though a) people actually *have* a choice in the matter 100% of the time; and b ) people should be in his enlightened and logical mindset regardless of the emotional circumstances. Fuck that guy.


TL;DR: You don't necessarily know about it until it's too late to act, you can't trust the tests, and you aren't making any decision with a clear mind. Also, Dawkins is a shitbird tweeting that as though he's some kind of authority on the matter.

This post has been edited by cerveza_fiesta: 22 August 2014 - 03:20 PM

[Illuyankas]

I understand you don't personally feel this way, but you know you're advocating that women who don't want or can't handle even the chance of a baby with Downs be forced into keeping it despite their wishes, right? Like your province (and statement) is explicitly 'your rights as a person are gone, you are now the incubator of BABY with all the permanent negative bodily changes health-wise and chance of death that entails' in an irrational and harmful way, and all that. Plus the arguments such as 'a woman who doesn't want a baby with Downs enough to want an abortion but is forced to give birth to it is going to resent that baby for both her and its whole life, which doesn't suggest a good life for that baby especially when the alternative is the unfortunately inevitably shitty adoption service for disabled babies' etc.

I don't know if the line at 24 weeks is the only solution but I do know that abortion should be the woman's decision to make, regardless of outside pressure, and if she wants that abortion she's going to get it, no matter the risk of death. Whichever province you're in has dickhole rules, incidentally. Totally agreed on Dawkins, at least.


Oh and I meant his work on genes, Cause.